Letter to Nick Brian, Planning Services, from Nick Lunan 20/11/99

KINGSBARNS GOLF COURSE - PLANNING CONTROL AND LOSS OF ACCESS

You will be aware, from our recent phone conversations, that I am concerned about :-

Following your subsequent internal enquiries regarding plans, and your recent site visit to assess the situation regarding coastal access, I imagine that you are now in a position to clarify matters.

I raised these issues at our last community council meeting and it was suggested that I make further enquiries. I would like to be in a position to report back at our next meeting on 15th December. I would therefore appreciate definitive answers to the five main questions that follow, ahead of that date.

1. Have conceptual grassing plans 7A and 7B [17/9/97] been superseded, for the purposes of planning control, by the revised grassing and landscape plans 7A and 7B [12/10/97]?

You will remember that revised plans 7A and 7B were not included in the set of stamped approved plans that you set aside for me recently. You will be aware that the developer clearly intended to provide you with these revised plans in support of his post-departure hearing revisions for shoreline holes 3, 12, 16 and 17. You will be aware that conditions refer to features shown only in the revised plans. You will remember that you provided Kingsbarns Community Council with copies of these revised plans.

I ask the question because it appears that hole 12, in particular, has not been constructed according to revised grassing and landscape plan 7B [12/10/97], and related conditions. The hole seems to have been constructed more in accordance with the earlier conceptual grassing plan 7B [17/9/97] - a plan that for some reason remains in your files.

2. Has the Earthwork Plan Concept [June 97] been returned to the set of stamped approved plans for all to see?

This plan was missing from the set I inspected recently. This plan is important because it sets out, in an attached note, the clear stated intentions of the developer regarding footpaths, as follows :-

“The golf course will continue to honour the privilege of access to those walkers choosing to enjoy a route immediately along the sea at the edge of the golf course. Signs will be posted, however, offering an alternative path to the interior of the golf course...”

3. Are you prepared to force the developer to build all of the shoreline holes according to the revised grassing plans 7A and 7B [12/10/97], and related statements and conditions?

The developer wrote, [14/10/97] in response to concerns raised at the departure hearing, of his :-

“mutual concerns about walker safety”

and he recognised :-

“the Ramblers’ desire for greater safety margins for walkers particularly from errant golf shots off the 3rd, 12th, 16th and 17th tees”

and he therefore agreed to :-

“construct a natural-looking dune ridge immediately inland from the coastal path as a further protection to the coastal walkers...to heights exceeding two metres in those areas most susceptible to the risk of the odd stray golf shot...”

and he went on to :-

“direct your particular attention to the following revisions [to shoreline holes]:

See the revised routing and protective dune ridge details formalised in the Revised Grassing and Landscape Plan dated 12 October”

Holes 3, 16 and 17 appear to have been constructed accordingly. Hole 12, though, falls short of the design specification in several areas, and you may have noticed that :-

In the interests of public safety you imposed condition 2 which states that :-

“the general layout of the golf course.... shall be as specified on the stamped approved plans....”

For some reason the developer has chosen to reduce his carefully considered, and accepted, safety measures at the Randerston end of the development. As a result, those planning to use this section of the coast will be exposed to risks greater than those originally deemed acceptable.

4. Are you prepared to force the developer to honour his various pledges regarding improvements to the original coastal footpath along the entire length of the 12th hole?

As I have already stated, the developer originally intended to :-

“honour the privilege of access to those walkers choosing to enjoy a route immediately along the sea at the edge of the golf course...”

More recently, the developer wrote to you [14/10/97] outlining his intended improvements to the coastal footpath, in response to concerns raised at the departure hearing. A copy of that letter was included in the report to the area development committee when the application was considered.

May I remind you that the developer promised, in that letter, to :-

“provide for the safety of those using the coastal path and beach" and “improve considerbly the existing Fife Coastal Route ...”

by agreeing to :-

“define and maintain a coastal path just inland of the existing dune ridge”

“construct a naturally shaped and vegetated protective dune ridge to establish a greater safety buffer between the golf course and the coastal path”

“move holes immediately adjacent to the sea inland to provide greater buffer distances between the line of play and those walking along the coastal path”

“layback slope of old sea cliff [at the 12th hole] and move tees and fairway inland to accommodate dune buffer between path and fairway”

These revisions were formalised in the Revised Grassing and Landscape Plans 7A/7B [12/10/97].

In a recent response [5/10/99] to concerns raised by my wife, you stated that :-

“I can confirm that there is a short stretch of the coastal footpath towards the Randerston end where the route actually runs along the foreshore. This was agreed at an early stage as the only alternative at this short stretch of the route”

When was it agreed and by whom? The only alternative to what? What has happened to make it necessary to deviate from the original plan as outlined in statements from the developer? Do public statements from the developer, in response to our democratically raised concerns, mean anything? How can material changes like these be made after the granting of conditional planning approval? Does condition 6 carry any clout at all? Does this not set a dangerous precedent?

You will have had the opportunity to inspect the stretch of foreshore that you would like to us to use at the Randerston end of the 12th hole. You will now appreciate that this rocky terrain is impassable at high tide, and that at all times it represents a bit of a challenge to the less able walker.

If a ‘pinch point’ now exists on the coastal path then it is of the developers’ own making. There was never any need to drop onto the foreshore at this point before. Clearly the developer is trying to accommodate too many holes, bunkers, fairways etc. in this tapering piece of land; or was the developer perhaps hoping to secure extra land by the cliffs?

Condition 6 (aimed at enhancing, formalising and adequately protecting the coastal path) states :-

“The Fife Coastal Path route shall be fully accommodated within the site as identified on the stamped approved plans. This provision shall be to a minimum width of 1.8m...”

I expect to see, and intend to use, an improved Fife Coastal Path route fully accommodated within the site, with protective dunes and buffer zones, in accordance with condition 6 and the relevant stamped approved plans, and in accordance with public statements from the developer.

5. Are you prepared to force the developer to honour his various pledges regarding the provision of an alternative internal footpath between the 12th and 14th fairways?

As already stated, the developer originally intended to provide, in addition to the coastal path :-

“an alternative path to the interior of the golf course”

More recently, in his letter to you [14/10/97], the developer made clear his intentions to define and maintain, in addition to the original coastal path :-

“an inland alternative...” and “a third route throughout the centre section...”

In a recent response [5/10/99] to concerns raised by my wife, you stated that :-

“there is an acceptable convenient alternative route running parallel to the coast to the other side of the fairway”

Where is this path? Which fairway are you referring to? Is this the inland alternative path or is it the third route?

The approved route, covered by condition 7 and clearly shown on successive plans, ran east along reasonably level ground between the 12th and 14th fairways. Towards Randerston this path was to climb to run along the clifftop, then descend within the site to join the existing coastal path.

You will now be aware that there is no path running between the 12th and 14th fairways, and that the land here has been radically recontoured. You will also have noticed that the descending section of this internal path appears to run along a section of road running outwith the site.

I intend to use the original coastal path whenever possible; but for those who are unable or unwilling to venture along the coast, the alternative path provides the only means of access between Randerston and Cambo. No part of this path should fall outwith the control of the developer.

Summary

Many of us raised concerns regarding safe access to walkers and users of the foreshore.

The developer had ample time to discuss and resolve access issues before the application was approved. Neil Donaldson, Jeff Moy, Deirdre Munro, Lorraine Evans and Kathy Kinnear all became involved before the application was approved. Dave Morris of the Ramblers Association was also consulted at that time. The developer responded, and revised his plans accordingly. You set sensible conditions, and we accepted the decision to allow the project to progress according to those conditions. Barring unforeseen circumstances, that should have been the end of the matter.

The developer clearly intends, now, to discourage walkers from venturing along the coast between Randerston and Cambo. You appear to have sanctioned route changes. The proposed foreshore route is not suitable for the less able walker and it will be inaccessible at high tide. At Randerston, the developer appears to be offering one poor alternative inland route running first over someone else’s property, then along a part of the cliff as planned, to goodness knows where from there.

Please ensure that the developer delivers the goods, as originally promised.