Clarification sought on Feddinch plans

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 19 June 1999

Fife Council’s planning chief David Rae has written to Dundee-based businessman Michael Johnston asking him to clarify how he wishes to proceed with his application for a multi-million golf development at Feddinch on the outskirts of St Andrews.

This was confirmed yesterday as the council’s planning service claimed that, like many councillors and members of the public, it was “confused and surprised” by the finale of Thursday’s special strategic development committee hearing.

The meeting ended with Mr Johnston claiming he submitted an amended outline application for his proposed development and expressing concern this was not the version within council papers.

He indicated he was prepared to delete a 200-bedroom hotel and conference centre from his original plans, claiming details of a less intensive times are golf complex were submitted.

But Mr Rae reiterated yesterday that the meeting was the first he or his staff knew of the new intentions and said Fife Council could not be held liable for the confusion.

He said he had written to Mr Johnston asking him to clarify whether he wished to proceed with the original outline application as contained in council documents, whether he wished to amend it or whether he wished to submit a new planning application altogether.

The comments were made as opponents to the three multi-million pound St Andrews golf developments proposed for Kingask, Scooniehill and Feddinch strongly criticised the outcome of the special hearing, with several describing it as a “shambles” and a "charade."

St Andrews Community Council chairman Dr Frank Riddell claimed the meeting’s outcome raised further questions as to whether Fifers could put their faith in the planning service.

He also said it boosted the case of campaigners who want all three developments at Kingask, Scooniehill and Feddinch “called in by Scottish Secretary Dr John Reid.

Dr Riddell said, “The meeting degenerated into an absolute shambles. I also found it extraordinary that there were documents mentioned which officials knew were relevant to the hearings but which councillors had no knowledge of. I refer in particular to the documents relating to traffic and landscape which were frequently mentioned.

“It’s my understanding that councillors have an absolute right to see any document in the possession of the local authority which is relevant to their ability to carry out their duties. But it seems to me that the council was lacking in this respect at this hearing.”

Another objector to all three proposed developments was Mr Glen Pride, Fife and Tayside spokesman for the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland.

He said his general opinion of the episode was that it had been a “charade from start to finish.”

“It seems that the Fife Council people are just trying to go through the motions and have this whole thing sewn-up already,” he claimed. “This Feddinch situation suggests that someone somewhere has made a mistake, unless something more sinister is at hand.

“But it shows that the correct procedure now is to go and get the thing called in for a public inquiry by the Secretary of State. It’s got to the stage where we don’t trust Fife Council and that’s why we’ve gone right up to the top of the tree, so to speak.”

Yesterday David Rae said he thought much of this criticism was “very unfair” and praised chairman Bill Brand for keeping the meeting in order. He also praised objectors and representees for their quality presentations when taking to the floor and said their views would be taken on board by the strategic development committee, still scheduled to meet on July 7.

Despite repeated attempts, Michael Johnston could not be contacted to comment on the Feddinch situation yesterday.