Planning chief defends golf developments hearing

The Courier, 24 June 1999

The head of Fife Council’s planning service, David Rae, has reassured St Andrews councillor Frances Melville that last Thursday’s golf development plan hearing was conducted “fairly and properly.”

Mr Rae said the primary purpose of the hearing was to enable applicants and those wishing to make representations on the applications to be heard by the strategic development committee.

As far as he and his planning colleagues were concerned, this had been achieved - despite the controversial ending to the meeting when there appeared to be an apparent mix-up over details for one of the applications.

The planning chief gave these reassurances in response to a letter written to him by Mrs Melville in the wake of the hearing.

She had questioned the council’s ability to continue with its strategic overview for the three golf-related developments at St Andrews when full details were not known about Feddinch.

She suggested it would be a “serious mistake” if the council’s timetable for consideration of the plans were adhered to and warned that if proper procedures were not seen to be followed, then the public would feel the planning service lacked credibility.

But Mr Rae confirmed in his letter that he was continuing to prepare for the original timetabled meetings, although he said that he was still awaiting a reply from Dundee-based business man Michael Johnston regarding his intentions for Feddinch.

Mr Rae said, “It is a matter of fact that on the day Mr Johnston, who is the developer behind the Feddinch proposals, seemed to indicate a wish withdraw certain elements of his proposals.

“Mr Tait gave very clear advice to the meeting that the council would require to proceed on the basis of the application submitted to us. This is what happened.

“The committee completed their questioning of Mr Johnston and the meeting was brought to an orderly conclusion by the chairman Councillor Brand.

“Immediately after the meeting I wrote to Mr Johnston asking for confirmation of his intentions. I await his reply.”

He added, “I think you are mistaken when you assert that some serious procedural deficiency has emerged.

“I believe that the council’s approach both administratively and technically in dealing with these difficult planning applications and the associated pressures can be robustly defended and explained.”

Mrs Melville said yesterday that Mr Rae’s response to her query on the proper planning procedures had “not clarified anything.”

She added, “The question remains, how are we as an east area development committee expected to submit views on the three planning applications at Kingask, Feddinch and Scooniehill when we do not have full information? It’s just crazy.”