Heritage society hits out at new designs

The Courier, 30 December 1998

Plans for a new museum, visitor centre and club accommodation complex at the entrance to St Andrews show a blockbuster of a building which flouts planning safeguards.

This has been claimed by the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland as part of their objections to the Gateway proposal being put forward by St Andrews International Ltd in conjunction with St Andrews University.

Yesterday the secretary of the Tayside and Fife branch of the society, Glen Pride, of Strathkinness, said that recent Press coverage reflected a “creeping campaign” by the developers which had presented the project as a fait accompli.

Mr Pride has released details of the statement which has been made to accompany the society’s objections to the plans which will soon come before members of Fife Council’s East Area development committee.

The first comment, he said, must be that the site at North Haugh was not designated for tourism-whether the development was “lightly disguised as a branch of learning, or flagrantly paraded in blatant competition with tourist activities already provided by the local authority, the R and A Golf Club, the Links Trust and local hotel, catering and leisure industries.”

It should be noted, said Mr Pride, that the university itself already contributed to these tourist activities, with six of its residences and its sports centre all within 500m.

Mr Pride went on to say that the architectural consequence of this heterogeneous mix was a blockbuster of a building which flouted most of the planning safeguards set out in the structure and local plans.

It was this mix, he said, which explained its untoward height, its liberally glazed and literally bedecked elevations and its awkward projections.

He went on to say that the four storey complex was not an appropriate feature with which to greet visitors to the town. Even recourse to a more traditional style would fail to address the criticism, and would look out of place.

Mr Pride said that, in an effort to be constructive, the society was suggesting that the university should first of all examine all its building assets with a view to finding a home for its treasures.

“The society has noted that over recent years the university’s contribution to the architecture of St Andrews has been disappointing.

“It fears the university has been letting economic factors rather than good design dominate its decision making... .these are not mutually exclusive.

“The society is confident that, whatever limited operational benefits may accrue to the university from this association, these can be achieved in a much more appropriate and dignified manner,” said Mr Pride.

Objections to the proposals have already come from local bodies such as the preservation trust and the community council.