Kingask case returns to court

The Courier, 27 January 2000

Campaigners bidding to halt the £50 million hotel, conference, golf and leisure complex at Kingask, near St Andrews, will be back in the Court of Session this week.

Two days of evidence have already been heard in the case, in which objectors are challenging planning consent granted by Fife Council.

Six named individuals - Miss Penelope Uprichard, Mrs Elizabeth Baxter, Emeritus Professor Terence Lee, Mrs Sheila Scott and Mrs Margaret Adam, all of St Andrews, and Ms Deborah Moffatt of Kingsbarns - are being represented in court by Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, QC.

The objectors want the planning consent reduced by judicial review. They claim the council failed to properly consider the impact the development would have on the environment.

It has also been claimed that Fife Council made a significant departure from the development plan without notifying the then Scottish Secretary.

Fife Council maintains it fulfilled its statutory duties when considering the plan.

The council says that it had more than sufficient environmental information before it when the decision was made.

The next stage of the case is likely to concentrate on Fife Council’s contention that there has been unacceptable delay in the action brought.

The council is also questioning whether the objectors have a legal right to raise the action, pointing out that they are neither owners nor occupiers of land neighbouring the development site.

The next stage of the case will be heard tomorrow and Friday.

The resumption of the case comes in a week when the developers have been criticised for being in breach of a detailed Section 75 legal agreement by running too many construction vehicles, and using unauthorised routes for them.

Damage has already been caused to a rural road, but the council has now controversially agreed to vary the legal agreement so that the developers can double the number of lorries being used, and use country roads for lorry movements.

Local MP Menzies Cambell has accused the council’s administration of “undermining the planning process” by agreeing to change the terms of the Section 75.