Court of Session dismisses Kingask project objections

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 1 April 2000

A group of objectors who raised a Court of Session challenge to planning permission for a £50 million leisure development near St Andrews have had their case thrown out.

The decision by Lord Bonomy comes at the end of several days of legal submissions, and has removed any possible remaining obstacle in the path of work - already well under way - on a complex with two golf courses, a 209-bedroom hotel, conference centre and health spa at Kingask.

Lord Bonomy has decided that the petition should be refused because of delays in raising the action, acquiescence to the planning decision on the part of the petitioners, prejudice to the development company, and the "disruptive effect" the late challenge would have to good administration.

He also stressed in his judgement that the planning decision had been made in the light of all the relevant environmental issues, and that an environmental statement would not have produced additional material of any significance.

Last night objectors, who had grouped together under the banner of the Review Funding Association, and had raised almost £90,000 to take on the council and the developers, were still defiant in the face of defeat.

They claimed that there had been strong criticism from Lord Bonomy about the recording of internal council decisions, and also that Fife Council had been guilty of a "shameful disregard of local democracy" in the decision making process.

The objectors had petitioned for a judicial review of the decision taken by the council - against the advice of a wide range of local and national conservation bodies and hundreds of objectors - to grant planning consent for what is now Scotland's largest current tourism investment.

The decision-making process was long and controversial, with the council eventually deciding the matter at a central committee after local councillors in east Fife had initially rejected the plans.

The whole debate was marked by bitterness and in fighting, claims that top officials and leading administration councillors had wanted to force the application through, and fierce opposition from St Andrews Community Council, the local preservation trust and the town's green belt forum.

On the other side of the debate strong support came from bodies such as Fife Enterprise, Fife Chamber of Commerce, and economic development specialists in Fife Council. The Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board also backed the development.

Yesterday, the European operations director for St Andrews Bay, Ian MacKinnon, said that his company was delighted by the court's decision.

Mr MacKinnon said that the 500 construction jobs and the 270 resort jobs created by the development were now secure, and the project progresses on time.

"Our major community involvement is also now safeguarded, including our five scholarships for Fife students at local colleges, the training and employment of young Fife people at our property in the USA, and, of course, the significant sums currently being contributed to the improvement of the road structure in and around St Andrews.

"We have a very positive view of this resort which we know is mirrored by the majority of Fife residents, and we fully expect St Andrews Bay to contribute significantly to community life."

Mr MacKinnon added that the 520 acre development was expected to inject more than £14 million into the Fife economy in salaries and services in the first full year of operation.

He added that construction had been proceeding for nine months, and was due for completion in spring next year.

The first of the two golf courses designed by Gene Sarazen and Sam Torrance will be open for play later that year.

Yesterday, Fife Council's convener, John MacDougall said that they were pleased about a decision that had obviously not been taken lightly.

It vindicates the council and its planning process, and this is good news for the people of Fife."

Last night, petitioners spokesperson Miss Penny Uprichard said the petitioners had succeeded in showing that they had the right to bring the decision under review in the courts without having to be immediate neighbours.

The second aim, she said, had been to show that the council had breached the legal framework for planning applications of this kind.

"In this we have been unsuccessful, but not without Lord Bonomy expressing strong criticism of the way in which the council recorded internal decisions on environmental impact. He also noted that it is not clear what the council decided about Kingask in relation to the development plan."