£50,000 still needed by Kingask campaigners

The Courier, 2 December 1999

The group of objectors fighting to put a stop to the £50 million golf-related development at Kingask, near St Andrews, are appealing for financial help from the public towards their £100,000 fund-raising campaign.

The Review Funding Association recently served a petition for a judicial review of the Kingask decision on Fife Council and the St Andrews Bay Development Company Ltd.

In the few weeks since they initially launched their appeal for funds for the cost of the review - should they lose - the campaign has raised around £50,000, including 15 donations of £1000 or more. Letters and pledge forms were sent to more than 800 people.

But with a further £50,000 still needing to be raised before the hearing in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on January 12 to protect against possible legal expenses, the association is now leafleting households in St Andrews seeking cash donations.

The three-page document and pledge form being distributed to households highlights that the group is not asking for an interdict and will not be liable for damages; that any contributors would not be liable in any way whatsoever; and that the names of contributors and amounts donated will be strictly confidential.

Members of the association, who have engaged leading QC Lord Mackay of Drumadoon to represent them in the Court of Session, maintain that a judicial review is a course of action open to opponents of the Kingask development on the spectacular 500-acre clifftop site to the east of St Andrews.

An opinion was obtained from successive senior counsel which considered there are “stateable grounds” for legal action, although the association stresses that it does not necessarily mean that an application will succeed.

Outlining likely scenarios of the court action, the association treasurer states,

“If we win we should recoup most of our expenses. The developers must then go back to Fife Council to have the application reassessed. It is also possible the Scottish Office would call for an inquiry.

“If we lose we would have to pay most, or all, of the legal expenses involved in the action. We would not ask for an interdict to stop work at Kingask and therefore would not be liable for damages."

The objectors feel that without such an action against the Kingask development, plans for other golf-related projects on the outskirts of town are more likely to receive approval.

The leaflet adds, “The effect on St Andrews will be disastrous, particularly from the huge increase in traffic. If the council refuses these applications the developers, given the example of Kingask, could win on appeal.

“It is late, but not too late, to go to law. Please help to defend St Andrews and our countryside, and to keep alive the hope of a green belt.”

The association claims Fife Council failed to consider properly the impact the Kingask project would have on the environment and that it made a significant departure from development plans without notifying the Scottish Secretary.