Kingask developers under fire

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 22 January 2000

A leading member of the administration of Fife Council yesterday hit out at developers behind the highly controversial £50 million hotel, golf, conference and leisure development at Kingask, near St Andrews.

The chairman of the council’s strategic development committee, Councillor Bill Brand, said that St Andrews Bay Development Company had let the authority down by breaching a legal agreement.

He said the developers had gone outwith designated routes and exceeded allowed numbers of vehicle movements, and he said “absolute assurances” would now be sought that they would comply with obligations.

However, Councillor Brand also made it clear that the council is now to consider a compromise on the highly-detailed legal agreement put in place when planning consent was granted, and was even to discuss allowing narrow country roads to be damaged by heavy goods vehicles, with the cost of repair then to be met by the developers.

This revelation was greeted with anger by local councillor Peter Douglas, who said it appeared Fife Council was prepared to “roll over, put up its paws and let the developers do exactly what they wanted.”

The issue of damage to roads and safety has already been raised locally, with the council estimating the current cost of damage at around £11,000.

Councillor Douglas claims council monitoring of traffic has been “non-existent” and North East Fife MP Menzies Campbell has also raised the issue with the council’s chief executive.

Councillor Brand’s statement comes in advance of Monday’s meeting of the strategic development committee, when councillors will discuss the latest twist in a debate which has divided opinion and caused bitterness and anger in the St Andrews area.

The Kingask plans were approved by Councillor Brand’s administration-dominated strategic development committee after the decision making process was taken out of the hands of local councillors, who rejected the scheme.

Questions have been repeatedly raised over the way reports on the Kingask application were written by top officials - and even now a group of objectors are contesting legal aspects of the approval in an action raised at the Court of Session.

Mr Brand said yesterday that the maximum number of HGVs had been limited to 10 a day but the council knew this number had been exceeded and also that different routes had been used.

“It is always a serious matter when any developer fails to comply with planning requirements and careful consideration will now have to be given as to what action to take.

“I feel that the developer has let us down but we will have to look at all the alternatives to see what options are open to us.”

It is made clear in the report for Monday’s meeting that damage already caused has amounted to £11,000 and that suggested alterations to routes would result in more damage - estimated at £23,000. This figure is based on 20 vehicle movements per day, 10 more than that currently allowed.

It is also clear that although the council is to consider upping vehicle movements from 10 per day to 20, there could be a limited number of days per month when this would be exceeded. The report does not specify the number of extra days.

Last night, Mr Douglas said he was having increasing difficulty in having faith with the developers and their promises.

He said they had initially used two roads they should not have used for access, including one put in “quite illegally” beside a 20-feet hedge, around which visibility was non-existent. Police, he said, had stopped vehicles using this access.

Mr Douglas said he had been at the site with council officials when eight lorries were seen going in during a period of less than half an hour and other people had counted 15 lorries an hour going past their doors.

The councillor went on to have harsh words for the council itself and said it had been “highly negligent” in terms of monitoring vehicle movements.

“Fife Council has failed in monitoring the situation and in not taking note of what condition the roads were in before the damage was done.”

There was now, he said, the “brilliant idea” that a section of substandard road full of turns, humps and hillocks - which was dangerous to negotiate at any time - could be used.

Last night a spokesperson for the developers St Andrews Bay Development Ltd said Councillor Brand’s comments had been noted.

He added that dialogue with Fife Council would be continued to ensure minimum disruption.