Number of lorries working at Kingask to double

The Courier, 25 January 2000

A highly controversial bid to double the number of heavy goods vehicles heading to a £50 million, golf, leisure and conference development at Kingask near St Andrews, has been granted by Fife Council - but only just.

St Andrews Bay Development Company, which up to now has been breaching detailed legal agreements drawn up by council lawyers, has also been told it can change the routes taken by lorries to include narrow country roads.

This follows revelations that it had already been travelling outwith designated routes without permission and had exceeded the allowed number of vehicle movements.

The local authority has estimated the cost of damage to north Fife country roads caused by the company is around £11,000, and that figure could rise, to as much as £23,000 over the coming months.

Members of the Strategic Development Committee yesterday consented to the firm’s request to use an average of 20 lorries a day, instead of the current 10, by the narrowest of margins after hearing it would otherwise be impossible to carry out the work within the agreed timescale.

It has been noted that the developer may, on occasions, have to use more than 20 vehicles but councillors were assured a maximum figure would be agreed.

The eight Labour members on the committee all voted with officers’ recommendations that the original agreement should be amended on condition the developer met the cost of repairing the road.

The seven remaining members, including councillors whose constituencies are affected by the work, moved against the proposals amid claims the developer was treating people with contempt and that the council was at risk of setting a dangerous precedent.

Earlier, law and administration manager Harry Tait told the committee that the St Andrews Bay Development Company was anxious to co-operate wit the council and to pay for any damage caused.

He said, “It is with some hesitation we put this to you because we expect developers to do what they say they will do.

“But there is a difficulty here because it is recognised that if we restrict the developer to 10 lorries per day the development will not be completed within the programme and will last months and months with inconvenience to residents.”

Mr Tait added that the council had the power to take the firm to court to force them to comply with the agreement, but that on balance he considered it better to manage and monitor the situation.

His comments caused a storm of protest among north east Fife councillors however, with Peter Douglas stating, “They agreed to 10 vehicles and now they are saying they can’t work with that amount. That tells us they are either incompetent or they had no intention of keeping to that figure.

“Fife Council were looking for an agreement that worked but monitoring of the traffic has been virtually non-existent. Now we find they are in breach of the number of lorries allowed, in clear breach of the agreed routes and in breach in terms of illegal roads.”

St Andrews member Frances Melville added, “Local communities are very concerned about the traffic on these country roads - they’re not safe and we are creating more danger.

“It strikes me we are allowing ourselves to move the goalposts to accommodate these developers.”

Insisting that allowing the company to have their way now would lead to further and further requests for changes, councillor Peter Grant told members, “There will be so many amendments put through we will be working to an agreement this committee would never in a month of Sundays have agreed to if it had been put before them originally.

“Either they got their homework wrong or they didn’t give us the real story. It’s not our job to bail out big developers because they got it wrong, it’s our job to protect our communities.”

However, Glenrothes councillor Robert Taylor said that while it was unfortunate the firm had not stuck to the agreement, it was important to find a practical way forward and put the breach down to an error of judgment.

And agreeing that the developer had ridden roughshod over the feelings of communities, councillor Bill Kay added, “I think the developer recognises they have made a misjudgment by offering to pay compensation for any damage done.