Kingask rumbles

Editorial, The Courier, 26 January 2000

Planning processes need to be fair. That may sound so obvious as to barely need restating, but sometimes these things can fade by default.

Serious questions are being asked as to why developers at the Kingask golf project, outside St Andrews, were seemingly able to treat lorry restrictions with impunity. Fife Council has been told of heavy goods vehicles using unauthorised roads in greater numbers than that which was agreed.

The strategic development committee voted through modifications to the original restrictions, as they are fully entitled to do, but the wider consequences for the credibility of the procedures - indeed of planning consents generally - do not seem to have been thought through.

What faith will objectors have in their submissions being acted upon if they see that, a few weeks later, conditions that were imposed only after patient and persistent lobbying are overturned?

It can be argued that big developments in or around historic towns are always likely to impose strain. Slowing down construction can bring social and environmental penalties as well. Kingask has plenty of opponents resentful of the whole caboodle of interests involved.

That said, there are legitimate concerns. The involvement of MP Menzies Campbell is an indication they will be thoroughly ventilated.

MP queries Kingask process

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 26 January 2000

Fife Council's administration has been accused by MP and QC Menzies Campbell of “undermining the planning process” during the latest twist in the debate over the highly controversial development at Kingask, near St Andrews.

The members of Fife Council’s strategic development committee were told on Monday that St Andrews Bay Development Ltd had exceeded vehicle numbers, had been using unauthorised routes for heavy goods vehicles, had damaged a minor road, and had breached a legal agreement.

The end result of the discussion, however, was a group vote by the committee’s dominant Labour members. They agreed that lorry numbers could now be doubled to 20, that narrow country roads could be used, and that the developers would pay the cost of damage already estimated at around £35,000.

The local councillor for the area, Peter Douglas, has already expressed his anger over the situation, and he said that Fife Council appeared to be willing to “roll over, put its paws up, and allow the developers to do exactly what they want.”

He has pointed out that some local people had counted up to 15 lorries an hour going past their doors, and he had been at the Kingask site when eight were counted in less than half an hour.

Mr Campbell has written to the council’s chief executive Douglas Sinclair over the issue with a number of questions.

He said that he was sure that he was not the only person to be perturbed by the council’s decision to allow the developers to depart from the legal lorry number agreement.

He also pointed out that the section 75 legal document involving the council, St Andrews Bay Development Ltd, and the American-based holding company Fountainhead is more than just an “agreement”

He said that it would be recorded in the General Register of Sasines, and would be effective in perpetuity.

Mr Campbell has asked how it can be possible that a section 75 agreement the public was assured had been fully negotiated was “now been found to be defective.”

He now wants to know the assessment of size and duration of development works on which the council agreed to a figure of ten HGV movements per day.

The MP has also asked whether the council depended on assurances from the developers, or made an independent assessment, and why the need for more lorries was not spotted.

“When did the council first become aware that the agreed figure was being breached?

“Is the council aware of any other provisions of the section 75 agreement which are being breached?” he asks.

Mr Campbell has gone on to point out that he has been asked by a constituent - half in jest and half seriously - whether there was anything the developers could do at Kingask to which the council would not agree.

Cameron Community Council chairman Robert Lumsden said that he agreed with comments made by Councillor Douglas that one section of road was full of twists, turns, humps and hollows.

He said that there was concern over the implications for minor roads, and that Fife Council had been carrying out repairs “almost full-time” at one spot.

Mr Lumsden also said that it was always going to be a safety concern that people were trying to get a job done as soon as they possibly could on this type of road.

However one local resident last night went much further, and said that there was “disgust and anger” over the council’s decision.

She said that in places the roads were completely unsuitable for lorries, and that she had already been forced to drive on to a grass verge when faced with a truck.

“This is a nightmare for people with children, or for people who ride horses, many of whom have chosen to live in this area because they want the benefits of the countryside.”

Last night Mr Sinclair said that there was provision for the section 75 agreement to be varied if the parties agreed.

He said that this was normal practice, and that the existence of the agreement had allowed the council to decide whether or not a breach should be dealt with in court, or whether there was a better solution.

Mr Sinclair said that while the developers had breached the agreed vehicle numbers and routes, they had, however, avoided St Andrews and in particular Lamond Drive for the first six months of the contract.

The council did not answer Mr Campbell’s questions about assessment of lorry requirements, why the agreement is defective, or the originally agreed figure was wrong.