Council criticised over Kingask scheme

The Courier, 3 March 2000

Fife Council’s handling of the latest controversy to hit the £50 million Kingask complex near St Andrews yesterday came in for blistering criticism from North East Fife MP Menzies Campbell.

The MP has called into question the motives and competence of people at the council, and has expressed his "profound disappointment" over the developments relating to lorry movements and the decision not to take legal action against the developers.

Last night the council’s chief executive, Douglas Sinclair, denied that the authority had backed down over the issue of lorry numbers, and said it had achieved its objectives without the need to pursue court action.

Mr Campbell, a leading QC, said yesterday that the council had "given in to pressure" from St Andrews Bay Development Ltd for an increase in the number of construction vehicles allowed to access the coastal site.

Although the council had publicly criticised the developers, and had called for assurances that they would comply with their legal obligations, it was announced on Wednesday that a new deal had been struck behind closed doors.

The agreement-made without reference to any council committee through another clause in the controversial legal agreement-would allow an increase in lorry numbers over the next few months.

As part of the agreement there will, until the end of June, be an increase in movements on the residential Lamond Drive in St Andrews to 20 one way trips, and an increase to 35 in the number of lorries allowed to access the site daily.

It was also claimed by the council that the agreement would result in an average of less than 20 lorries a day over the construction period.

Recent figures obtained by the council showed that on one day 104 lorries had used the site entrance and a large number had used Lamond Drive.

Mr Campbell said that the decision to give in to pressure from the developers was profoundly disappointing, but hardly surprising given the history of the whole affair.

"The Section 75 agreement which we were assured was carefully and tightly drawn up so as to minimise the environmental effects of construction has provided inadequate protection.

"The figures in lorry movements must have been based on information supplied by the developers which was accepted by the council," he said.

"It is now clear the figures in the agreement were wholly inaccurate. Who is going to take responsibility for an agreement which is defective.

"This latest chapter will further undermine confidence in the planning system, and Fife Council’s approach to these matters. If there are no red faces in Fife Council there certainly should be," he added.

The MP went on to say that the truth of the matter was that too many people were determined that the Kingask development should go ahead, and nothing should stand in its way.

Last night the council’s chief executive, Douglas Sinclair, responded to yesterday’s "Courier" story in which news of the deal was revealed, and said it was wrong to say the council had backed down over the issue of construction traffic.

He said that the strategic development committee had agreed in January to an average of 20 lorries per day, and that the discussions, and the agreement reached with the developer, had been in line with council policy.

While there would be periods when lorry trips would exceed 20 per day, he said, there would also be periods when trips would be significantly less than 20. He said the crucial point was that the average would be no more than 20.

"The course which the council has followed has achieved the objective without the need to pursue court action," said Mr Sinclair.

Mr Sinclair said the council was, and remained, prepared to take court action to meet its objectives, and that legal action would only be taken when other methods failed.

"In this case negotiations have succeeded in achieving the council’s aims," he added.

Last night the leader of the administration on the council, Christine May, defended the authority against the claims made by the MP about the legal agreement, and his suggestion there had been determination to see the venture go ahead.

Councillor May said it was accepted that the figures in the initial agreement had been wrong, but the strategic development committee had agreed that 20 was acceptable.

She said that the decision of the committee had now been enforced when there was a clear breach, and that the developers had accepted that they breached the agreement.

Councillor May said that the strategic development committee had given the go-ahead to this development subject to certain guarantees given by the developers.

"Unless the developers keep faith with those guarantees then we will take whatever action is necessary.

"It is not a case of imposing this at all costs on local people, and I am happy to be quoted on this in any forum in the land." said the councillor.