Kingask site vehicles concerns

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 22 December 1999

Concern has been raised over the movement of construction vehicles at the site of the controversial £50 million hotel, golf, conference and leisure development at Kingask, near St Andrews.

The issue has been raised by North East Fife MP Menzies Campbell in a letter to Fife Council’s chief executive Mr Douglas Sinclair, who said yesterday that reports of any breaches of planning conditions or legal agreements were being taken “very seriously.”

However, local Fife councillor Peter Douglas claimed that monitoring of construction traffic at the site had initially been “non existent,” and that damage caused by lorries to a minor road, that appeared to be off an approved route, was already having to be repaired.

Traffic impact was one of the central themes of the Kingask debate, and a detailed document was drawn up to control, among other things, lorry numbers and the routes that should be used.

However, concern has already been expressed by residents in the area around Peat Inn about large numbers of lorries causing damage to roads.

Mr Campbell has now asked the chief executive what steps are to be taken to make sure that the terms of the legal agreement drawn up between the council and St Andrews Bay Development Ltd are being adhered to.

The MP said in his letter that that he had been consulted by a number of residents who were concerned about operations at the site.

He said he had been advised that a provision in the Section 75 agreement, that limited the daily lorry movements in and out of the site, “was regularly being breached.”

“It is understood that the condition provides that there should be no more than 10 such movements per day, but that in fact there may be as many 50 taking place,” wrote Mr Campbell.

“It is further understood that justification for the increased number is being offered on the basis that the figure of 10 applies only to lorries gaining access to the site through St Andrews, or that the figure of 10 (in the agreement) is a mis-print for 110.

“Not surprisingly, my constituents are concerned by these events and are sceptical of the justifications being put forward, not least because they seem to be mutually contradictory.”

Mr Campbell added in his letter that the development was, and remained, “deeply controversial,” and he asked what steps are being taken by the council to ensure fulfillment of the terms of the agreement.

He has also asked whether any consideration has been riven to utilisation of powers available to the council under relevant planning legislation.

Councillor Douglas said yesterday it had been reported to him that there were too many lorries using the site, and that they were not always using approved routes.

People at Dunino, he added, had been told by lorry drivers that no copies of approved routes had been given to them.

“The roads network is an investment of Fife Council and it should not be damaged without compensation. Council officials, however, have been very vague about whether any of the roads were surveyed before work started,” said Mr Douglas.

“I am aware, however, that work is now being done on the Q16, between Dunino and Cameron, and I would be interested to know who is paying for it.

“Monitoring is to be very tight so far as use of the hotel is concerned but, so far, monitoring of construction traffic has been very slack.

“Vehicle counters were put in, but the lead to one of them was broken the very next day.”

Another East Area councillor, Donald Lothian, raised the question of lorry numbers as the issues were debated at a meeting in Cupar during the planning process, and he suggested that Kingask vehicles should be clearly marked.

Yesterday, he said the suggestion had not been taken up but he felt it was still appropriate.

“There is supposed to be strict control over these lorry movements and, if school buses can be marked, there is no reason that the same thing cannot be done with construction vehicles.”

Yesterday, the council’s chief executive said the Section 75 agreement, and planning conditions put in place when the Kingask application was agreed, existed to regulate developers’ activities on and off site.

“We take very seriously any reports that these may have been breached, and the matter has, therefore, been raised with the developers,” said Mr Sinclair.

“These provisions were designed to minimise inconvenience caused by heavy goods vehicles during the construction period. That remains the council’s intention.”

Mr Sinclair said the council’s roads and transportation service would continue to monitor the situation, and that regular contact would be maintained with the developer.

He added that a report on the situation was to be submitted to the next meeting of the strategic development committee to consider what action might be appropriate.

The chief executive has made it clear that the numbers of lorries using the site, the effects on the road network, and the routes being taken, are all under examination.

On the issue of the Q16, he said the council was looking at this, and that the matter would also be addressed in the report to the committee.