The St Andrews Bay development was twice refused planning permission by our local representatives. The go ahead was only given once the decision was placed in the hands of the Labour dominated Strategic Development Committee in Glenrothes. Not one of our local representatives on that committee voted in favour of the development. Our MP and our MSP both raised objections to the scheme.

A Judicial Review of the planning procedure took place in the Court of Session. The Council was cleared of any legal misconduct but it did come in for criticism as regards its handling of several important planning decisions.

During the early construction phases there has been a noticeable lack of control over truck numbers and routes, and several conditions have been breached. Fife Council has recently served an enforcement notice in relation to unauthorised works carried out in a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

One way or another this project has already received a fair amount of coverage in both the local and national press.

Given this background, the Kingask scheme is bound to attract further press attention as Phase 1 begins to take shape. We will place relevant news items here.

Scooniehill and Kingask   more

Professor Terence Lee, Letter to Editor, The Citizen, 16 March 2001

Fife Council is obviously discomfited by the Scottish Executive’s rejection of Scooniehill. The Reporter at the public inquiry based his decision to reject on many of the arguments that were ignored or overruled when Fife Council took the decision to accept Kingask. Moreover, Fife’s planning professionals had recommended acceptance of Scooniehill - more embarrassment!

A different view   more

J Hopgood and P Uprichard, Letter to Editor, The Courier, 15 March 2001

Sir, - In an article in The Courier (March 3), commenting on the Scooniehill and Kingask developments, Fife Council’s planning spokesman said that the council had “followed procedure” in both cases.

The way the wind blows   more

Jim Crumley, The Courier, 13 March 2001

As if the atrophy of the countryside was not comprehensive enough at the hands of the unholy alliance of weather and foot-and-mouth disease, a third source of devastation has been identified by this column.

Scooniehill   more

Councillor Bill Kay, Letter to Editor, The Citizen, 9 March 2001

Professor Lee is entitled to his views in trying to draw a comparison between Scooniehill and Kingask.

Fife planning mess waiting to be sorted out   more

Dr Frank Riddell, Letter to Editor, The Courier, 5 March 2001

Sir, - I am amazed at the comments made by Cllr Bill Kay (March 1) claiming no resemblance between Scooniehill and Kingask: “It is absolutely wrong to compare Kingask and Scooniehill and presuppose the outcome of a public inquiry. These were two very different planning applications”.

Community chief hits back in planning row   more

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 3 March 2001

The vice-chairman of St Andrews community council, Dr Frank Rlddell, has bit back at two senior Fife Council officials who told The Courier this week that no comparison could be made between the £25 million golf and leisure developments at Scooniehill and the St Andrews Bay scheme at Kingask on the outskirts of St Andrews.

Resort to fight stop order   more

The Courier, 2 March 2001

The developers of the new £50 million St Andrews Bay resort complex are to fight a recent enforcement notice served by Fife Council in relation to unauthorised works carried out in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Call to planners after Scooniehill decision   more

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 2 March 2001

The Scottish Executive’s decision to reject plans for a £25 million golf and leisure development at Scooniehill, near St Andrews, must cast “considerable doubt” on the quality of advice given by Fife Council’s planners, claimed the vice-chairman of St Andrews Community Council Dr Frank Riddell yesterday.

Scooniehill snub fuels bay scheme claims   more

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 1 March 2001

News that plans for a £25 million golf and leisure development at Scooniehill, near St Andrews, have been rejected by the Scottish Executive has been described as a "great victory" by the chairman of the St Andrews Green Belt Forum.

Boundary dispute delays work   more

The Citizen, 26 January 2001

The development company behind the multi-million pound St Andrews Bay Golf Resort and Spa, which is currently nearing completion, has found itself in the middle of a boundary dispute regarding the protected Site of Special Scientific Interest within its grounds.

Bay resort: damage claim   more

Gordon Berry , The Courier, 25 January 2001

The developers of the £50 million St Andrews Bay resort near St Andrews have run into trouble with Fife Council and Scottish Natural Heritage over unauthorised work claimed to have been done on part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Developer ordered to restore site   more

Frank O'Donnell, Edinburgh Edition only!, The Scotsman, 25 January 2001

Enforcement action has been taken against a controversial development at the home of golf after designers tried to build a green on a protected scientific area.

Kingask: worst fears realised   more

Gordon Berry , The Courier, 3 January 2001

The new £50 million golf, hotel and conference resort building, which stands on the skyline above St Andrews and dominates coastal views from one of the most historic sites in the town, is “hideous to see.”

Kingask is a 'monstrous plook,' says councillor   more

Gordon Berry , The Courier, 8 November 2000

The new £50 million St Andrews Bay resort development, rapidly taking shape on a prominent rural site at Kingask to the east of the town is a "monstrous plook" which spoils the area’s landscape setting.

Resort firm sued in pollution case   more

Andrew Murray-Watson, The Scotsman, 21 August 2000

Campaigners fighting a controversial golf resort in St Andrews have expressed their alarm at reports that the firm behind the development is being sued in America for environmental damage.

Assumption was credulous in the extreme   more

Cllr Jane Ann Liston, Letter to Editor, Courier, 22 May 2000

You reported that Dr Panoz is disappointed that the Kingask development will not be ready in time for this year's Open. The answer to that surely is, he should have put in his planning application far earlier.

Golf complex delays 'have lost £10m in Open spin-off'.   more

Developers claim town will miss out on cash after protests slow progress

James Rougvie, The Scotsman, 12 May 2000

The developer behind the Kingask golf resort, spa, and conference centre near St Andrews has claimed that delays caused by objections to the scheme have cost the Fife economy £10 million this summer.

Claim Kingask delay cost economy millions   more

The Courier, 11 May 2000

The developers of a proposed £50 million golfing complex have claimed that delays in starting the project - following protests from residents - have cost the local economy at least £10 million.

My moment of immortality   more

Jim Crumley, The Courier, 15 February 2000

The Old Course at St Andrews gave me my solitary claim to golfing immortality. I have played it but once, the best part of 20 years ago, and broke 90 - just - and avoided the Road Hole bunkers. We parted company in good fettle.

Role of communications unit questioned   more

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 19 October 1999

A number of objectors to the Kingask golf development, near St Andrews, have questioned the role played by Fife Council’s Communications Unit in the period prior to the controversial planning application being approved.

Kingask report praised by council as 'full and balanced'   more

Gordon Berry and Bruce Fegen, The Courier, 15 October 1999

An independent report has found no evidence to justify allegations that council officials in Fife were forced to “trim their’ reports, come in line, or stay silent” during the planning process involving the controversial £50 million Kingask development, near St Andrews.

Opponents snub the launch of £50m leisure development   more

Dougie Miller, The Scotsman, 14 October 1999

Opponents of a controversial £50 million investment at St Andrews - the largest tourism-related development under construction in Scotland - yesterday snubbed the official launch of the project.

Kingask: ombudsman next step, hints Dewar   more

The Courier, 18 August 1999

Scotland's first minister Donald Dewar has said the local government ombudsman might be the next port of call or people who feel there has been maladministration in Fife Council’s handling of a planning application for a site near St Andrews.

A village gets teed off - Plans for 5 new courses are roiling golf's fabled hometown   more

Kevin Cullen, Boston Globe, 1 August 1999

St. Andrews, Scotland -- In the 15th century, there were so many golf balls flying around the open, windswept fields here that King James II briefly banned the game on Sundays because his archers couldn't practice.

Probe into councillor's allegations that officials were put under pressure   more

The Citizen, 30 July 1999

Fife Council have launched an independent investigation into allegations that council officials were put under pressure to “stay silent” or “come in line” when preparing reports for controversial golf developments around St Andrews.

Probe into claims of pressure on council officials   more

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 27 July 1999

Claims that pressure was applied to officials involved in preparing reports which recommended approval or highly controversial £50 million golf, hotel and leisure plans at Kingask, near St Andrews, have led to the setting up of an independent inquiry.

Kingask development row rumbles on   more

The Citizen, 16 July 1999

ST Andrews Community Council strengthened their case for the golf-related development at Kingask to go to a public inquiry this week by highlighting what they claimed were grave inaccuracies in one of the application’s key documents.

Kingask traffic report questioned   more

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 13 July 1999

Questions have been raised over the validity of traffic figures in a report used by Fife Council as a crucial element in the decision to approve the £50 million golf and leisure development at Kingask.