Kingask: worst fears realised

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.”

This was claimed yesterday as the chairman of the St Andrews Green Belt Forum said the stark outline of the huge St Andrews Bay hotel building could never be properly screened.

The comment came from Professor Terence Lee, who said that promises made about visual impact during the controversial and at times bitter debate over the project had now proved to be worthless.

Professor Lee, whose remarks have been echoed by the chairman of the town’s preservation trust, said yesterday that the situation was “exactly as predicted” and that what had been built so far was completely out of scale for a place like St Andrews.

“It is extremely destructive of what was unspoilt coastline and it is really hideous to see from the town.

“The hotel can be seen from so many places and it is enormous.

“At the time of the departure hearing, mock-ups were produced and it was said that the buildings would hardly be noticeable.

“It was pretty farcical and people said so at the time. The advice of landscape architects has now come home to roost.”

Professor Lee said one of the critical factors of the green belt now being agreed by Fife Council for St Andrews was the protection of views both to and from the historic core of the town.

He said it was “pretty disgraceful” that the view from the cathedral - one of the most visited sites in the town - had been so badly affected.

He added that much of the building could also be seen from the West Sands and parts of the links.

Professor Lee said it should not be forgotten that the golf clubhouse still had to be built and it would be even further out on the point.

Preservation Trust chairman Dorothea Morrison said yesterday that the coastline has been described by King James VI as a “fringe of gold” and that this had now gone forever.

“If the green belt had been in place, it is doubtful if Kingask would ever have gone ahead, but the really worrying thing is that planning policies presently in place ought to have protected us.

“We were not protected, and now it is feared that future developers will be able to find a loophole.

“It is ironic, given the promise of a green belt, that the view from the historic cathedral has been so badly affected.

“The most historic outlook of all - between the cathedral towers where the pilgrims came - now has a huge hotel looming in the background.

“What can the council possibly mean about. enhancement of the landscape when it has allowed something like this to happen.”

Mrs Morrison said she felt there was now “no way” the development could be screened in the way promised.

She said the whole height of the building could be seen, when what was promised were distant views.

She had been in correspondence with one of the best known figures in the golfing world, someone she is not prepared to identify at the moment, who had said that it was inappropriate that the development had been allowed.

“At the moment, we are looking at the visual impact of the hotel, but a year from now we will be looking at the economic impact.

“Hopefully, when business is taken from the town for the tens of thousands of bed nights promised by the developers, there will not be the same devastating effect there has been on the landscape.

Hotels in St Andrews are rarely full as it is.”

The St Andrews Bay application was approved after being narrowly rejected by councillors in north-east Fife, then pulled in to the council’s Labour administration dominated central strategic development committee.

Planning spokesperson Councillor Bill Kay said he had not yet seen the new development from the cathedral site, but added that he intended to visit the cathedral grounds and other locations, to gauge the situation.

Councillor Kay pointed out that opponents of the project would never learn to love it and he said that the debate over the hotel had been a difficult one.

Arguments had been put forward about visual amenity on one hand and the economic benefits on the other.

He said that “beauty was in the eye of the beholder” and that the converse was also true, but added that all positive steps would be taken to ensure proper screening and minimisation of the impact.

He said it might take 20, 30 or even 40 years for the screening to grow high enough, but added that such screening would undoubtedly help to soften the view.

“Once the screening has matured, the building Itself, which is attractively designed, will become an accepted part of the landscape,” he said.

The chairman of Fife’s east area development committee, Councillor Frances Melville, said yesterday that it was not surprising that “all the worst fears” about visual impact were being realised.

She welcomed Councillor Kay’s comments about screening and would demand that the maximum amount of work be done to reduce the impact.