Bay resort: damage claim

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.

It has been revealed that the local authority has just used emergency powers to serve an enforcement notice that requires reinstatement of an area of land adjacent to the Kittocks Den beauty spot.

Yesterday the developers emphasised that work on the area of land actually stopped five months ago as soon as it was clear that there might be a problem, and also that they remain of the opinion that the ground could in any case be outwlth the SSSI.

The issue was raised with the council by Scottish Natural Heritage when the body discovered that work had been done as part of the creation of the eighth hole of the new Devlin course at the site.

The Courier has learned that last month senior East Area Planner Nick Brian wrote to Cupar-based planning consultant Des Montgomery to point out that approved plans did not identify works at the location for creation of greens, tees, or bunkers.

Mr Brian also said that the work was in an SSSI, and that no approval had been obtained from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).

“You will be aware from previous correspondence that the issue of this site had been flagged up previously, and therefore there can be no doubt in the developer’s mind that these works were unauthorised,” Mr Brain stated.

“This Is borne out by previous correspondence, and the details clearly shown in the stamped approved plans.”

Mr Brian pointed out that he would be liaising with SNH regarding the appropriate form of enforcement, and he said that no further work should be done at the location.

In a reply to the official Mr Montgomery said that he could only apologise for work that had been carried without authority, and he added that no further work would be done until the whole matter was resolved.

He went on say, however, that the developers had, “endeavoured to demonstrate the considerable advantage which will accrue from the approval of these minor changes.”

He also added that there would be a spectacular golfing experience and that “in return for the concession” his clients had indicated their willingness to become involved in a detailed management scheme for the benefit of the SSSI and the wider habitat within the golf course and hotel estate.

Mr Montgomery expressed the hope that the matter could be resolved rapidly and amicably, but it is now clear the council is not prepared to budge on the issue.

Mr Brian said yesterday that the enforcement notice had now been issued, and that the developers were being required to regrade and re-seed the site, possibly carry out replanting, and put back a fence that had been removed.

He said that the action had been agreed under delegated powers without any requirement that the issue should go to a council committee.

Yesterday local councillor Peter Douglas said it was regrettable that the work had been done in spite of the fact that the developers had been consistently told that the area was in the SSSI.

He said that whatever was now done to redress the situation, the area of ground lost could never be properly replaced.

Yesterday the operations director at St Andrews Bay, lain MacKinnon, said that the issue was a much more complex one than would be suggested by the events of the past week.

He said that the area of ground in question was about 0.6 of an acre, and that the developers had been firmly of the opinion that it was not in the SSSI. He added that there was very good evidence to support the claim that it was not.

Mr MacKinnon said that work on that particular area had begun in early summer with stripping of topsoil, on the full understanding that there was no dispute about it being in the SSSI.

“It was actually ourselves who came upon the fact that there was some dubiety about whether it might in the SSSI area,” he said.

Comments made by Councillor Douglas that the developers had been consistently told about the situation were not strictly the case, Mr Mackinnon said, and added he had said that as soon as it was realised five months ago that there was some dubiety, work had stopped.

Mr MacKinnon said that the matter was one for ongoing negotiation between SNH, the planners and St Andrews Bay, and he made it clear that it was still hoped that agreement could be reached over the area of ground concerned. SNH had one view of the situation, he said, while St Andrews Bay had another.

“We are happy to accede to the terms the enforcement order has - should that be necessary," he stated.

Mr MacKinnon also explained that there was the opportunity to appeal or do whatever it took to find a proper course, and this aspect was being discussed at the moment so that a view could be taken. In addition, he said, negotiations were continuing with SNH and planners.

Last night, however, Fife’s administration planning spokesman, Councillor Bill Kay stated bluntly that he would expect St Andrews Bay, as an international company coming to Scotland, to do everything possible to protect the local heritage and wildlife in and around the development.

“I would be extremely disappointed if it did not do everything in its power to restore that site" Councillor Kay said.