No scaling down by Kingask developers

The Courier, 5 February 1999

Developers behind controversial plans for a £50 million hotel, conference, golf and leisure facility at Kingask, near St Andrews, have rejected suggestions that the complex should be scaled down and based on an existing farm steading.

St Andrews Bay Development Ltd have also come up with a “green travel plan” - described as novel for Scotland - which they claim will remove the potential for traffic congestion problems in the town.

It will involve clients being driven around, and collected from airports and railways stations, in a special fleet of vehicles of varying sizes.

The company has also offered to fund various traffic engineering works in St Andrews which, it is said, will improve the capacity of the area’s route network.

Last night, however, it was claimed by the vice-chairman of St Andrews Community council that figures had been “pulled from the sky,” and that the plan was “unenforcable waffle not worth the paper it was printed on.”

Debate has been raging over the plans for several months, and members of Fife Council’s East Area development committee are due to make a decision at their meeting next Tuesday.

The committee has been left with the final say in spite of an attempt by the company to have the matter taken out of the hands of East Area councillors and determined by the central strategic development committee.

An updated report has been prepared for the committee, and area planning manager Jim Birrell is upholding the enthusiastic recommendation for approval he put forward three weeks ago when councillors decided that the matter should be continued.

Most of the objections relate to size, scale, environmental impact and the knock-on traffic effects for St Andrews, while supporters point to the investment involved, job creation, and the benefits to the Fife economy.

The list of objectors, however, remains formidable, and includes national bodies including the Scottish Civic Trust and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Strong objections have also come from St Andrews Preservation Trust, St Andrews Community Council, and the Boarhills and Dunino Community Council, who fear that years of work on a strategic study, and a transportation plan, will be lost.

Individual departments of Fife Council are backing the scheme, along with Fife Enterprise and the Scottish Sports Council, and the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board has welcomed the general principle of such a project in Fife.

In his updated report Mr Birrell said that the council’s transportation service was satisfied - based on a “fuller understanding” of the transportation implications - that the St Andrews Transportation plan would not be prejudiced. At last meeting the committee was told by a traffic engineer that there would be conflict with the plan.

On the question of re-siting the hotel/conference facility, Mr Birrell said the developers had confirmed that there was “no scope" for this either at the steading or closer to the public road.

Last night community council vice-chairman Frank Riddell said “As far as the community council is concerned the failure to relocate the hotel to the site in the outline consent is not acceptable. The failure to reduce it in size to what we understood was in the outline consent is also not acceptable.”