Resignation call after Kingask rejection

The Courier, 16 February 1999

Yesterday's meeting of the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board in Glenrothes opened in controversial fashion by a suggestion that a member should resign due to his involvement in the body responsible for rejecting the £50 million St Andrews hotel package.

Councillor Jock Cameron told members he felt that Councillor Peter Douglas “should be leaving his position on the board in light of the Kingask decision and his involvement in that particular decision.”

Mr Cameron was referring to last week’s decision of Fife Council’s East Area development committee which voted against the application from St Andrews Bay Development Ltd who want to build a hotel and leisure facility.

Councillor Douglas is the committee chairman and, at the time, pronounced himself “singularly unhappy” about the issue.

The applicants are now meeting their advisers and planning QC to consider their options.

Councillor Cameron called for Peter Douglas’s immediate way-going on the grounds they had the opportunity in St Andrews to attract an even greater number of tourists to the area.

They also had to bear in mind the economic difficulties in Scotland allied to recent job losses.

Councillor Douglas said he had no intention of resigning adding, “I have been on the Tourist Board longer than anyone else, and I have always worked hard.”

He confirmed his view the major problem was regarding the site and the traffic confusion.

Prominent Fife tour operator Duncan Dewar said he was “absolutely dismayed” at the planning application being turned down.

“We had the chance to do a major development but we can’t seem to do it with tourism and development. I think Fife has lost out.”

Councillor John Simpson warned that while it was true the Tourist Board supported the concept, they had to be careful they didn’t overlap planning decisions into the work of the board.

He was supported by member Mr Robin Shedden who pointed out the Tourist Board could not be party to planning decisions “so there is no conflict with Peter Douglas’s position. We commended the concept without going into any details.

“We are disappointed but a planning decision is a planning decision, and not the board’s. We can’t influence planning decisions.”