Accusation after calling-in of plans

The Courier, 2 April 1999

A national conservation body has accused Fife Council of wishing to have major planning applications for the area around St Andrews decided in a forum where a built-in majority will “toe the line.”

The comment has come from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland in the wake of this week’s decision by Fife’s central strategic development committee to “call-in” three major applications for the St Andrews area.

There was a local outcry in the wake of the decision that a strategic overview should be taken in Glenrothes and that the applications for multi-million schemes at Feddinch, Kingask and Scooniehill would be taken out of the hands of east area councillors.

The move has been made in clear contradiction of assurances given on Kingask by east area planning manager Jim Birrell following the decision by north -east Fife councillors that the Kingask plans should be rejected.

He said that future applications for Kingask would come to the east area committee.

Yesterday the Tayside and Fife secretary of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Glen Pride, said that he had now written again to Mr Birrell.

The letter from Mr Pride says that when the local committee “failed to deliver the desired decision” on Kingask the responsibility appeared to now have been taken back to the strategic development committee.

The built-in majority there, he said, would toe the line, and would “not be subject to the uncertainties of local democracy.”

“The society is of the view that consideration of all of these projects should be made by those closely acquainted with the local situation. It is now strongly of the opinion that all of those projects cannot be considered in isolation.”

He said, for example, that cumulative effects on traffic could be serious.

Mr Pride has also accused the council of performing a U-turn in relation to previous comments made by head of planning David Rae.

He said that last September the society’s director, Dr Sean O’Reilly, had written to Mr Rae to suggest that in view of all the major projects planned in and around St Andrews a meeting including various national bodies and local groups might be helpful.

The reply, which came by return, said Mr Pride, had stated in effect that Mr Rae considered the local committee to be quite capable of dealing with such applications.

He said all applications would be considered against policies in structure and local plans, and against the St Andrews Strategic Study.