Golf plan hearings end in a 'farce'

The Citizen, 25 June 1999

The pros and cons of the contentious golf-related developments at Scooniehill, Kingask and Feddinch were debated in St Andrews last week when Fife Council’s Strategic Development Committee held a marathon six-hour public meeting in the Town Hall.

The Departure Hearings last Thursday were the last opportunity for the Strategic Development Committee to hear all the objections against the proposed developments before deciding whether or not to give them the green light.

Organisations who voiced their opposition included St Andrews Community Council, St Andrews Preservation Trust, the Green Belt Forum and the Scottish Architectural Heritage Society.

First to be considered was the development at Scooniehill which was criticised by the St Andrews Preservation Trust as being of no benefit at all to locals, as visitors would be encouraged to stay on site and would not bring custom into the town.

Individual objector, Clayton Hardisty, expressed his concern at the close proximity of the planned golf courses to residential areas and rights of way, and argued that there was not enough space to ensure the safety of those whom the development would affect.

Mr Murray, of the St Andrews Greenbelt Forum, argued that the creation of a greenbelt around St Andrews was a real consideration for the future and that the development at Scooniehill would be firmly in the proposed area. He described St Andrews as being in a “state of siege by entrepreneurs” and added that golf courses in the case of all three proposals, were being used to disguise new accommodation enterprises.

The spokesman for the developers of the site, St Andrews International Golf Club, strove to appease the objectors, saying: “We appreciate the context of the area”, and added that they planned to use natural stone and slate to blend in as far as possible to the surrounding countryside.

He claimed the development at Scooniehill would be a recreational facility which locals could enjoy and which would also provide full-time employment for 120 people during its construction and up to 107 jobs once established.

He concluded that a traffic impact survey carried out by Fife Council had deemed the expected traffic levels generated by the development to be acceptable for the town.

The next development to be considered was that for the Kingask site, three miles outside St Andrews, which produced a long procession of objectors, many objecting on the same grounds: the loss of scenic countryside, increased levels of traffic within the town, loss of the town’s character and the prospect of lorries carrying sewage from the development passing through the town.

There was only one person in favour of the proposal, Ms Louise Roger, who commented, “as one who knows the site and the area in general well, I feel the development at Kingask would enhance the town’s reputation as an international tourist destination”.

The first objector to speak was once again Frank Riddell, on behalf of the St Andrews Community Council, who concentrated on the effect the development would have on the town’s traffic levels, which already causes gridlock on certain days of the year.

Dr Riddell had earlier spoken of the “intolerable pressures” which would be put on the housing, health and education infrastructures of St Andrews if any of the developments were to go ahead.

He poured scorn on the developer’s traffic management scheme, commenting “Captains of Industry, who are the ones who will make use of the conference facilities, will not acquiesce to this. They will not want to be trucked everywhere by minibus”.

Meanwhile, The St Andrews Preservation Trust’s spokesperson, Dorothea Morrison, commented that visitors come to St Andrews for a variety of reasons, not just for golf. She spoke of “Our moral obligation to preserve the uniqueness of St Andrews for future generations, as, once gone, it is gone forever”.

Scottish National Heritage also agreed that the location of the site was far from ideal when they revealed their formal objection to the proposal on the grounds that “The size and nature of the development is not appropriate to this landscape and would lead to a loss of landscape character”.

This view was backed up by The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, whose spokesperson, Di Hanlon, confirmed that they had “serious concerns about the development at Kingask”. This was based primarily on the fact that the’ hotel was on a very prominent site, would have an adverse effect on views from the town and was also a potential source of light pollution.

An individual objector, Miss Abbott, commented simply: “There is no demand for two more golf courses or their associated developments. We already have 26 courses in and around the town”.

While Mr P Hardie, commented: “St Andrews is a medieval town which has not been planned to cope with the impact of these large developments”. He posed the question of how construction material [would enter the site].

After listening to all the objections, the spokesman for St Andrews Bay Development took to the floor. Architect Vic Hamilton began by saying that like all those gathered here in the hall, the developers had a “huge respect for the town of St Andrews and what it means”.

He stated that the aim of the Kingask Conference Centre would be to create new business for the area, not steal trade from local establishments, and stressed its potential to bring much-needed employment to the town, a figure he put in the region of some 300 permanent, full-time jobs.

“We don’t want to create a North American golf course at Kingask” he explained. “The developers want a traditional coastal Scottish golf course with buildings constructed from high-quality materials”.

On the issue of sewage transportation, he commented: “Tankers will not be going through the town for two years as has been widely claimed. This will only be a temporary fall-back measure for a few weeks at most if the sewage system is not completed in time, and will consist of between one and two tanker movements per week”.

He concluded that this was an opportunity for a unique development which would benefit all concerned in the local area.

After a well-deserved break, the last, and perhaps most mysterious proposal was raised as discussion centred on the large development proposed for the Feddinch site, to the south of the town.

Dr Frank Riddell set the scene with his opening comment: “The Community Council finds it difficult to take this application seriously. Frankly, we suspect further motives. Is it an appalling ploy to make Kingask seem reasonable?”

He added that size of the settlement at Feddinch would constitute a village larger than Balmullo, and predicted that if it went ahead, gridlock in the town, would be a regular, not an occasional occurrence as it is at present.

Speaking on behalf of the St Andrews Preservation Trust, Ms Elizabeth Williams begged the Planning Committee “Please study the sheer extent of the development proposed. What effect will 600 individual holiday units have on the town? It is perfectly evident that St Andrews will be swamped”.

A number of individual objectors then spoke out against the plans, including local resident Ms lsobel Falconer, who commented that the increased volume of traffic generated by the development would impact on the minor roads around the site.

Mr Michael Johnston, Chairman of the developers, Cox Johnston Management Services Ltd, failed to appease the crowd, despite his assurance that “We’re not here to destroy the environment of St Andrews but to continue it”. He explained that the proposed Scottish-style cottages would be secluded from the public eye and would not be visible from the town.

He also commented that the fact the units would be time-shares, would mean visitors would return regularly to, and bring custom into the town, unlike hotel guests.

He also claimed that Cox Johnston Ltd would “bus in” workers from other areas in Fife to work on the development.

However, the meeting was thrown into disarray and confusion when Mr Johnston declared Cox Johnston Ltd had amended the original proposal so that it no longer now included the original 350 conference suites and hotel.

No members of the Development Committee knew anything about this amendment, and it was agreed that only the original proposal could be discussed. This angered Mr Johnston and led to a heated debate between Cox Johnston Ltd and the Fife councillors as the meeting broke up amid noisy laughter and calls of “Farce”.

However, by this time, all the objectors had had their say. The final decision is now up to Fife Council’s Strategic Development Committee which is expected to reach a decision next month.