Thumbs down for leisure developments

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 30 June 1999

Two major applications for golf and leisure-related developments at St Andrews were given the thumbs down yesterday by north-east Fife councillors.

Members of Fife Council’s east area development committee, meeting in Cupar, unanimously expressed the view that an £18 million development at Scooniehill should be rejected and voted by the narrow margin of seven to five to recommend the same fate for the much more extensive project at Kingask.

Final decisions on both applications will now pass to the council’s centrally-based strategic development committee, where the plans for Kingask - which involve a 208-bedroom hotel, 400-person conference facility and two golf courses - are to be recommended for approval by head of planning David Rae.

The narrowness of the Kingask vote yesterday, together with the fact that Mr Rae and area planning manager Jim Birrell gave a ringing endorsement to the plans, means that the only hurdle left for St Andrews Bay Development Ltd to cross is a relatively small one.

Strategic development committee chairman Bill Brand, who has already expressed his support for the Kingask scheme, attended the meeting as an observer. At times he revealed his clear frustration over the direction and length of the discussions taking place.

During what was a marathon session of the committee, Mr Rae said he accepted that the Kingask plans represented a “challenge” to existing policies, credibility and consistency.

He added, however, that all aspects of the issues had to be examined, pointing out that one of the major objectors, Scottish Natural Heritage, had a remit which was much narrower than his own and that of councillors.

Mr Rae said that the council had to look at the opportunities and the pitfalls before coming to a balanced decision. The Kingask plans, he said, would provide a quality development which would benefit tourism and economic development and would give the area a chance to attract new businesses.

The site, he said, was detached, was in a coastal location, had the advantage of natural screening and could be kept well screened.

In relation to Kingask, Mr Birrell said the hotel would not be “totally exclusive and behind barbed wire" and that one of its golf courses would be open to the public. The hotel would cover only 2% of the 500 acres, was formal and classical in design and, in his view, was properly located and perfectly acceptable.

The discussion also featured strong questioning of the strategic overview, prepared by Mr Rae, on golf course development generally and of how the outline consent for the site relates to what is now proposed.

Another document which came in for a considerable amount of questioning and criticism was a special agreement already drawn up between council officials and Kingask developers to govern subjects such as traffic management.

Under the agreement the Kingask operators will, if the application Is approved next week, have to impose rigid controls over traffic movement in and out of the site through a “green travel plan.”

They will also have to forfeit large sums of money if they stray outwith the scope of the plan and make contributions to road improvements in St Andrews town centre.

Peter Douglas, local councillor for Scooniehill and Kingask, said that in reading the strategic overview prepared by Mr Rae and Mr Birrell he had found 38 separate points he wished to question.

Mr Douglas said he felt that the document needed a “radical examination” and also expressed the view that policies were being varied and bent.

The plans from St Andrews International Golf Club Ltd for the Scooniehill site were the subject of much less discussion.

After the relevant issues - largely relating to inevitable breach of existing policies - had been addressed by Mr Rae and Mr Birrell, there was little debate among councillors before they agreed with the recommendations being made that the plans should be rejected at the meeting of the strategic development committee next week.