Close call on Kingask plan

The Citizen, 2 July 1999

After more than two years of debate and dissention, the waiting is almost at an end for the highly-controversial Scooniehill and Kingask golf-related developments.

The final meeting was held this week prior to Fife Council’s Strategic Development Committee’s decision on whether to give the multi-million pound proposals the green light.

And there were no surprises on Tuesday as the East Area Development Committee voted against recommending both developments for approval to the Strategic Development Committee. However, although the vote against Scooniehill was unanimous, the decision to reject Kingask was a narrow call at seven votes to five.

As well as local councillors from St Andrews and Cupar, the meeting was also attended by officials from Fife Council’s Planning and Transportation Departments, including Head of Planning, Mr David Rae, who revealed his intention early on to recommend the Kingask proposal be approved at next week’s meeting.

Many councillors yet again outlined their grounds for opposing the developments and criticised Mr Rae’s overview report on golf courses and related development which will be sent to the Strategic Development Committee.

Controversial statements in the report included the assertion that there was an “unmet demand” for golf courses in the St Andrews area.

A comment that concerns regarding traffic impact on St Andrews were “overstated” was also criticised by Councillor Frances Melville, who said she felt that the report in general was dismissive of the comments made at last month’s Departure Hearing.

There was a strong feeling in evidence that the developments went against the planning guidelines contained in Fife Council’s Planning Advice Notes, but Mr Rae countered that these policy guidelines were intended to be handrails, not handcuffs.

Both the developments were then discussed in detail, with Mr Rae commenting that the Scooniehill development “fell foul” of a number of planning policies.

Area Planning Manager, Mr Jim Birrell, discussed the Kingask landscape and development at length, describing it at present as “a prairie landscape” which would be “without equal” as a golf course.

He stressed that the actual buildings would comprise only two per cent of the site, and said he believed the development to be a well-designed one which fitted in with its landscape setting.

Mr Rae also commented that the site was detached from the town and was relatively well-screened, adding: “I believe the fear the objectors have of it destroying the landscape setting around St Andrews is unfounded.”

He also expressed his belief that the development offered scope for jobs both within the tourist industry itself and in ancillary trades which had not yet been fully explored.

Commenting that the development at Kingask already had outline planning consent, albeit for a smaller proposal, he mentioned there was already a “land use commitment” to the site which could not be ignored.

For these reasons, and having weighed up all the factors, he then pledged his support to the development, which he said would be “a worthwhile economic generator” which would revive the tired image of St Andrews.

However, Chairman Peter Douglas argued that the original outline permission had been given for a development based in the original farm steadings, not “all over the site” like this one.

Councillor Susan Clark backed this up, commenting: “Just because outline permission has been granted does not mean we must grant it again. This is separate.”

She added that although she felt St Andrews could cope with the development, she was unsure of the impact it would have on Cupar and further down the coast, especially on local hotel business.

Mr Rae then mentioned the current shortage of 600 jobs in the St Andrews travel-to-work area which he said the development would go some way to alleviating, but this was swiftly rebutted by Councillor Jane-Anne Liston who stated that most of the incoming workers would come from Dundee, and asked if Fife Council was in the business of providing jobs for people in Tayside?

The final decision will be taken in Glenrothes - next Wednesday.