Traffic agreement worse than useless - claim

The Courier, 3 July 1999

A draft agreement prepared by Fife Council’s planning department aimed at regulating traffic from the proposed £150 million golf related development at Kingask, on the outskirts of St Andrews, was yesterday branded as “worse than useless.”

The latest broadside by the chairman of St Andrews Community Council, Dr Frank Riddell, comes within days of a meeting of the local authority’s centrally-based strategic development committee, which will decide the fate of the controversial Kingask application.

It will also decide on a second £18 million project for Scooniehill - both of which were rejected earlier this week by the local East Area development committee.

Dr Riddell said that the traffic proposals were suppose to protect traffic flows through the town if consent is given to the Kingask application next week.

He explained yesterday that the proposals suggest that the acceptable traffic level should be 384 vehicle movements a day to and from the site, with a provision for a maximum of around 1100 movements.

If traffic exceeds the 384 limit for 10 days in any calendar month, then the developers have to discuss alternative travel arrangements with the local authority.

He added that at a level of 657 vehicle movements for 30 days or 865 vehicle movements for five days, then Fife Council can move to “fine” the hotel developers.

However, according to Dr Riddell, a number of let-out clauses “make the agreement worse than useless.”

He pointed out that the contract can be modified by the developers and the council if it is not working, or if additional development takes place on the site.

The developers can also seek remission of the conditions for specific events they may organise, provided they give six months advance notice to Fife Council.

Dr Riddell commented, “The so-called agreement is about as watertight as a colander. The traffic levels mentioned in it confirm our worst fears. It does virtually nothing to protect St Andrews from Kingask traffic.”

Stressing that, since traffic generation has been at the core of the objections from the community council and all of the national statutory consultees, Dr Riddell maintained the document had failed to remove “the serious and widespread” opposition that exists.

He said, “There is no indication of sanction should the upper limit of 1100 vehicles per day be exceeded.

“The fines proposed for exceeding the limits are peanuts compared to the revenues that will be generated.

“It would be far more effective if for every day that traffic flows exceeded the stated limits, one day’s closure of the facilities was required for the same period in the following year."

Dr Riddell maintained that it would also be far more effective if an annual limit were placed on the number of exemptions available - and those were decided by local councillors, not delegated to officials or a Fife-wide committee.

Dr Riddell was also strongly critical that the “complex and very demanding” legal document was presented to East Area councillors only minutes before they were required to comment on its content, while the record of the previous departure hearing was not made available to them.

He said, “Such conduct by officials is outrageous and contrary to legal requirements that councillors be given full information on which to base their decisions six days before the meeting.

“Finally, the document confirms that sewage lorries will be needed for the development. They will pass down Lamond Drive, Bridge Street and City Road during the daytime, despite protestations to the contrary at the departure hearings and in the Press.”