New heritage chairman joins attack on Kingask

The Courier, 5 July 1999

The recently appointed chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage has backed the stance taken by his organisation against proposals for a £50 million golf and leisure development at Kingask, near St Andrews.

At the weekend chairman Dr John Markland said that the body had been consistent from the start, there was no change to the previously expressed position, and he supported the views that had been put forward.

Dr Markland has taken over at the high profile body from Magnus Magnusson, ironically coming to the post from his job as chief executive of Fife Council.

SNH, which has quoted a raft of policy guidelines to support its case, has been one of the most consistent opponents of the plans for Kingask, which have attracted 269 objections, and 47 letters of support.

The application involves the erection of a 208-bedroom hotel, accommodation units, a 400-person conference centre, leisure facilities and a golf clubhouse.

The plans, which are being recommended for approval this week by Fife’s head of planning David Rae, also envisage creation of two 18-hole golf courses.

A wide array of conservation bodies have opposed the plans, with SNH being joined by the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and the locally based St Andrews Preservation Trust.

The local trust and community council, together with the area’s MP Menzies Campbell and MSP lain Smith, have asked Donald Dewar to remove Fife Council from the equation and “call in” the application for determination at a public inquiry. These calls are to be repeated this week in the run up to Wednesday’s decision making meeting.

SNH has made it clear that it accepts the principle of a hotel based around the existing steadings which were the subject of the outline planning permission which exists or the site.

However, it considers the current proposals to be so different to the outline that “it is inappropriate to consider the current proposals as having permission in principle."

The body has also said the development will result in a total change to the landscape character, and introduce a substantial amount of new development into an open coastal landscape.

Another government agency, Historic Scotland, has been equally scathing of the plans, with inspector John Lynn stating that St Andrews has unparalleled historic significance and is an identifiably medieval university town unique in Britain and rare in Europe.

Mr Lynn has backed views expressed elsewhere about traffic impact and the breach of national and local planning policies, which included the council’s own St Andrews Strategic Study.

In his report for this week’s meeting of the council’s strategic development committee Mr Rae highlighted the views of both bodies.

He said that that he had drawn particular attention to them “because of the weight placed upon them by others who had an interest in the outcome.”

“I am disappointed but not surprised with the terms of the responses from organisations,” he said.

“For reasons detailed elsewhere in this report I am not compelled to accept or agree with these consultation responses.”

In his conclusions he expressed the view that the proposal will not damage the landscape setting of St Andrews or have an unacceptable impact on the coastline. He said that the design and quality of the proposal merited support and had the potential to bring considerable economic and tourism benefits for St Andrews and Fife.