Conservationists object to golf course plan

The Courier, 1 October 2003

A national conservation body has lodged a formal objection with Fife Council over plans from St Andrews Links Trust for the creation of a seventh public golf course in the area.

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland has questioned the need for another public course, and has also expressed the view that the chosen site at Kinkell and Brownhills is unacceptable.

The trust has just submitted its formal application for an 18-hole course, a clubhouse, maintenance facilities and a practice area on the site which lies south- east of the town, just off the main coast road to the East Neuk.

In a letter to the council, the secretary of the East Fife panel of the society, Glen Pride, said that informed sources in St Andrews and beyond had publicly expressed grave doubts about the claim by the links trust that a seventh course is required.

He said that should there be the slightest justification for these doubts, the society is firmly of the opinion that it would be preferable to improve and make more accessible the present facilities.

“It would be better for this historic town, its quality of life and its unique setting to abandon what could be a commercial posturing which would turn St Andrews into, as recently quoted, a ‘low-grade theme park’.”

Mr Pride went on to say that if the applicants succeeded in their wish to create a seventh course, the society would question the economics and convenience of locating it so far from the existing courses.

He said that the proposed remote site inevitably demands the expensive duplication of administration, clubhouse and green keeping facilities, together with disproportionate staff and running costs.

Mr Pride said in the letter that it had been revealed that a deal could not be reached with landowners beside the existing courses, but he said that continuation of this dialogue should be pursued.

He said that this land would have at least made a links course, would have formed an integral part of the ‘St Andrews experience’ and would have made financial sense.

The letter also said that it must be recognised that, from a planning point of view, the proposed development would occupy a gap site at present containing a sewage treatment plant and lying between a caravan site and a hotel.

He said that it is important that there will once again be an invasion of the Kinkell Braes clifftop, and the coastal plain, in an area designated as being of great landscape value and adjacent to a site of special scientific interest.

“It should also be noted that this area is most likely to form part of the future green belt, and that possible relaxations from its regulations should be discounted at this stage.”

Mr Pride also said in the objection that the impact of a number of factors had not been fully addressed by the environmental statement accompanying the planning application.

For example, he said, there could be light pollution from the clubhouse, and in high season there would be additional pressure - including shuttle buses - on traffic bottlenecks in St Andrews.