Scooniehill objectors speak out

The Citizen, 31 March 2000

Objectors to a new outline application lodged by St Andrews International Golf Club Ltd., for a £25 million golf-related development at Scooniehill Farm, addressed a departure hearing in Madras College, St Andrews, this week.

The original proposal was thrown out last summer by Fife Council’s Strategic Development Committee, but has since been re-submitted after significant re-working.

The new application is for a 460-acre development to the south of St Andrews, comprising two 18-hole golf courses, a clubhouse with swimming pool, gymnasium and other facilities, 80 residential lodges, a golf practice area, car park and a man-made loch.

The site area has been reduced by 40 acres, with the total built area cut by 60 per cent.

Main objections covered by the 11 speakers at the hearing centred on the development’s visual impact from the town, what they felt was a lack of need for another golf-related venture in the area and the long-term economic viability of the business.

Transport issues were also high on the agenda, with a number of speakers expressing the view that more traffic would have an adverse effect on the town’s roads.

Residents of nearby Wester Balrymonth also expressing their fears over road safety.

Ms Elizabeth Williams, St Andrews Preservation Trust, said there was no justification for two more golf courses in the area; particularly ones aimed at a wealthy overseas clientele.

She said that this was in clear contravention of the council’s Local Plan, which encouraged full accessibility to golf courses by local people on a “pay and play” basis.

Professor Terence Lee, from the Greenbelt Forum, said that at least part of the development, was located in an area of Great Landscape Value, while the rest was on prime (grade two and three) agricultural land.

He added that although the developers had made a “real effort” to relocate the lodges in a less conspicuous spot - moving them from their previous site on the steading to a lower location adjacent to the disused railway line - they would still be visible from the main road.

The Traffic Impact Assessment submitted by the developers was strongly criticised by all the objectors as unworkable, unrealistic and unenforcable, while the negative effect the extra traffic would have on the rural A195 Craigtoun route and the access route was also explained.

It was widely felt the developers would not be able to contain the traffic movements of their guests to keep them within the proposed limit of 168 journeys to and from the development per day.

The thorny issue of enforcing the Section 75 traffic agreement, which would bind the developers to keeping within the specified limit, was also raised in light of the recent situation which had developed at Kingask.

The sole voice of support came from the Cameron Community Council spokesman, who said they were in favour of the 80 full-time and 54 part-time jobs which the development would provide.

A full report of the hearing will be compiled before the application is considered by the East Area Development Committee.