Plans for Golf and Leisure Complex rejected

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 31 May 2000

Plans for a new £25 million golf and leisure development on a 460-acre site at Scooniehill, to the south of St Andrews, were rejected yesterday by members of Fife Council’s east area development committee.

The decision to refuse the planning application from the International Golf Club of St Andrews was made in the face of a positive recommendation from planning officials, the support of local councillor Peter Douglas, and backing from members of the most directly affected community council.

Opposition had been expressed by local and national bodies including St Andrews Community Council, the town’s preservation trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, and Scottish Natural Heritage.

The plans had envisaged creation of two new golf courses, a clubhouse, 80 residential suites, and car parking on a 460 acre site that is currently in largely agricultural use.

East area leader Nick Brian had prepared a comprehensive report on the application, and had recommended conditional approval.

He told the committee that there had been a wide range of responses, and that the the proposal differed from earlier plans in that the bulk of built development had been moved to a lower part of the site, and the golf courses to lower contour lines.

Nick Brian said the proposals were not considered to be to the detriment of the area of great landscape value at Scooniehill, and were in conformity with development plan policies relating to economic development and tourism.

They would, he said, make a positive contribution to the local economy, the impact could be delivered in an environmentally sensitive way, and at the same time conservation and heritage aspects would be enhanced for the benefit of the wider community.

The first councillor to speak was the local member for the area, Councillor Peter Douglas, who moved that the application should be approved.

He said that Cameron Community Council was in favour of the application, and knew the "agricultural track record" of the site and difficulties there had been in the past.

Councillor Douglas said that the applicants should be complemented on the way they had "bent over backwards" to take on board suggestions that had been made.

"They have done everything they reasonably can to mitigate the effect of the proposals," he said.

An opposite view, however, came from St Andrews councillor Jane Hunter-Blair, who spoke out strongly against the plans.

She said that for hundreds of years St Andrews had been a mecca for pilgrims who came for reasons of religion, education, or golf, and there was now a group of "new pilgrims" who could take in a mixture of all three.

The councillor said that many hotels and bed and breakfasts were competing for trade, and there was no proven evidence of a need for more beds or more golf courses. Approval, she said, would be a departure from the local plan, and would be premature in advance of decisions about the new structure plan and the hope of many people that a designated green belt for St Andrews was not a "pipe dream".

The development, she said, could not fail to have an impact, and there would be more flogging of roads in the town.

Other councillors spoke out, and concern was raised about potential numbers of construction vehicles, traffic impact on the town, the difficulties of implementing the proposals put forward in a "green travel plan" and the lack of "pay as you play" facilities in what would essentially be a private club aimed at the overseas market. The application was eventually turned down by nine votes to four.

Last night a spokesman for the applicants, Alastair Doig, expressed his "great disappointment" over the decision.

"It is difficult to understand why the professional recommendation of the officials was rejected. We went to a lot of trouble to address concerns that had been raised.

"What the councillors appear to be saying is ‘we just don’t want you, go away’, and their attitude is very puzzling," he commented.

Mr Doig said he and his colleagues would now decide how to proceed, although he did not rule out the possibility of an appeal being lodged with the Executive.