St Andrews in new golf course battle

Two-course £25 million project rejected by councillors

James Rougvie, The Scotsman, 1 June 2000

Developers are teeing up a lengthy battle with a council after a £25 million proposal for a golf and leisure complex on the edge of St Andrews was rejected by planners.

Councillors in the north-east of Fife turned down the plan for two new golf courses and accommodation over a site covering 460 acres.

Earlier this year, another controversial development, the Kingask £50 million hotel and golf course complex, was finally given the green light after a drawn-out planning process and judicial review in the Court of Session.

The latest proposal involves the establishment of the courses, clubhouse and residential lodges at Scooniehill, south of the town, by the International Golf Club of St Andrews, a consortium of Scottish businessmen.

Despite the backing of planning officials, councillors have turned down the new complex. It now looks likely that the developers will appeal the decision and it could result in a public inquiry.

There was opposition from Scottish Natural Heritage, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society and St Andrews Community Council.

In what was an echo of previous objections to the Kingask development, councillors expressed fears over the potential number of construction vehicles running through the medieval town, difficulties in implementing a green traffic plan, and the impact the development might have on the hopes of creating a green belt around St Andrews.

A St Andrews councillor, Jane Hunter-Blair, said there was no evidence of a need for more beds or golf courses around St Andrews.

Alistair Doig, a spokesman for the developers, said it was not clear as yet why the proposal had been rejected against the recommendations of the Fife Council planning officials. "We are actively considering all of the matters which were raised but we appear to have strong grounds for an appeal. It is likely we will be appealing."

The first outline application for the development was refused last year but Mr Doig said a great deal of work had been done since to satisfy the planners and locals who objected to the siting of the clubhouse.

"We made numerous changes in order to satisfy the criticisms and only the roofline of the clubhouse would have been seen, as is the existing farmhouse. We also decided to move the residential lodges below the hilltop so they would not be seen from St Andrews."

A council official, Nick Brian, said the proposals were not considered to be detrimental to an area which is of great landscape value. The plans also conformed with development plan policies. He said the plans would make a positive contribution to the local economy and their impact delivered in an environmentally sensitive way.

Mr Doig said: "We are not clear why the plans have been rejected but it seems to us it is a case of a few locals not believing what the planners were telling them."