Scooniehill plans turned down again

Anita Rogan, The Citizen, 2 June 2000

A second application for a golf-related resort at Scooniehill, outside St Andrews, was turned down by Fife Council’s East Area Development Committee on Tuesday despite a recommendation for approval by council officials. The “amended submission” by developers, The International Golf Club of St Andrews, was lodged back in September after the original proposal was refused by the Strategic Development Committee last summer.

The application for two golf courses, 80 residential holiday units, a golf practice area, clubhouse and car park had been considered at the same time as a proposal for a similar development at Kingask and holiday development at Feddinch.

However, the proposal had since been significantly reworked, and the developers were praised for listening to the fears of local residents by Cameron, Crail and Kemback Councillor, Peter Douglas, who said that they had done “everything they reasonably can to mitigate the objections.”

Foremost among these had been the prominence of the development’s built accommodation which had originally been sited on a high ridge overlooking the town.

The accommodation units in the revised application had been moved to the lowest point at the south of the site, and the scale of the buildings lowered to reduce their visibility.

A further change had been that the old stone farmhouse, which was to have been originally knocked down, had been retained for administrative purposes, and that a number of stone cottages were incorporated into the structure of the two-storey clubhouse.

A separate access road had also been created to reduce the effects of construction and other traffic on the residents of nearby Wester Balrymonth.

The long-term economic viability of the resort had been a persistent issue throughout the discussions, and St Andrews Central Councillor, Jane Hunter-Blair, said that there were many hotels and B & Bs already competing for trade in the town.

She also criticised the growing “suburbanisation of our countryside,” and stated that the setting of St Andrews was as important as the historic mediaeval centre for the thousands of tourists who flocked in each summer.

Her views were echoed by fellow St Andrews Councillor, Sheila Hill, who said she could not see the need in the area for either the extra golf courses or more of these types of service jobs.

The vexed question of additional traffic generated by the development was, unsurprisingly, a heated one, and the proposed Section 75 traffic agreement was treated with little credibility by the majority of members - particularly in the light of the elasticity of a similar one drawn up for the development at Kingask.

St Andrews South-East Councillor, Jane Ann Liston, said that it would be “crazy” to consider putting any extra pressure on the traffic situation which existed at present in St Andrews, and said it would not be fair to inflict this on the town for the benefit of a relatively small group of foreign visitors.

The fact that use of the resort and golf courses would be for members only also worked against the proposal, although East Area Planning Service Team Leader, Nick Brian, said that there would be a spin-off for pay-as-you-play courses like nearby Kingsbarns, as the visitors tried out the local courses.

Graham Milne, a technician engineer with the Roads Department, stated that, as a private club, the owners of the resort would have the power to control the traffic movements of the visitors, and that the additional traffic would not greatly impact on St Andrews as “golfers don’t travel during. peak hours.”

However, the issue of the actual number of visitors staying at the resort was raised by Kettle, Springfield and Ceres Councillor, Jack Bradie, who said: “I don’t think 80 suites will just be for golfers, I’m sure whole families will be coming over to stay.

“I don’t think we have a representative figure for the development’s traffic. Families won’t want to stay on the site all the time, but will want to get out and about.”

He criticised the figure of 10 HGV movements per day for construction traffic given by the contractors, and said that it was based on “acceptability rather than reality.”