Call to planners after Scooniehill decision

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 2 March 2001

The Scottish Executive’s decision to reject plans for a £25 million golf and leisure development at Scooniehill, near St Andrews, must cast “considerable doubt” on the quality of advice given by Fife Council’s planners, claimed the vice-chairman of St Andrews Community Council Dr Frank Riddell yesterday.

Noting that the Reporter backed local councillors who rejected the plans against the advice of Fife Council officials, Dr Riddell said council planning officials should “seriously consider their positions" and called for an inquiry into why the recommendation was made.

Dr Riddell also backed St Andrews Green Belt Forum chairman Professor Terence Lee, who said the grounds on which the Reporter rejected the Scooniehill application were virtually identical to those on which local residents objected to the St Andrews Bay development nearing completion at Kingask.

These claims were flatly denied by Fife Council, which said the outcome of one appeal decision did not entitle Dr Riddell to conclude there is a problem with the planning service, while his attempt to compare Scooniehill with the Kingask application was “misguided and ill-founded.”

The International Golf Club of St Andrews targeted the Scooniehill site on the south side of the town to develop two golf courses, a clubhouse, lodges and parking. Executive Reporter lain Lumsden turned down its appeal after the council’s east area development committee rejected the plans.

The Reporter stated approval would contravene council policies on protection of the landscape and development in the countryside, and that the clubhouse would be unduly prominent - a criticism levelled at the Kingask plans.

Yesterday Dr Riddell said St Andrews Community Council welcomed the Reporter’s conclusion but the fact that it flies in the face of the recommendation by Fife Council’s planning officials must, he said, cast doubt on the quality of advice being given to councillors.

Dr Riddell said the Reporter “essentially states that officials misinterpreted the planning policies in the Fife Structure Plan and the St Andrews Local Plan.

“In paragraph 66 of his report he shows that the determining policies should have been environmental ones. Fife Council’s officials chose, wrongly, to use policies on tourism to determine the issue. In paragraph 68 he rubbishes the Fife Council road department witness who said the low level of car parking was appropriate.

“The grounds on which the Reporter rejected the Scooniehill application were virtually identical to those on which residents objected to the Kingask development ... The time has come for planning officials in Fife Council seriously to consider their own positions.”

Dr Riddell said this was the “vindication of local democracy that Kingask was not.”

Last night Fife Council chief executive Douglas Sinclair said, “It is difficult to see how the outcome of one planning appeal decision entitles Dr Riddell to conclude there is a problem about the quality of advice given by Fife Council’s planners.

“The council deals with some 3500 planning applications each year. Over 70% of these are delegated to officials ... Of these some 3% are subject to the planning appeal process. The council successfully defends its position on some 80% of these. The council can stand comparison with all Scottish planning authorities in terms of performance and quality of advice.

“Dr Riddell’s attempt to compare the Scooniehill planning application circumstances with the Kingask planning application is misguided and ill-founded. These are two entirely different applications which raise different determining issues.

“Dr Riddell seems to imply there has been some irregular conduct by senior officials. This ... we reject.”