Reporter rejects Scooniehill plans

The Citizen, 2 March 2001

The decision to throw out plans for a £25 million golf and leisure complex on the outskirts of St Andrews has been met with relief from conservation bodies in the town.

Scottish Executive Reporter, lain Lumsden, has published his findings following a public local inquiry into the appeal by the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd., for permission to create two golf courses, a clubhouse, residential lodges and car parking on prime agricultural land at Scooniehill Farm, St Andrews.

Last June, Fife Council turned down the application for outline planning permission for the development of two golf courses, a clubhouse, residential lodges and car parking on land at Scooniehill.

A previous application for the site was also refused, though not appealed.

Following the inquiry in St Andrews Town Hall in November, and a site inspection, Mr Lumsden decided that the appeal should be dismissed.

His decision was met with delight by St Andrews Preservation Trust. Chair, Dorothea Morrison, told the Citizen: “We are absolutely delighted with the outcome of the inquiry.

“On reading the report, we are pleased to note that so much attention has been paid to the visual aspect of the development and the detrimental effect it would have had on the landscape setting of St Andrews.

“There is also a boost for the Green Belt for St Andrews for which the St Andrews Preservation Trust and Green Belt Forum are vigorously campaigning.”

However, in a letter to the Citizen, Professor Terence Lee, chair of the Green Belt Forum, indicated that he felt the Scooniehill outcome served to emphasise the importance of a local public inquiry into planning issues.

He believed that, had similar procedures been followed over the now nearly-completed St Andrews Bay golfing development at Kingask, outside St Andrews, its conclusion would have been very different.

The site at Scooniehill covers some 459 acres to the south of the town, bounded by the A915 St Andrews to Large Road, Grange Road and agricultural land.

The International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd. planned to operate a private members’ club there, geared primarily towards the overseas and particularly the US market.

UK residents could join but membership would be restricted to a maximum of 150. Only members and their guests would be permitted to play the course and members of the public could not turn up and play.

A total of 48 letters of representation were received in response to the application. Of these, 42 objected to the proposal and six, including one from Cameron Community Council, were in support of the development.

Local Fife Councillor Peter Douglas also backed the proposal, seeing it as helping to boost jobs.

In his written findings, Mr Lumsden noted that the finalised Fife Structure Plan, still to be approved by Ministers of the Scottish Parliament, indicated that St Andrews offered a major opportunity to increase jobs and generate additional income based on the high quality of its environment.

Policies favoured tourist proposals which would help economic development, particularly where the development would improve facilities and lengthen the tourist season, and improve the quality and range of tourist facilities.

However, economic development policies in the local plan indicated that there was a presumption against development that would permanently remove or reduce the quality of prime land. Mr Lumsden said he considered that the proposal would mean the permanent loss of a significant area of such land.

In principle, the proposed golf courses would be acceptable uses within the countryside as would the golf clubhouse so long as the scale of the building did not spoil the character and appearance of the countryside.

However, he did not believe the “substantial structures” needed for residential accommodation and facilities for the use of up to 320 members and their guests had to be linked to a golf course development or had to be located in the countryside.

“I find that the proposal to locate the clubhouse on the ridge would represent a visually intrusive and inappropriate form of development on a site that forms a key part of the landscape setting of this historic town,” said the Reporter.

The most significant policy change in the draft Fife Structure plan related to the intention to designate a Green Belt around St Andrews, Mr Lumsden adding that he did not consider any support for the Scooniehill proposal could be drawn from the policy.

Nor did he consider that it would be in the long term interests of the local community or the tourist economy to allow a development to proceed which had “significant implications for the landscape setting of the town and would erode the amenity of the area. In this context, the importance of the setting of St Andrews and its effect on the character of the historic burgh has been widely recognised"

Scooniehill

Prof. Terence Lee, Letter to Editor, The Citizen, 2 March 2001

The outcome of the Scooniehill inquiry (rejection) is a considerable boost for those who are trying to preserve the unique character of St. Andrews.

The main case against the project was made at the inquiry by the Preservation Trust, the Green Belt Forum and the East Area Development Committee, i.e. our local councillors.

It was exposed to the extensive and rational scrutiny of a public inquiry only because the East Area Development Committee rejected the application.

This was against the advice of the professional planners at Glenrothes who accordingly did not appear.

The same procedure might have been followed at Kingask. This was also rejected by the East Area Development Committee but supported by the planners.

But Glenrothes were so determined to secure this flamboyant inward investment that they ‘called in’ the application to a Strategic Development Committee (representing the whole of Fife) who duly approved it. Hence, no Inquiry. If there had been one - all the arguments that led the Reporter to reject Scooniehill would have scuppered Kingask.

Those who have seen the ‘monstrous plook’ must now understand our argument that it would be ‘out of scale’. Readers are reminded that it was not opposed by the Preservation Trust in its initial form, which was smaller and less obtrusive.

There are surely some lessons here. Not least, individual citizens should join the Preservation Trust and green-minded organisations should join the Green Belt Forum. We can succeed - but we need all the support we can get.