Heritage body objects to plan for Scooniehill

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 29 April 1999

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland has formally objected to the £18 million golf course development proposed for Scooniehill on the south side of St Andrews.

The decision has been reached amid concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land, the visual impact of buildings on the landscape, fears of traffic congestion and doubts over the economic benefits to the locality.

Tayside and East Fife group secretary Glen Pride said yesterday that the Scooniehill plan was still regarded as the “least objectionable” by the society when taken alongside the other major applications on the table for Kingask, Feddinch and Kinkell.

However, following recent scrutiny of documents from the applicant, the organisation is convinced the proposal would contribute significantly to the “overall major disaster which would take place should all these applications be approved.”

Mr Pride explained the society had split its comment into five categories: land, buildings, traffic, economic and historic.

The proposals would convert 500 acres of good quality farmland into 2.5 golf courses at a time when the St Andrews Local Plan is in favour of safeguarding prime agricultural land.

He said it was wishful thinking to suggest the proposed courses would be inconspicuous, as suggested by the applicant, as tees, greens, fairways and bunkers could not be concealed on exposed hillsides.

Where there are now open fields, even the introduction of new planting would simply emphasise the change.

In terms of the building complex, he said it had now been made clear that the developer was proposing to construct a new settlement with a population of 400, comprising a large clubhouse, leisure building and five two-storey residential blocks. In comparison Kingsbarns has a population of 370 and Dairsie 410.

“From the very rough sketches submitted, the society estimates that the ground floor area of the new buildings will be 70% greater and their cubic volume approximately 90% greater than the existing small farm group of buildings occupied by no more than a dozen people,” he said.

Other visual changes would include parking for 100 cars, access/service roads and footpaths. He said a new access driveway would “cut a swathe across the hillside” from the A915 and, while the visual impact of the buildings would be minimal from the St Andrews side of the hill, he claimed it would be significant from the southern approach roads.

In terms of traffic, he said an additional 400 people and their cars “must” create problems on the A915 and exacerbate congestion in St Andrews. He said this would be especially the case if shared with traffic from the projected Feddinch development, meeting up with vehicles from Kingask and Kinkell Braes.

As a result, individual traffic impact assessments were “worthless” and seemed to require some kind of overall strategic study.

Mr Pride went on to say that the society could only assume that the applicant had carefully studied the economic viability of their proposals, especially taking into account the climatic conditions of the exposed hillside site.

He questioned the likelihood of job creation as past experiences had shown that the upper-tier posts would almost certainly not be recruited locally. The second tier might be acquired at the expense of existing local establishments with the remainder temporary and seasonal.

In terms of the historic value of the site, Mr Pride said Gregory’s Pillar must never be relocated due to its importance as a meridian marker.

The project would also go against Fife Council’s sustainability policy which promotes enhancement of the environment.