Golf plan at St Andrews rejected

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 28 February 2001

Plans for a £25 million golf and leisure complex south of St Andrews have been rejected by a Scottish Executive Reporter, who decided approval would contravene approved Fife Council policies.

The council’s own planning officials had recommended approval for the project, on an extensive site at Scooniehill.

One of the main reasons given for the decision by Reporter Iain Lumsden relates to the "unduly prominent and conspicuous location" of the planned clubhouse complex in an area of great landscape value and on the skyline above the medieval town.

Although accepting there could be economic and tourism benefits, he concluded that other factors - such as loss of agricultural land, development in the countryside, and protection of the landscape - are more important.

Applicants, International Golf Club of St Andrews, sought planning consent for development of two golf courses, a clubhouse, residential lodges, and car parking at Scooniehill.

Last night it was made clear that they were bitterly disappointed at the decision.

The application was rejected by members of the council’s east area development committee despite positive recommendation from officials, and there was a subsequent week-long public inquiry in St Andrews at the end of last year.

The plans ran into substantial opposition from local and national conservation bodies, and there was also heavy opposition from St Andrews Community Council.

Support for the project was also expressed, however, with representatives of the community council most affected, Cameron Community Council, and local councillor Peter Douglas backing the scheme and its potential for job creation.

Mr Lumsden reported that it had been indicated in the structure plan that the overall approach in the St Andrews area was to ensure development was controlled and gradual and took account of "considerable environmental and infrastructural constraints."

These included a need to retain the attractiveness of the area by conserving the town’s high quality environment and landscape setting.

The new clubhouse complex would be in "an unduly prominent and conspicuous position on the skyline" clearly visible from a number of streets in St Andrews and from the Old Course and West Sands. It would be much more obtrusive on the open hillside than the existing steadings.

"In this case we are dealing with a large building on the skyline in a prominent position within an area of great landscape value that forms an important component for the setting of St Andrews.

"I am also aware the various landscape assessments suggest this is an area which is particularly sensitive to any form of new development," said Mr Lumsden.

He also referred to news that Fife Council has accepted the need for a green belt around St Andrews, and the fact there would a presumption against development in that green belt where there would be "intervisibility" between the site and the town’s historic core.

"While I recognise that this policy has to be considered and approved by Scottish ministers and the detailed boundaries would have to be defined in a subsequent local plan . . . I do not consider that any support for your client’s proposal can be drawn from this policy."

On the subject of the 80 accommodation suites planned for the site, Mr Lumsden said this was a use that would not normally be acceptable, and he was not persuaded that they must be located in the countryside. In principle, he said, the proposed golf courses would be acceptable.

Mr Lumsden reached his decision in spite of accepting in his report that in general terms St Andrews offered a major opportunity to increase jobs and generate additional income.

On the evidence available he was satisfied the development would have economic benefits for the area, and would assist with economic development and the tourist industry.

"However, the presumption in favour of tourist developments contained in these policies is clearly subject to the proposal being consistent with the plan’s overall strategy and its other policies."

When considered against environmental and other policies, he said, development would contravene policies relating to use of prime agricultural land, development in the countryside, and the need to protect areas of high-quality landscape.

Last night Alastair Doig, a spokesman for the applicants, said he had not yet received notification of the decision from the Scottish Office, but added, that he was "gutted" by the news, and that no further comment would be made at the moment.

Visual impact is 'overriding factor,' inquiry told

The Courier, 29 November 2000

The visual impact of a new £25 million golf and leisure development near St Andrews is the “overriding factor” to be taken into account as a planning appeal is determined.

This was agreed yesterday by both Fife Council and the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd as a public inquiry in the home of golf moved into its final stages.

The inquiry heard statements from both parties and from objectors who include St Andrews Preservation Trust, St Andrews Community Council, and the St Andrews Green Belt Forum.

The closing submissions brought to an end a week of debate over the plans for two golf courses, extensive clubhouse and leisure facilities and 80 residential suites on the 460-acre site at Scooniehill.

The application was rejected by members of Fife Council’s east area development committee against the advice of planning officials, and the inquiry is the culmination of the two years proposals for the site have been in the pipeline.

Issues discussed during the inquiry have included visual impact, loss of agricultural land, traffic effects, now-confirmed plans for creation of a green belt around St Andrews, the viability of the plans and the likely economic impact.

The developers said yesterday that doubts had been expressed by various parties about economic viability but it had been made clear that research had been carried out both in the UK and in the United States and that the promoters of the scheme were confident of its success.

It was stated there was no risk of the scheme starting and not finishing and that work would not begin until viability had been secured, not only to the satisfaction of the planning authority, but also to long-term investors.

In terms of visual impact, the developers said that even if the whole of the appeal site was included in a green belt, this would not affect the development proposals.

Nothing would be added to the issues, or to the protection received from development plan policies.

Speaking on behalf of Fife Council, however, legal official June Barrie said the council felt the proposal was contrary to the provisions of the development plan and that there were no material considerations which justified another conclusion.

Mrs Barrie said the overriding consideration was the visual impact of the development both from St Andrews and from the approach to the town.

“It: is submitted that the development would have a detrimental visual impact on St Andrews and its landscaped setting and that this consideration outweighs any economic development benefits claimed and all other factors.

The chairman of St Andrews Preservation Trust Mrs Dorothea Morrison said that everyone should be reminded that there was a great deal more to St Andrews than golf.

She said every year thousands of visitors came to the town and the trust was constantly being told such visitors love the town as it was now.

Continual development eating into the landscape might easily destroy qualities which attracted visitors in the first place.

“Tourists can be fickle, and if they come to regard St Andrews as a piece of third rate costume jewellery rather than the jewel in Fife’s crown, they may well choose to stay away,” she said.

Dr Frank Riddell, the vice-chairman of St Andrews Community Council, said his organisation had tried to bring before the inquiry the hopes and fears of the citizens of what was a small, historic and beautiful town.

He said the community council’s evidence had shown the pressures with which the town was being assaulted at present, and he referred specifically to the areas of education, health and traffic congestion.

Turning to the visual impact question, Dr Riddell said there was clear inter-visibility between the town’s historic core and the proposed location of the clubhouse on a ridge line.

The closing statement from the Green Belt Forum was made by Mrs Elizabeth Williams, who said there was deep concern no details had been given of the scale of the proposed buildings.

She said the creation of the 80 residential units would constitute a new village in the countryside and that the units would house up to 320 people who would have to be catered for in the clubhouse.

Mrs Williams said the countryside should remain accessible to the public and should not be exploited for private gain.

She added that the forum also believed there could be too great a concentration of golf courses in one area.

Inquiry Reporter Ian Lumsden will issue a decision on the application in due course.

Developers see St Andrews as 'pot of gold', inquiry told

The Courier, 25 November 2000

In recent years developers placing unremitting pressure on St Andrews see a “pot of gold waiting to be plundered”, the chairman of St Andrews Preservation trust, Dorothea Morrison, told the Scooniehill inquiry yesterday. Such developers saw no limit to numbers of free-spending visitors attracted by the “magic” of the town’s name, she added.

Mrs Morrison’s evidence was presented to a public inquiry to determine an appeal against refusal of planning consent for the 460-acre Scooniehill site, just south of St Andrews.

The applicants wish to build two golf courses, a clubhouse with leisure facilities and 80 residential suites for what would be a private club aimed predominantly at the US market.

Mrs Morrison said over-dependence on a wealthy US clientele was hazardous when that clientele was so sensitive to fluctuations in exchange rates, to terrorism fears and aircraft accidents.

She also said golfers who made the journey to the home of golf would not do so without a strong possibility of playing on the Old Course. That possibility had become remote, she said, as the Old Course had reached capacity.

Moreover, exploiting this market was fiercely competitive. Both the Old Course Hotel and Rusacks had built big extensions overlooking the Links, Kingsbarns was acquiring a formidable reputation and Kingask would soon be offering an additional “huge complex” with over 200 bedrooms.

She also raised concern over the inherent difficulties of outline planning consent and she said it was virtually impossible to assess environmental impact on skeletal details. “Bitter experience at Kingask has shown that when full planning consent was given, the plan bore very little resemblance to what had been agreed at the outline stage.”

On transport, she said the Fife Tourism Strategy said that St Andrews had almost reached saturation during peak summer months. Its medieval street plan could not be altered and more congestion could make tourists disinclined to visit.

“Scooniehill is a project of dubious viability. If it fails, a housing settlement will endure in a totally unacceptable position,” she said.

“The charm of St Andrews is of a medieval town steeped in history. Historic Scotland has called it the most important small historic burgh in Scotland. Even after suburban expansion it remains a medieval university town in scale unique in Britain and rare in Europe.

“It’s landscape attractiveness owes much to the way it is cradled by surrounding uplands, providing unique vistas both into and outwards from many points in the town and surrounding area. These virtues will be impossible to enjoy for tourists and residents alike if the town becomes clogged by unnecessary traffic and unbalanced by golfing interests.”

The trust also called as a witness economist Tony Jackson, who is a senior lecturer at the University of Dundee. He said that advice provided by the Scottish Tourist Board suggested that all such investments had substantial displacement effects on existing providers of similar capacity operating in the same location.

He added that there were good reasons for believing that because of the peculiar effect of the St Andrews market, such displacement effects would be even greater than normal.

Mr Jackson added that the development would, in his view, have only a marginal economic impact on Fife and St Andrews and it was not clear whether this impact would be positive or negative.

The developer, said Mr Jackson, had yet to demonstrate how his proposal would generate added value in the form of new international golfing tourism rather than simply relying on capturing part of the existing market.

Further support for the development, however, came yesterday from Cameron Community Council, which is the most directly affected community council.

Community councillor John Paul said that the community had been almost wholly dependent on agriculture and in recent years there had been a great and continuing decline in work opportunities.

The Scooniehill development, he said, would offer employment opportunities in greenkeeping, machine maintenance, catering and, in the long run, building maintenance trades.

Mr Paul also said there would be a benefit for wildlife, improvements to roads and rights of way and that construction traffic to and from the development would be minimal in comparison with what had been experienced recently.

The inquiry also heard a statement from North East Fife Local Healthcare Cooperative chairman, Dr John Bell, who highlighted existing difficulties in health provision in St Andrews.

Dr Bell said currently St Andrews Heath Centre struggled to maintain adequate standards of space for patients and staff, and it provided services for 21,000 patients. Various alterations had taken place over the years to mitigate problems and it was hoped the centre would be replaced in the “not too distant future”

Dr Bell also referred to difficulties at St Andrews Memorial Hospital, which he said had poor physical structure and inadequate parking. Although a new hospital was to be provided at an unknown future date, current ease of working and any significant development of services were hindered.

All evidence in the inquiry has now been heard. A site visit on Monday will be followed by final submissions on Tuesday.

Town's golf courses near capacity, inquiry told

The Courier, 24 November 2000

Pressure on St Andrews Links Courses - particularly the Old Course - will increase if a £25 million golf and leisure project near the town was given planning consent.

This was stated yesterday by the chairman of Fife Council’s east area development committee, Councillor Frances Melville, who also expressed “grave concern” over the economic viability of the project at Scooniehill.

Councillor Melville was giving evidence during the third day of a public inquiry which will determine an appeal against the refusal of consent or a 460-acre site to the south of St Andrews.

The applicants, the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd, want to build two golf courses, a club house, leisure facilities and residential lodges.

The application was thrown out by Councillor Melville’s committee earlier this year in the face of a recommendation for approval from council officials.

Councillor Melville said that there was pressure on St Andrews links from a proposed development and a more recent one now being constructed.

She said that St Andrews Links Trust felt that it would be inappropriate to comment on any individual applications, but it had set up a working party to look into the capacity of the links.

The conclusion reached, said the witness, was that some courses had nearly reached capacity and that the rest of them had only a few more years before capacity was reached.

“There is no doubt that these large developers who incorporate St Andrews into their name are playing on the international golfing reputation of St Andrews.”

Turning to the economic viability of the project Councillor Melville said she felt that the expectations of the applicants were unrealistic.

She said that from recent experience in St Andrews a new project that had relied upon gaining international memberships had failed dramatically in that it only sold £43,000 worth when the target had been £1.5 million.

While accepting that the Gateway project referred to was a different concept, Councillor Melville said that concern and doubt had been raised.

She said that if the proposed 80 residential units were not viable there was a fear that an alternative use would be sought for them.

On the subject of traffic impact the witness said that much play had been made on controlling movements of people through the use of mini buses or coaches.

She said, however, that this would be difficult to monitor and control - and that the car would still be used by visitors.

“People like to feel free to come and go as they please, especially if they have paid a considerable sum of money to enjoy the benefits of the development,” she said.

Traffic generated could be significantly above predicted levels, said Councillor Melville, and she added that St Andrews traffic - especially in the summer - was already at a level which caused congestion.

Under cross-examination by Bruce Smith of Aberdeen-based Paull and Williamsons, who is leading the applicants’ case at the appeal, Councillor Melville accepted that in terms of pressure on the Old Course any members of the new club would have to enter the ballot in the same way as everyone else.

She added that in terms of economic viability it was suggested by Mr Smith that a legal Section 75 agreement between the applicants and the council would have tight controls and provision for a “restoration bond.”

This bond, he said, would have to be put up by developers at the start of the project and would be available for restoration of the site if the development failed.

Councillor Melville, however, replied that from recent past experience councillors were suspicious of bonds and of the provisions of Section 75 agreements.

Evidence also came from Doctor Ian Goudie, a statistician who is the convener of the planning committee of the community council.

Dr Goudie addressed the subject of likely traffic impact of the development, and he said that the objective observer could have “little confidence” in the conclusions of a traffic impact assessment which had been produced for the developers.

He said that baseline data for the study failed to take into account a development already in the pipeline, and that the approach taken to traffic growth showed no awareness of local demographic factors.

Dr Goudie went on to say that perhaps the most serious error in the assessment was a failure to provide a correct assessment of the status quo position.

This, he said, was crucial for the validity of the exercise.

Elizabeth Williams, representing the St Andrews Green Belt Forum, told the inquiry that there was apparently “relentless growth” in St Andrews and that this put immense strain on the historic core of the town.

The important rural hinterland, she said, was now threatened by considerably larger developments which sought to exploit the golfing fame of St Andrews. Any planning decision taken from now on, said Mrs Williams, should reflect the green belt principle, and the aims of green belt planning policy.

Fife councillor strongly backs Scooniehill plan

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 23 November 2000

A leading north-east Fife councillor yesterday gave his strong backing to the £25 million golf and leisure development planned for a 460-acre site on the southern edge of St Andrews.

Councillor Peter Douglas, whose ward includes land at Scooniehill being targeted by the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd, said the scheme would secure a “green hinterland” to the area and would inject jobs and activity into the tourism market.

The councillor spoke during the second day of evidence in a public inquiry being held to determine an appeal against the East Area development committee’s decision - against the recommendation of officials - to reject the plans for two golf courses, residential accommodation and leisure facilities.

He said the proposed site was adjacent to St Andrews, but scarcely visible from it, and it would be ideal for the purpose proposed. He said recent history of agriculture on the site had been “varied and only partially successful” and a seminar he had attended had painted a very gloomy picture with predictions that even large agricultural enterprises would struggle for survival. One remedy was diversification.

Turning to tourism, Mr Douglas said he was a director of Fife tourist board and was “acutely aware” of the industry's importance. “This last year we've had the boost of the Millennium Open, but even with this there has been a downturn in tourist activity.”

He said the developers had tried very hard to meet concerns on issues such as such as traffic routes, increased planting, creating a new loch, rights of way, preserving worthwhile buildings and providing in-house transport.

Asked by St Andrews community council vice chairman Dr Frank Riddell why he supported the development when he had voted against the Kingask proposals, Mr Douglas said the two ventures were completely different.

It was also claimed yesterday that the Scooniehill project would help meet key objectives in the new national strategy for golf tourism.

Derek Scott, of planning and architectural firm Halliday Fraser Munro, outlined several reasons that would justify approval of the scheme. The strategy’s key objectives included increasing golf tourism expenditure in Scotland and the number of UK and overseas visitors taking golf breaks. Other objectives were to increase the number of golfers playing less well-known courses, numbers of visitors outside the main season and ensuring that product development was in line with market needs.

Mr Scott said the proposals would meet all of these objectives and there would be significant job opportunities, an acceptable form of diversification for farmland and a rise in bio-diversity. Also, development of a golf course would protect the landscape setting of St Andrews, a point “so much craved by local residents.”

Finally, he said, an area of great landscape value would be improved by the removal of modern farm buildings and replacing them with an attractive, traditionally designed clubhouse and facilities.

Asked by Mrs June Barrie, who leads the Fife Council case, whether the clubhouse location had been chosen because it had the best view over St Andrews, Mr Scott said the view was a “bonus.”

Landscape architect Paul Hogarth said the project would provide a “major opportunity” to create a sustainable landscape. There was still scope to move the clubhouse further into a belt of trees, and mitigating landscaping would start ear on the site. There was no Justifiable reason for refusing outline planning consent.

The inquiry continues.

Golf project not to start until £7m raised

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 22 November 2000

Work on a proposed £25 million golf and leisure project near St Andrews will not start until £7 million has been raised from advance membership sales which would be predominantly in the US.

This was claimed yesterday by the chairman of the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd, Mr Frederick Dalgarno, as a public inquiry got under way in the town.

The inquiry will decide an appeal against Fife Council’s refusal of permission for plans which include two 18-hole golf courses, residential accommodation, and a clubhouse with leisure facilities, on a 460-acre site at Scooniehill to the south of St Andrews. The decision was made by Fife council’s east area development committee against officials’ recommendations.

Mr Dalgarno was the first witness in proceedings expected to last up to six days and said St Andrews was regarded as the “mecca" for golfers, with the idea for the proposals stemming from studies in the USA.

The initial fee for international membership was projected at £18,000 a year, and international members would be charged an additional £1000 annual fee and would have to pay separately for accommodation when they visited.

A “national membership” would be available to UK residents, with priority to be given to local people.

Mr Dalgarno said no work would commence at Scooniehill until a minimum of £7 million was raised, or 300 international memberships were sold. He added that the application had cost well over £250,000 so far and was a “clear demonstration of his company’s confidence."

In terms of economic benefit, Mr Dalgarno said it was envisaged the development would provide up to 107 full-time equivalent jobs, and there would be further employment during the construction phase. Off-site visitor spend of £2 million was projected in 2004, rising to £5.12 million from 9000 visitors in 2013. Mr Dalgarno also highlighted the projects value in the context of a Scottish tourist industry in which golf is seen as a key element.

Under cross-examination from St Andrews community council vice-chairman Dr Frank Riddell, Mr Dalgarno reacted sharply to a suggestion the scheme was being sold to “unsuspecting Americans" who identified St Andrews with links golf. He said the project was clearly explained in America.

In answer to a question about existing low unemployment in the area, Mr Dalgarno said work would be offered to local people, although he also accepted employees might have to come from outwith.

Another of the applicant’s witnesses, Alan Duff, a divisional director of the Baptie Group, gave evidence on traffic-related reasons given for refusal of the application.

It was said there would be an unacceptable level of traffic and a harmful impact for St Andrews, and an unacceptable level of construction traffic.

But these reasons, Mr Duff said, were contrary to views of planning officials, and both a traffic impact assessment and a ”green transport plan” demonstrated traffic would not impact to a significant degree.

The green transport plan includes initiatives to reduce the dependency on cars by members, guests and employees alike.

Mr Duff also said the constitution of the club would not allow play for people other than members and their guests, with no corporate days and similar activities which would generate extra traffic.

In relation to construction vehicles, it was anticipated that on average 10-15 heavy goods vehicles per day would travel to and from the site and Mr Duff added that estimates would be accurate.

Under cross-examination from community council representative Dr Ian Goudie, Mr Duff agreed there was nothing else in the UK to compare the proposal with.

Asked whether figures supplied were the result of “speculation,” he said research had been carried out in the USA. The inquiry continues.

Scooniehill public inquiry set to begin

Gordon Berry, The Courier, 20 November 2000

The future of the £25 million golf and leisure development planned for the 460-acre Scooniehill site south of St Andrews hangs on the findings of a public inquiry which will start in the town tomorrow.

The eyes and ears of developers who have plans waiting in the wings for other prime land in the area are sure to be firmly focused on proceedings which are expected to last well into next week.

Among those expected to give evidence are councillors who successfully opposed the plans, the applicants and their supporters, representatives of a range of national conservation bodies and locally-based objectors.

Included in the proposals from the International Golf Club of St Andrews are two new golf courses, residential suites, leisure facilitates and a clubhouse.

The plans have been in the Fife Council pipeline in one form or another for two years, and during the process, concerns have been expressed over delays and the applicants expressed their "bewilderment" over confusion which arose as negotiations with the council proceeded.

The final application - which had been amended from an earlier version so that areas of built development would be less conspicuous - was rejected in spite of a positive recommendation from planning officials.

As a result, none of the council’s own planning experts will be giving evidence to support the refusal, and the local authority’s case will have to be put by elected members.

They will be led by the chairwoman of the council’s East Area development committee, councillor Frances Melville, who will have to justify reasons for refusal, which included prematurity and possible traffic impact.

Concern had also been expressed about construction vehicles, traffic impact in the town centre, difficulties in implementing proposals put forward in a green travel plan, and the fact that decisions were at that time still awaited about the possibility of a green belt around the town.

The applicants are sure to make great play of the fact that the council’s own planning officials, local councillor Peter Douglas, and the most directly affected community council, all backed the scheme.

They had put their weight behind the views of planners, who clearly stated in a report that the scheme would not be detrimental to the area.

A heavyweight group of objectors includes local bodies such as the community council and preservation trust, and national groups such as Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage.

The inquiry is being held in St Andrews Town Hall and the evidence is to be heard by Scottish Executive Reporter Ian Lumsden.