Warning to golf developers

Michael Alexander, The Courier, 31 January 2004

The applicant behind a proposed new multi-million pound golf and leisure development near St Andrews has got a “sticky albatross called St Andrews Bay around its neck” and the situation will stay that way until councillors are satisfied transport problems experienced with that application are not repeated.

That was made clear at a special meeting in the small rural community of Cameron, at which councillors stressed the need for an “extremely robust travel plan” to avoid a repeat of the damage caused to local roads by construction traffic servicing the St Andrews Bay Resort at Kingask several years ago.

Plans from the St Andrews International Golf Club (SIGC) for a 244-acre site at Feddinch, to the south-west of the town, have already divided opinion in the area, although it has been made clear there is broad local support, with the local community council and local rural dwellers leading calls for the application to be approved.

Thursday night’s departure hearing, held in advance of the full Fife Council east area development committee meeting, gave the applicants the opportunity to outline their plans, and objectors and supporters the chance to express their views publicly for the first time.

Although no decision was made at the meeting, and no recommendation either for or against has yet been made by planning officials, the discussion will inform the eventual recommendation of the full committee.

The applicants want to create a golf course, clubhouse, 40 luxury suites for the use of members, leisure facilities including a swimming pool, conference rooms, office accommodation and a greenkeeper’s store.

With the site lying close to the existing Duke’s Course at Craigtoun, the applicants want to create a private golf club catering for both overseas and home-based members.

In his presentation, SIGC representative Euan Mackay highlighted the success of the golf development at Loch Lomond and said St Andrews was currently “missing out” on this kind of exclusive club.

He said SIGC’s worldwide research had shown Feddinch to be an “extremely attractive proposition” with potential members attracted by unrestricted play and the chance of ownership.

He said the St Andrews International Golf Club would “fill the gap” for an overseas market which wanted a “home from home at the home of golf.”

He rejected claims by some objectors that the luxury suites were a “hotel” and denied the application was prejudiciary to a St Andrews green belt.

Highlighting the economic benefits the development would bring to the area and the improvements to a currently derelict farm steading, he noted there had been as many letters of support as there had been objection, but no public weight of opposition against the plans.

He noted that the recently- built course at Kingsbarns and the two at St Andrews Bay had shown how they could “fit well” into the landscape.

The development would bring good opportunities for careers in the leisure industry as well as part-time employment.

With the failed Gateway project still in many people’s minds, he also stated that construction would only start once at least £7 million worth of membership was secured. Completion of the project would then be guaranteed by a performance bond.

According to national policy, golf courses were acceptable in a green belt and with the local plan set to put forward the proposed boundaries of the St Andrews green belt by September this year, he felt golf courses offered greater protection from coalescence and urban sprawl than a green belt would.

The applicant was giving an undertaking to repair the Smiddy Cottage culvert on the A915 taking away the frustrating need for traffic lights imposed several years ago as a result of weight restrictions.

The applicant reckoned traffic generated by the development would be “negligible”— although, with Fife Council transport manager Peter Milne predicting 163 vehicle movements in and 163 vehicle movements out per day once up and running, they would be prepared to go along with his desire for a green travel plan.

But the chairman of the east area development committee, Frances Melville, said there was a distinct feeling of “deja vu” when someone mentioned a green travel plan.

She referred to St Andrews Bay and the damage caused to small roads, primarily by sub-contracted construction traffic.

Particular concern was expressed about possible damage to the Lumbo Road and railway bridge.

Councillor Peter Douglas took this point further.

He said St Andrews Bay had “promised the Earth” and did incredible damage to minor roads in his Crail, Cameron and Kemback ward.

He said these roads were repaired but were “never the same since.” He subsequently had a “very very jaundiced view” of such matters.

He also said he was “not pleased” with Mr Milne at the transport service as councillors had still not seen the St Andrews Bay travel plan in detail, despite requests.

He warned the Feddinch developers, “You’ve got a sticky albatross called St Andrews Bay around your neck and that is going to stay that way until we are satisfied.”

Former St Andrews Community Council chairman Dr Frank Riddell argued that to accept the Feddinch application would run contrary to the grounds for refusal cited in the Scooniehill application, supported by the Reporter at a public inquiry.

Visible on rising ground to the south west, he argued that the Feddinch development would have a detrimental effect on the landscape setting and amenity of St Andrews and called for “consistency” on planning matters concerning St Andrews.

St Andrews Preservation Trust also claimed that a “hotel by any other name” in the countryside would be contrary to the Fife Structure Plan and prejudicial to a green belt.

Concern was expressed that the new buildings would be visible from the historic core of St Andrews town centre.

But Gordon Ball, the secretary of the local Cameron Community Council, gave the application support.

The community council did not want floodlighting or the C-class Lumbo road used for access, however.

They also wanted it made a stringent condition that the A915 culvert was repaired. He reckoned the employment and environmental benefits at a time when farming still seeks methods of diversification had to bring approval overall.

The application will be determined at an as yet unspecified future meting of Fife Council’s east area development committee.