A planning hearing into controversial plans for a new Madras College on the edge of St Andrews was held at the Byre Theatre.
Around 150 people turned up, with both objectors and supporters taking to the stage to give their submissions on the proposal for a single campus Madras at Pipeland Farm, which sits in greenbelt land to the east of the A915 on the southern edge of the town.
Of those intending to speak, 23 objected to the proposal, 18 supported it and two were neutral. With such a long list of speakers, the hearing was set to be adjourned and continue on Saturday morning.
Those making objections were heard first.
First to address the hearing was former Madras College rector Lindsay Matheson who was speaking on behalf of the Campaign for a new Madras College for the 21st Century.
Mr Matheson was one of a number of speakers to suggest that building a school on the North Haugh site owned by St Andrews University was a better option.
He said developing the site at Pipelands would be problematic, with playing fields built on “severely sloping, damp and exposed terrain.”
Mr Matheson added: “We consider that a decision even in principle should not be made without comprehensive technical surveys and cost analysis.”
Kyffin Roberts from St Andrews Community Council echoed Mr Matheson in backing the North Haugh site, which he said the university had confirmed was available for a new Madras.
He continued: “The site proposed by Fife Council is in greenbelt, and prime agricultural land, and is significantly contrary to the local plan.
“The council should properly assess all the options and make these assessments publicly available before proceeding with this seriously flawed application.”
Local resident Penny Uprichard said members of the community had campaigned for almost two decades for a greenbelt, which she described as a “last chance to prevent the town from being swamped by development”.
Miss Uprichard said: “A new school is badly needed. We also have a pressing need for affordable housing in St Andrews and employment land.
“If councillors were to approve this proposal, could they defend greenbelt against other applications?”
Professor Alan Werrity said expensive flood prevention work would have to be carried out around the site and warned that the council could be liable for damage to neighbouring homes in the event of a storm.
The academic, who said he had seen correspondence between the council and Scottish Water, said both foul water and storm water drainage systems in the area were very close to capacity.
He added: “You can design SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) but there’s always the possibility of that being overtopped and if it is overtopped Fife Council would then become liable for the cost of flooding to north of the site.”
St Andrews parent Robert Tooze said: “I feel a mixture of anger, sadness and frustration, so I urge the council to find a truly viable option for this long needed school.”
Picture by George McLuskie