Sir, Reporting on the refusal of the West Sands Visitor Centre, The Courier editorial (October 17) stated: “St Andrews is still seen as a notoriously difficult place to secure planning permission.”
Some applications in St Andrews are refused, despite being almost invariably recommended for approval, but “notoriously difficult” is hardly accurate.
Across Scotland, 92.6% of applications are now decided by delegated officials without coming to committee. In Fife, those that are sent to committee are accompanied by very lengthy planning reports hundreds of pages sent to councillors three or four days before a meeting.
Objections are relegated to the back of reports as a list of “issues” said to have been addressed elsewhere in the reports.
After 20 years of campaigning, a green belt for St Andrews was achieved two years ago when the local plan was adopted. It was not the green belt included by Scottish Ministers in the 2002 structure plan (“to encircle the town”). Fife Council’s green belt will encircle the town and the western extension of more than 1,000 houses. In addition, there are 500 units at the Robertsons Homes site in Abbey Walk, originally intended to be 120 units, and numerous other developments within the town.
Despite the green belt policy in the local plan, since 2012 approved development in or partly in green belt has included 10 equestrian lodges at Brownhills Farm, student accommodation at Wonder Years Nursery, Grange House, and four applications at Feddinch Mains. The last mentioned are based on the original approval for a golf course, which apparently set the “precedent” for development in green belt.
They include a hotel for 160 people, a service yard, laundry store, buggy store, and a biomass plant with a 75-foot chimney all approved by councillors or Scottish Government reporters. “Notoriously difficult”? I don’t think so.
P M Uprichard. Littleridge, St Andrews.
Town can’t live forever in a time warp
Sir, The planning system in Scotland has its defenders and its detractors. It seems to have been shown up in the worst possible light over the question of a £1.6m investment in facilities at the West Sands at St Andrews (Courier, October 17).
Some councillors couldn’t take part in the decision because of a conflict of interest.
Then the chair of the north-east planning committee, Frances Melville, had to use a casting vote to resolve strong differences among eight elected members who voted.
It now appears that the refusal of the project means that hard-fought-for funding, from various sources, will be lost. It makes a mockery of Fife Council’s claim of support for job creation and community involvement.
Surely it wasn’t beyond the wit of the planners to devise a scheme that would have balanced the needs of both golfers and beach-combers?
A walk along the West Sands is a glorious experience in all sorts of weather. It helps preserve the sanity and positive outlook of many busy people. The need to give tourists and locals access to good catering and toilet facilities is long overdue. St Andrews cannot live forever in a 1950s time warp.
The sooner the decision on these facilities is reconsidered the better.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
Give these dogs a chance
Sir, I write regarding your article in Saturday’s Courier about new legal powers aimed at preventing dog attacks. While I condemn dangerous dogs and their owners, it annoys me that such reports are invariably accompanied by a picture of a Staffordshire bull terrier type dog.
I have the pleasure of knowing one such dog, recently rescued from a life in kennels purely because public opinion is being turned against them. This lovely dog is one of the couthiest, cuddliest and most faithful dogs you could wish for. Having been a dog owner for more than 30 years I know what I’m talking about.
Unfortunately “Staffie type” dogs look tough and are being used as such by unscrupulous owners, thereby giving the breed a bad name and resulting in an overload of them in rehoming kennels. Give these dogs a chance because, if you think you are looking at a bad Staffie you are probably looking at the wrong end of the lead!
Wilma Thom. 5 Turfbeg Avenue, Forfar.
Not a great “welcome”
Sir, Having read the article by Mark Pirie about the concerns raised by constituents of Councillor Macpherson, I totally agree with their complaints.
I drove Dundee’s Riverside Drive twice this week and I am surprised that the surface is the final one. I thought the job was not complete because it was so uneven and, thinking about it at the time, I reckoned the surface was not finished.
It is surely not acceptable for that surface to “welcome” visitors to what should be a wonderful waterfront development in a year or two?
I wonder why it does not seem possible nowadays for work to be completed satisfactorily at the first attempt.
An example that comes to mind is council staff going around marking potholes which require to be filled in, then they are back within a month or two having to do the same work over again as it has not been done properly in the first place.
It is such a waste of manpower and (our) money. Why not do the job properly to begin with, even if it does take a few extra minutes and costs a few extra pounds, in order to save money in the long run.
I do not blame the people doing the work but those in charge who do not provide the correct materials or sufficient time to complete it.
Maybe it is time that those who make the decisions paid much more attention to what their constituents want and say. It’s rather like the position the main political parties are in at present.
Ruth Gordon. Tayport.
Location of Kirrie PO
Sir, I must agree with J R Smith (letters, October 17), re the future location of the Kirriemuir Post Office. It certainly looks like a “done deal” with the usual sham consultation.
The present location has served the town well, located next to the main sheltered housing complexes, near the local authority and police offices, a short walk from the town centre main car park, the main local supermarket and it also has car parking right next to the building.
The proposed new location has no parking other than the spaces used by the shop-keeper. During school term at lunch times this area is the meeting place for dozens of school kids who use the local facilities.
Why can the existing building not be cleaned up and refurbished so that a new franchisee can be found?
I feel strongly that our elected councillors, both Angus and community council, should be giving the public their support as Kirriemuir has been created into a dormitory/retirement town due to successive planning policies.
Surely a town of our size with an ageing population should have a Post Office in an accessible location?
So come on, councillors, let us hear you publicly making a stand to have the existing building retained.
Jim Strathearn. Lochmill, Kirriemuir.
Benefited from union too
Sir, I read with interest Mr Key’s letter about some of the reasons for independence. He lists all the negative things allegedly done to Scots because of the union. I would say that while Scotland undoubtedly did suffer it also prospered from the union and Scots made a massive contribution to the UK.
They might not have had the same opportunities had Scotland remained a small independent country although I stand to be corrected, I’m sure! Many Scots took advantage of the budding British Empire as it expanded and made fortunes which gave us the basis for much of Scottish industry.
I accept a lot needs to be done to improve the lot for thousands of Scots, although I’m not certain how, exactly, one defines poverty in a realistic way.
I’ve worked in some of the poorest areas of Dundee and at times wondered about the priorities of some who were unemployed and clearly had little intention of taking any available jobs but could still somehow afford to smoke and live on take- away food.
No doubt there are many in poverty through no fault of their own who would appreciate support in the form of jobs with decent pay, but I’m not certain that independence could deliver as many jobs as was claimed.
Finally, Mr Key talks about just needing a 6% swing for independence. I feel that a simple majority for independence is not sensible. I feel that independence should be supported by a much greater proportion of voters, such as 66%, as this would give a clearer statement of support. When we had the vote for devolution the percentage was much more convincing.
Patrick Marks. 40 Lawmill Gardens, St Andrews.
Need to deliver on The Vow
Sir, D Urquart (letters, October 18) should take time to emphasise the positives of a party that has seen its membership base quadruple within a matter of a few weeks.
Having fully accepted a very close vote in the referendum, the task of the SNP’s 80,000 members is to hold Westminster to account, in particular with regard to The Vow that was made by the three party leaders and drawn up by Gordon Brown.
If the additional powers and resources cannot be delivered to the Scottish Parliament in the timescale promised and at a level that was in Gordon Brown’s own words “as close to federalism as we can get” then what confidence can we have in Westminster being responsible for anything in Scotland ?
More than 80,000 SNP members wait with bated breath. Another 1.6 million wait in the wings. Scotland expects.
Douglas Chapman. 38 Pitbauchlie Bank, Dunfermline.
His thinking is illogical
Sir, Your correspondent, D Urquhart, in his letter in Saturday’s Courier appears to think that because the No side got 55% of the vote in the independence referendum this will endanger seats held by the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.
I find his thinking somewhat illogical. The SNP won a “landslide” victory by gaining 44% of votes cast in 2011 and would achieve a similar result if 45% of voters opt for them in 2016! Mr Urquhart seems to overlook the fact that the 55% No vote would be split four ways, between the “unholy alliance” of Tories, Labour, UKIP and Lib Dems.
Mr Urquhart also equates the fact that Yes voters intend to continue to work for independence with “refusing to accept the power of a democratic vote”. This, again, is rather twisted logic. Does he expect Scottish Labour not to contest the 2016 Scottish election because they were drubbed in 2011?
Mr Urquhart urges respect for the democratic process but fails to mention the desperate, unprecedented and wholly undemocratic offer of extra powers for Scotland in the event of a No vote which was made very late in the campaign.
This offer was not made for fun. It was made because opinion polls (and presumably private polling carried out by the No campaign) suggested that the positive case put forward by the Yes campaign was going to win the day.
Alan Woodcock. 23 Osborne Place, Dundee.
Why is debate still going on?
Sir, Why the continuing debate about the referendum? Each side argued its case with information that presumably varied between absolute truth and complete fiction, liberally seasoned with guesswork and insult. The electorate then decided what was what, and voted accordingly. What else is there to say?
Malcolm Parkin. 15 Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.