ROYAL BURGH OF ST ANDREWS COMMUNITY COUNCIL
There will be a Monthly Meeting on Monday 3rd June, 1996, in the Council Chamber of the Town Hall at 7 p.m.
Agenda
1. Apologies.
2. Submissions from members of the public.
3. Minutes of the Council Meeting of 6th May and 27th May, 1996.
4. Matters arising:-
(a) Possible use of Council Office
The Fife Council has proposed a meeting with the Local Office Manager to discuss this.
(b) Community Council Election
A set of detailed results have been made available.
5. Matters raised by Committees
6. Matters raised by Fife Councillors.
7. Other matters of public concern.
(a) East Fife Area Committee
A letter has been received pointing out that the main headings of the agenda are in future top be sent to Community Councils before each meeting. Another describes procedure for the meetings.
(b) Citizenship Commission of Fife Council
The next meeting to be on Thursday 20th June at 2 p.m. in the County Hall, Cupar.
(c) Planning procedures
A letter has been received from the Fife Council offering to discuss with Community Councils how mechanisms can best be developed to facilitate the processing of planning applications.
(d) Fife Environmental Action Programme
The Annual Report has been received.
(e) VORAG (Fife)
An annual report has been received with an invitation to the A.G.M. in Glenrothes on 12th June.
Letter to Mr J M Birrell, Area Planning manager (East), by Ian Goudie
Processing of planning applications
We are pleased to hear that the Fife Council is interested in holding discussions with community councils on the processing of planning applications. We had in fact agreed to write to you seeking a meeting in view of our dissatisfaction with the way some matters have been handled since the formation of the new Council.
The matter which first provoked consternation on the Community Council was the intimation that the proposed new signs for Safeway and for the golfers car park had been granted approval before our objections had been received. This came as a particular shock to me since I knew that you had received the letters on May 8, and, while I was sent no acknowledgement of receipt of the objection to the Safeway signs. two copies of an acknowledgement in respect of the golfers' car park were sent to me in the same envelope on May 15. 1 naturally assumed that one had been intended to refer to Safeway. This letter contained the sentence '1 will write to you again once a final decision on this application has been reached, but I hope that this interim reply is helpful". Two days later, on May 17, letters were sent stating that both applications had been determined prior to receipt of my letters on May 8. This kind of administration is clearly unsatisfactory and could easily give rise to suspicions of impropriety.
On the assumption that the above narrative describes poor administration rather than impropriety. I have offered the Community Council my apologies for failing to ensure that their views were heard. It is a matter of some disappointment to us that many of our comments on the proliferation of signs at Safeway, some of which we regarded as rather obvious, have not been picked tip by any other body or by officials. In our view the new development will now cause greater environmental damage than need have happened. We trust, however, that our comments will be borne in mind when the exact number and position of the signs are submitted to you for approval as required by condition 2 of the consent.
It is nonetheless clear that there is an urgent need for greater clarity in the deadlines by which comments on planning applications must be submitted. At present there is only the rather imprecise 14 day formula, together with indication in the Scottish Office documentation that due allowance must be made for time lost while documents are in the post. The Scottish Office considers that two days should be adequate in most areas, with a maximum of 4 days in remote and island areas. I understand that the practice in Cupar is to allow only a single day. This is in our view inadequate. We would suggest, however, that the key requirement is that, rather than the present formula, all plans that we request should he clearly marked with the precise date and time by which comments must be received.
You may perhaps feel that the onus is on us to be more efficient in our consideration of applications. As is evident from the weekly planning lists, however, the workload on this Community Council is greater than that on any other community council in East Fife. So, while we will no doubt reconsider our own procedures, it is perhaps not surprising that our submissions tend to he made towards the end of the consultation period.
It is also unrealistic to expect those of us who try to carry out these tasks in between professional, family and other commitments to display greater efficiency than your full time staff. Since being asked by the Community Council to draft a letter on this matter, I have received the revised plans for the redevelopment of the Byre Theatre. The accompanying letter seeks comments within 14 days of the date of the letter, which was May 23. The franking on the envelope indicates that the plans were in fact posted first class on May 27, and reached me the following morning, May 28, so that 5 of the 14 days had already elapsed. This case suggests that the 14 day deadline is simply unrealistic, but I assume that, if the requirements of the Scottish Office are to be met, we have no option but to attempt to make it work.
There is a further inconsistency in the system which may in fact offer some scope for manoeuvre. In cases where the application is one which needs to be advertised in the local press, it makes little sense to impose an earlier deadline on a corporate body such as the Community Council to that which is required of individual members of the public who have only their own thoughts to organise and present. In such circumstances, we would urge that the specified deadline should be the later of the two dates in question.
We appreciate that the change in local government structure has no doubt been disruptive on working methods at County Buildings, but it is clearly important to try to improve the system before further mistakes occur. We would welcome therefore a meeting to attempt to resolve these matters, and believe that such a meeting might wish to consider other aspects of the procedure such as the scheme for delegating to officials those applications deemed less major.
Letter to Mr JM Birrell Area Planning Manager, by Ian Goudie
Redevelop theatre (demolish existing),
The Byre Theatre, Abbey Street, St Andrews.
I write on behalf of the Community Council in respect of the revised plans for the redevelopment of the theatre. While we continue to welcome the prospect of better theatre facilities for the town, our overall reactions to these new plans differ little from our responses to the earlier application. We must express some disappointment that relatively few of our concerns appear to have been addressed, and that, while some of the comparatively minor changes that have been made are ones that we would endorse, others seem only to aggravate problems that we have previously identified.
The worries that have been voiced about the overall height of the building in relation to the adjacent properties on that side of Abbey Street are not allayed by the new plans. While a split-level ridge-line is a welcome modification in itself, we note that this appears to be achieved by increasing the height of the section above the fly-tower by about a further two feet rather than making a reduction elsewhere. This is certainly a policy of no compromise with those concerned about the total height under the previous plans.
Our comments on the changes to the appearance of the proposed building are mixed. Although it can still be argued that the cylindrical structure on the northern side is out of character with the architectural style of St Andrews, the use of sandstone rather than a rendered finish is clearly an improvement. On the other hand we regard the substantial increase in the amount of louvre cladding as a step in the wrong direction. Although it may assist in subdividing what would otherwise be a large blank wall, this is a style that is not associated with this area. Assuming that wood is the material in question. there are, of course, practical reasons why it is not commonly used here. The effects of the weather and the salt air on the eastern side of a building in this location are particularly severe, and it will be hard to stop it soon looking shabby.
Within a conservation area we believe that the architectural style should be a matter of evolution rather than revolution, and, in our view, the proposed theatre makes too few concessions to the vernacular style. This is particularly evident in the excessive use of glazing on the side of the building facing Abbey Street. We still see as incongruous the glazed frontage of the scenery dock, which appears to be around 15 feet high, and the slanting strips of glass between the roof levels that are visible above the house at 14 Abbey Street.
The removal of the north-west corner of the restaurant is a small but useful improvement. but the sheer size of the building is still likely to give the pend a claustrophobic atmosphere. We note with interest that the tree positions have been 'updated": we too have had difficulty keeping track of their movements. When the model was offered to public inspection the trees to the south of the St Leonard's building adjoining Abbey Street had been omitted, while a large mature tree was shown in the pend. If the new plan purports to show which of the existing trees will not be felled. one at least looks too close to survive a major building project. Unfortunately. if this development goes ahead, the loss of the greenness of the existing pend would seem inevitable.
A number of our objections to the previous application are equally pertinent to these new plans. We still object to the extension of the proposed building over the pend to the wall of the Lang Rigg. If, however, this is not a matter of concern to councillors, we would reiterate our view that there should at least be an archway faced in stone, rather than a tunnel of rectangular cross-section. There also still seems to be a rather cavalier disregard of the impact of the proposal on the adjacent properties in Abbey Street.
It is a matter of regret, if not of surprise, that more attention has not been paid to our suggestions that the impact of the building could be significantly reduced by lowering the auditorium by a storey or by rotating the layout by ISO degrees. It is customary for developers to maintain that suggested changes are impossible, but the experience of the long discussions over the St Nicholas site is that ideas originally dismissed as out of the question can eventually form the basis of revised applications. Equally we believe that the goal of achieving a new theatre that does not rise more than one standard storey height above the existing roof line of Abbey Street is one that is worth continuing to pursue.
There remains within this Community Council and within the town itself a range of views on the acceptability of this application. We would again argue that the public should be offered full and accessible information on what the proposal entails if a clearer response is to be forthcoming. As we indicated at the Public Inquiry on the Local Plan the use of poles or scaffolding to indicate the outline, or at least the roofline, of proposed buildings is one very valuable component in attempting to build up a complete picture, and we would urge that this should be done in the present case. The costs involved would be minor compared to that of the project as a whole, while the reluctance to provide such information raises doubts which may be prove to be unfounded. It is not hard to think of major post-war buildings in this town where. following construction, the granting of planning permission has been viewed by many with disbelief, even though, if the truth be told, little public interest was evident prior to the event. The best way to avoid this in the present instance is to supplement the various representations currently offered by the applicant, which give a good idea of the quality of the building, by physical demonstration on the ground of its size. This should allow a balanced judgement to be formed.
Report of the PLANNING COMMITTEE Meetings of 27.5.96 and 31.5.96 for the Community Council Meeting of 3 June 1996.
1. Byre Theatre. Revised plans for the redevelopment of the theatre were received on Tuesday 28 May. In view of the implied deadline of 6 June, a special meeting of the planning committee was held on Friday 31 May, and a response is being prepared.
2. Other Planning Applications.
(i) Fascia signs. It was agreed to object to the applications by the Abbey National, in Greyfriars Garden, and by the Castle Tavern. In both cases an internally illuminated sign is proposed.
(ii) Madras FP, Station Park. The club has applied to erect pole-mounted floodlights alongside a pitch at the western end of the park, and to erect a garage near the clubhouse. Clarification will be sought on the height of the poles to determine their visual impact. A primary concern is whether drivers on the A91 will be dazzled by these lights, and we shall also question whether there will be interference with either or both of the University Observatory and the golf driving range. The proposed garage will be visible to those leaving the town on the A91, and it was agreed to seek a design more in keeping with the style of the clubhouse.
(iii) Fife Park. There was broad approval of the University's application to make a major improvement to the lighting in this area, but Mrs Murray will write to indicate our preference for white light.
(iv) Temporary office accommodation, West Burn Lane. Although there was no objection to the office accommodation sought in this application by the University, it was thought that the University should be pressed to make good the net loss of 10 car-parking spaces, which would disappear for the 18 month period in question.
3. Fife Healthcare. A meeting was held on May 8 between representatives of the Community Council and Fife Healthcare to consider further the issues relating to the physical development of a new healthcare facility in St Andrews. Mr Alistair Coutts (Director of Operations) provided an overview of the Trust's position with regards to capital funding and the need to go forward with a private finance initiative. Once Fife Health Board award the tender for services in N.E. Fife, in November this year, the successful trust will be required to seek private finance for the new build. A joint consortium will be identified and tenders sought. Mr Coutts pointed out that private finance is still a new concept in health services and where work is progressing in this area, it generally involves a consortium of a financial institution and a construction firm.
Members of the Community Council pointed out that any development should be considered in the context of the Local Plan for St Andrews. Dr Matthewson (GP in St Andrews) pointed out the importance of involving the community in discussions on proposals and developments. He agreed to attend a meeting of the Community Council at some point in the future. A follow-up meeting will be held in due course to pick up on aspects of the physical development.
Structure and Functions of Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council
Report and Recommendations from Office-Bearers' meeting of 28 May
1. Membership of Community Council:
Merchants' Association nominee is required, Secretary to write.
2. Representatives of CC to the following outside bodies fall to be appointed: Byre Theatre, Cosmos Centre, Harbour Trust, East Sands Leisure Centre (if extant); there may be others
3. Common Good Fund applications: it is suggested that two of the three nominees represent the CC to consult with Fife Councillors with the third as substitute - from Mr A Muir, Mr A. Strachan, Mrs C. Tero.
4. Finance: (Mr M MacDonald to speak)
(i) It is proposed that a third member be sought to help the Treasurer, Mr M MacDonald, and the Commercial Activities organizer (Mr A Muir) in their work.
(ii) It is proposed that in future an annual budget be prepared and submitted to appropriate officers of Fife Council.
(iii) It is proposed that Chairs of Committees be allocated a (renewable) £25 float - so as to minimise the Treasurer's petty cash transactions.
5 Committee Structure:
It is proposed that there be 4 Committees of the CC as well as two sub-committees responsible directly to it.
These would be:
Finance and General Purposes (meeting as convened by Chairman, approx. 6-8 week intervals): Chairman, Vice-Chairmen, Secretary, Treasurer, Chairmen of Planning, Recreation and Welfare (see below). This would subsume Publicity, Local Govt Reform and International Links sub-committees.
There would be three main committees. In each case it is proposed that an ad hoc chairman be asked to convene an initial meeting.
Planning (ad hoc chairman Dr I Goudie)
Recreation (to include competitions, floral baskets, golf, 200 Club, bandstand concerts) (ad hoc chairman Mrs Y Stuart-Meiklejohn)
Welfare (to include education, health, environmental health, Senior Citizens' Christmas Party, Licensing) (ad hoc chairman Mr C McLeod)
Millennium Sub-Committe (ad hoc chairman Mr K Fraser) and the Cycle Sub-committee (ad hoc chairman Dr I Goudie) would continue from the previous CC.
Membership of Committees: it is recommended that members indicate their interest in being on specific committees by ticking a list to be circulated. Committees would meet within a specified period after the June CC meeting to decide on chairman and meeting pattern etc.
Office Accommodation: It is recommended that the Council nominate Mr A Strachan and Mr A Muir to represent it at a meeting (proposed in a letter to Secretary) with a Fife Council official on this question. The workload of the Secretary was also discussed but no definitive conclusion reached.
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Finance
Following a recent meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee, various ways of improving our operations and general profile were discussed.
The undernoted matters are now being put forward to the full membership of the Council for their consideration and hopefully approval.
Comments would be appreciated.
Treasurer
1. To avoid the need for issue of numerous small cheques each convenor of sub-committees should be given a float of £25. This would only be replenished upon receipt of appropriate documents by the Treasurer.
2. A detailed Budget of our activities should be created and presented with our accounts for the last financial year to the Fife Council to endeavour to justify a more realistic working capital. - Particularly as it appears as though we are going to be charged for every let of the Council Chambers or Court Room facilities for Planning Meetings.
3. With the Financial position being as tight as it is we must consider further ways of raising more of our own money. We could perhaps raise more money from allowing the use of our Coat of Arms.
With this in mind we would propose that we elect a financial assistant to work on such projects and work closely with the Treasurer and other Committee Convenors.
Recreation & Leisure Committee Report for meeting Monday 3rd June, 1996
1. The R. & A. have very kindly presented a lovely Rose Bowl with a very wide brief for gardens, improved areas, public or private properties as described in the report below.
"The competitions take place mid-July/mid-August depending on the weather conditions. This year it will be later than usual because of harsh conditions. The trophies are St. Andrews Garden Centre Shield for shops and businesses, Bank of Scotland Quaich for hotels, Halcro Tait Shield for Guest Houses, Pagan Osborne Cup for window boxes and hanging baskets, Recreation Committee Trophy for Courtyards and patios. The new R. & A. Trophy we think might be given for particularly attractive and well maintained areas in the town e.g. Botanic Garden, Church garden or front house garden brightening up a very dull area. Presentation of cups, trophies and certificates with small monetary awards are given in September at a reception in the Council Chamber to which all Community Councillors and Fife Councillors are invited. J. Mackenzie".
2. Cosmos Centre - Cynthia Tero. Arrangements for the 25th Anniversary celebrations are continuing. It would be appreciated if councillors would support some if not all of the events. Please contact Mr. Sangster or Mr. M. Macdonald with any offers or requests for further information.
3. Boots Photographic Competition. Forms for this competition can be collected from Boots, South Street, Tourist Office and the Public library.
4. Next meeting of the Recreation Committee will be held on Tuesday 4th June, 6.30 for 200 Club and 7 p.m. for Recreation Committee at 6 Howard Place. Meetings have always been held at 6 Howard Place - this saves money for the Community Council - other conveners of committees also follow this practice.
5. 200 Club Draw - Mr. Archie Strachan.