Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council

Monthly Meeting 5th January, 1998 - MINUTES

Approved

Present

Mr. Macgregor (Chairman), Mr. Crichton, Mr. Fraser, Dr. Goudie, Mr. D. Macdonald, Mr. M. Macdonald, Mrs. Mackenzie, Mr. MacMillan, Mr. Paterson, Dr. Reid, Dr. Riddell, Mr. Sangster, Mr. Strachan. Student Representative Mr. P. Corrigan and Councillors Cassells, Liston and Melville.

1. Apologies:

Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Tero, Mrs. Stewart- Meiklejohn, Mrs. Carleton, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Gray, Mr. Risk, Mrs. Murray and Mrs. Cassells.

2. Submissions from members of the public

Mrs. Frances Nicoll from North East Fife Stroke Club spoke about the need for the Club for a reliable minibus service to take patients back and forth. Mr. Corrigan agreed to take the matter up with the Student Voluntary Service.

3. Minutes of the Council Meeting of 1st December, 1997

In item 6 under "Cycling Proposals" it was noted that the paper came from Dr. Goudie and not Mrs. Murray. In the same paragraph the named of the Head of Transportation is Mr. Bryan not Bayne. With these amendments the Minutes of the Meeting of 1st December were accepted.

4. Matters arising

(a) Housing Sites

For report only

(b) Local Radio

Dr. Riddell inquired if the firm had been asking for a contact in the Community Council.

The Secretary replied that in his recollection they had not.

(c) Electoral Boundaries

Dr. Goudie circulated a paper containing alternative proposals for local ward boundaries, which he had sent in with the approval of the Finance & General Purposes Committee. The Chairman proposed a vote of thanks to him and Mrs. Goudie.

(d) Green Belt

Dr. Reid enquired if there had been any further action on this point. Dr. Goudie replied that the Planning Committee had not yet concluded its deliberations.

After much discussion, Mr. D. Macdonald proposed and Dr. Reid seconded, a motion that the Council should take up the offer of a place on the Committee which the Preservation Trust had set up.

Mr. M. Macdonald (seconded by Dr. Goudie) proposed an amendment that the decision be postponed for a month to let the Planning Committee form a view. The amendment was passed by 9 votes to 2 and it was agreed to place the matter on next month's agenda.

Dr. Reid enquired if there was any objection if he sought membership of the Committee as a private individual. It was agreed there was no objection.

5. Correspondence

(a) Citizenship Commission

The invitation was passed to the Youth Committee.

(b) Draft Children’s Services Plan

(c) MoBUS.

These were passed to the Welfare Committee

(d) Hall Bookings

It was agreed to make these. It was noted that an election was due on May 14th and that it would have to be checked whether a meeting on June 1st was valid under the constitution.

(e) Maritime Fife

For report only.

(f) Dog Warden Newsletter.

Dr. Reid urged the Fife Councillors to take more effective action against dog nuisances.

(g) Kate Kennedy Club

The Club wrote asking if there were any suggestions for new characters.

(h) Senior Citizens Christmas Party.

The Chairman proposed a vote of thanks to those involved.

6. Matters raised by Committees

(a) Recreation

(See separate sheet). Mr Crichton explained that the Committee had not been of one mind with regard to the “Adult Citizen of the Year” and wished the full council to make the decision. It was agreed not to proceed with the idea

Regarding St. Andrew’s Day, it was noted that the St. Andrew’s Week Committee was responsible for co-ordinating events. Mrs Stewart-Meiklejohn had been our representative on it, but had not been well enough to attend recently. It was agreed that Mr Crichton should act as substitute meanwhile. It was also agreed that he should form a St Andrew’s Day sub-committee of the Council and co-opt interested members.

Mr Strachan reported that he had been trying to contact the sponsor of the Band Concerts but had had not reply yet. If none came, he might have to approach the Common Good Fund.

(b) Planning

(See separate sheet). Regarding the Strategic Study, Dr. Goudie explained the need for wide public consultation. After a discussion on the best way to do this, it was agreed that the Planning Committee should draft the text of a leaflet for public distribution, explaining the three options. This draft should then be taken to a joint meeting of the Planning and the Finance & General Purposes Committees, plus any other member who wished to attend. Once it had been distributed, a public meeting should be organised.

Mr Corrigan asked what was the Council’s position on the proposed extension to the Students' Union. Dr Riddell said we had objected to it in August, 1996 and had not discussed it since.

Dr. Riddell requested that in view of the fact that he worked in the Purdie Building he should be dissociated from the Planning Committee’s objection to the alterations there.

7. Mrs Melville

explained that the Council was willing to consider proposals for experimental lengths (up to 8OOm) of 20 m.p.h. speed limits. Dr. Riddell suggested one in the area of Kilrymont Road near the school. It was agreed to put this one forward.

8. Other matters of public concern

(a) notice Board

Mr D Macdonald said that the present agents of Mercat Wynd were willing to allow a Community Council notice board there, but it would have to be done before the new agents took possession. It was agreed that he should obtain an estimate and proceed if this amounted to less than £75.

Mr M Macdonald suggested that Fife Council might consider a notice board outside the Local Office. Councillor Cassells agreed to investigate this.

Planning

Report of the PLANNING COMMITTEE Meetings of 8.12.97 and 11.12.97 for the Community Council Meeting of 5 January 1998.
1. Planning Applications.
(i) Purdie Building, North Haugh.

An objection was submitted to the application by the University to erect two 4-storey service towers on the north and east wings of the Purdie building. Whilst not questioning the need for the proposed towers, we considered that both their design and their finish would, in our view, detract even from their modest surroundings, which we would in no way wish to portray as one of the more sensitive or architecturally valuable parts of the town. The proposed inclusion of a few ‘portholes’ would do little to break the monotony of these substantial surfaces or to render them more in keeping with the existing building. The least attractive aspect of the application, however, is the metallic silver finish to the towers, which could only serve to draw attention to structures which would be better hidden. Clearly though it would be completely impossible to hide a 4-storey tower, and so screening would not be a solution.

(ii) Proposed garage block, Lawhead West.

In view of the Community Council’s frequently voiced belief that play areas should be located where they can be easily overlooked, an objection was submitted to the application to erect a garage block between the flats and the play area. In our view the problem could be solved by locating the garage block, not on the northern side of the car parking area for the flats, but on its eastern side, parallel to the site boundary. We also took the opportunity of commenting on the importance of direct access to the play area from the flats.

(iii) 130 Market Street.

The committee felt that the proposed signs advertising Bingo and Amusements did little to enhance the Conservation Area. Mr Crichton agreed to consider placing a formal objection.

2. Recent developments.
(i) Proposed housing development, Craigtoun Road.

The East Area Development Committee has approved the granting of outline permission for this development, subject to a list of conditions. Amongst the points covered by these conditions are a number of aspects which we had been highlighting, including the need to restrict the number of dwellings to the notional capacity of 160 units given in the Local Plan. There are also conditions restricting the development to two-storeys and requiring it to avoid overlooking or overshadowing neighbouring residential property.

(ii) Hepburn Hall substation.

Earlier in the year we objected to the granting of retrospective planning permission for the unsightly cover. This has now been removed.

3. Draft Alteration to the Structure Plan.

Some comments were submitted on this document. We had argued several years ago that the housing land requirement should be for all tenures and were therefore pleased to see this principle adopted. We questioned one or two further aspects of the methodology, including the failure to take adequate notice of the student population when decomposing the area household projections. We had also argued previously that small site completions should contribute to meeting the housing land requirement, and therefore welcomed the partial adoption of this idea for the East Area, but argued that it needs to be implemented in a more whole-hearted manner if the East Area is to be treated on an equal footing with the other two areas.

4. Strategic Study.

The East Area Development Committee has approved the basis for a Strategic Study Consultation Report, which will be submitted to the Strategic Development Committee this month. The report will outline three development options for the town:

  1. No Further Development;
  2. Western Expansion; and
  3. Western and Southern Expansion.

Once the report is published, a staffed exhibition will be staged in St Andrews. The Area Planning Manager hopes to have completed public consultation on the Strategic Study by the end of March.