Dear Cllrs Liston, Clark, Verner and Lawson

Fife Council’s proposal to remove 41 car parking spaces from South Street in St. Andrews raises significant concerns for residents, businesses, and visitors alike. While the idea may stem from a desire to promote sustainable transport or reduce congestion, the broader implications suggest that the removal of these spaces could have more negative than positive outcomes for the community.

1. Economic Impact on Local Businesses:
South Street is a vital commercial artery in St. Andrews, home to a range of independent shops, cafes, and restaurants that depend heavily on foot traffic and the accessibility of nearby parking. Removing 41 parking spaces could deter potential customers, particularly those who drive into town from surrounding areas. The convenience of parking close to their destination is a significant factor in shoppers’ decision-making. If parking becomes more challenging, these customers may choose to shop elsewhere, possibly in larger, less charming retail centers that offer free and abundant parking. The loss of revenue could be devastating for small businesses, especially in the current economic climate where many are still recovering from the effects of the pandemic.

2. Accessibility Concerns:
St. Andrews is not only a shopping destination but also a hub for services and amenities. The removal of parking spaces will disproportionately affect elderly residents, people with disabilities, and families with young children, for whom easy access to South Street is essential. For many, public transport or walking is not a viable alternative due to physical limitations or the need to transport heavy items. If these groups are forced to park further away or face difficulty finding parking at all, their ability to engage with the town center will be significantly hampered, leading to social isolation and a reduced quality of life.

3. Impact on Tourism:
St. Andrews is renowned globally, not only as the home of golf but also for its historical significance and picturesque charm. Tourism is a cornerstone of the local economy, and the ease of access plays a critical role in ensuring that visitors have a positive experience. Visitors who are unable to find convenient parking may be discouraged from exploring the town, particularly those who are visiting for a short time. This could lead to a decline in the number of day-trippers and a reduction in spending at local businesses, further exacerbating economic challenges.

4. Increased Congestion and Environmental Concerns:
While the intention behind removing parking spaces might be to increase walking cycling and reduce congestion, it could have the opposite effect. Drivers may spend more time circling the area in search of available spots, leading to increased traffic and pollution in the town center. Moreover, without a viable alternative centrally located car park in place and no park-and-ride system or additional peripheral parking options—the removal of spaces could simply shift shoppers to other parts of town or out of town altogether.

5. Undermining Public Confidence in Local Government:
Decisions like these can have a broader impact on public trust in local government. If residents feel that their concerns are not being adequately addressed or that the council is not considering the full range of consequences, it can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and frustration. Engaging with the community through consultations and considering alternative solutions that balance the needs of all stakeholders is crucial for maintaining trust and ensuring that local governance is effective and responsive.
The councils consultation was not independent
It was the Fife Councils active travel and sustainability lead who solely wrote the questions with no input from the businesses whose livelihoods depend on the parking provision in town
Stantec did not consult with the town Business Improvement District before the consultation.
After the flawed consultation which showed no majority BID again had no input in the flawed proposed plans now with planning.
Surely a representative input for the initial consultation from the businesses whose livelihoods are directly affected by the proposal should have been done at the outset.

6. Alternative Solutions:
Rather than removing the parking spaces outright, Fife Council could explore alternative solutions that address the town centre without negatively impacting accessibility or local businesses. This could include measures such as introducing and increasing more time-limited parking to increase turnover, enhancing public transport links to encourage visitors to leave their cars on the outskirts, or even creating incentives for the use of more sustainable forms of transport. Another possibility could be the creation of a multi-level car park nearby, which could offset the loss of spaces on South Street while minimizing the footprint on the town.
It is essential that this needs to be implemented before changing the town centre as is.
It should be returned to precovid conditions before we lose more shops in the town.

In conclusion, while the goal of and promoting active travel and sustainability is commendable, the removal of 41 car parking spaces from South Street in St. Andrews could have far-reaching negative consequences. The potential economic impact on local businesses, the reduced accessibility for vulnerable groups, and the possible deterrence to tourism are significant concerns that must be carefully weighed. Fife Council should consider alternative strategies that achieve the same objectives without compromising the vibrancy and inclusivity of the town centre.

I implore all of you to make your voices heard and support the town centre shops survival.

Yours

Eric Milne
Buchanan Gardens
St Andrews

It will be interesting to hear how the government intends to address this issue.

Looking forward to seeing how this unfolds!

Firstly the 3.5m pavement space mentioned above has had permission for street furniture for over 15 years now and is enjoyed by many locals wishing to sit out and enjoy the sun with no complaints. Due to this we always ensure that the pedestrian space is the 2m from kerbside and hasn’t been 3.5m for over 15yrs.

The use of the parking spaces (8 not 9 and we did not ask for this to be extended to 14 as Fife Council are planning) was granted to protect businesses and jobs. Previous to covid social distancing restrictions we had a capacity to include 15 tables. With upwards of £2500 spent to ensure compliance and safety for our customers this was reduced to 5/6 or 1/3 capacity. Furthermore the extra safety measures like chemicals/cleaning costs hospitality businesses like our up to an extra £1000 per month in additional labour costs.

With a rent of over £43,000 per annum the business could not survive with such reduced capacity. The outdoor seating space has literally saved the business (a social enterprise) and the jobs of 14 vulnerable adults. Over 80% of my team have disabilities. If they lost their employment at Zest they would seriously struggle to find another employer, some possibly in their lifetimes, who could/would support their needs. Those people would then move onto benefits and further increase the welfare bill for many years to come. For some their employment is also their main source of support. I would consider this a higher priority than having to walk a little further on a diverted footpath which will only be in place for a few months however i appreciate everyone has different priorities.

Having owned Zest for over 12 years and worked in the premises for 14years i can attest that even without the pavement redirected the public have still chosen to walk on the road. Whether crossing at all points of the street, parking, loading and unloading cars, walking behind the parked cars etc… The majority of the public have had no problems following the signage from what i have seen so far.

We appreciate that the red barriers are not the prettiest so have strived to ensure mitigation. To do this we made many wooden Herb planters and purchased more aesthetic barriers to use where we could. Legally compliant signage was purchased, ramps put in place with regular cleaning of the street area carried out. Feedback from our customers has been overwhelmingly positive with many asking to keep this set up. This is in no way our intention, it is temporary and always will be.

Outdoors is the safest place to avoid COVID transmission. With socially distanced tables and the opportunity to have more outdoor seating using the parking spaces the St Andrews residents have a place to eat out/relax in the safest possible way. Now that we have this safe space set up and working well many of our regulars are returning to town in the knowledge that they can go out safely.

I sincerely hope that this maybe explains some of the concerns around the temporary changes. I fully appreciate that it is an inconvenience for some however i feel the greater good for the community is overwhelming. Many of our costs and struggles as a business in this climate will not be clear to those who do not work in the industry.

I am happy to answer any further queries or concerns that anyone may have.