North East Fife Planning Committee has approved a planning application, 24/00383/FULL, to position a mobile sauna on the East Bents, St Andrews, adjacent to the harbour and has leasd the site for a period of 5 years.
However, since the East Bents is ‘Common Good’ land, i.e., it belongs to the community although administered by the Council, Fife Council is in breach of its obligation to hold a public consultation on the proposal. Normally, such a consultation would preceed the consideration of a planning application but in this case will follow it.
David Middleton, Chair of the Confederation of St Andrews Residents’ Associations (CSARA), who drew the attention of the Council to the legal requirement to hold a consultation, commented ‘The East Bents is common good property as the land was owned by the Burgh Council prior to local government reform, and as such have to be managed for the benefit of townspeople.‘
‘So, the public need to be consulted on any proposal to dispose of or change the use of the East Bents. Although the sauna is a quite modest proposal, the danger is that a precedent will be created which could see the East Bents increasingly commercialised – the Council’s quango, the Sport and Leisure Trust, has already proposed to permit overnight campervan parking at the East Sands.’
Click here to go to the consultation which ends on the 12th September.
Main picture: moble sauna at Kingsbarns similar to the one proposed for the East Bents at the East Sands, St Andrews
Subject: South Street plans
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