Developer’s second push for St Andrews’ care home

The new 38-bed development was to be based in Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews.

An application from CAF Properties was turned down by Fife Council in February, and an appeal to Scottish Ministers also rejected.

Following that setback, the company  re-submitted an application, with changes.

However, at a north east planning committee on Wednesday, St Andrews Cllr Dominic Nolan moved that it was  thrown out.

He said it would not fit into the conservation area and the scale and size of the development would overpower the 100-year-old building already in the grounds.

He was seconded by Councillor Tony Miklinski, who added: “The main thing  is to work out how much has changed, and whether that is now acceptable.  On  noise, it is almost impossible to convince residents that they won’t be impacted.

“It looks like it has been shoehorned into this space.”

You may also be interested in:

Fife rail services halted after train hits cow

Road layout in Fife town is an accident waiting to happen

Kirkcaldy gun man jailed over weapons find

The new plan saw the care home reduced from 40 beds to 38,  bin storage taken inside the care home, the car park moved to one side, and one of the new buildings rotated so it wasn’t obstructing the original build.

A total of 499 comments were made, with 62 objections and 437 in support.

However, concerns were raised at the meeting that the developers had hired a PR company to submit a portion of the supportive comments.

Councillor Linda Holt said: “Fife Council may not, by law, be able to do anything about this, but as a councillor, I am unimpressed by such antics.”

She added: “I understand we need new care homes in Fife, and I am not against building new ones. I’m just against building one here.”

Support for the development came from Councillor Tim Brett.,

He said: : “I think it’s worth proposing approval, because the changes that have been made do make a significant difference.

“I understand that locals are very unhappy, but I think this would be a satisfactory development.”

Councillors rejecedt the plans by eight votes to three.