St Andrews harbour future 'at risk'

The future of the harbour has been called into question.

Councillors on Fife’s North East Planning Committee accepted planners’ views that the shed’s “utilitarian form” would not sit well at the East Sands pier. It had been planned as a replacement for a shed taken away around 20 years ago.

However Andrew Whiston, chair of the St Andrews Harbour Trust, said the shed was to be a custom-built unit designed by Cupar firm Forestcraft to replicate the old building’s character.

It would have stored essential lifesaving equipment the harbour is required to have under the Port Marine Safety Code, as well as a toilet for staff that is required by employment law.

The harbour is home to around a dozen fishing crews who catch shellfish in the nearby waters.

An appeal to Scottish ministers is planned – but if this fails, and the organisation fails to find another place to store the equipment, which it has already bought using Scottish Government grant funds, the harbour’s operations will likely have to cease.

Mr Whiston said: “We’re obligated to have oil spill bags, pumps to pump boats that are sinking, and this was the only place we could put the shed, by the coastal landing slipway.

“We’ve had boat fires, sinkings and a boat with a fouled rudder that crashed into the pier since I joined the Trust. It’s not the case that these incidents don’t happen – they do.”

Wednesday’s meeting heard that the facilities, while useful to the harbour and the crews that use it, would be an “incongruous” addition to the St Andrews central conservation area in their present form.

Fife Council planning officer Jamie Penman wrote in his report: “The proposal would read as an out of place, utilitarian domestic garden shed, which would not blend in with its surroundings.”

Elected members sided with the objectors in refusing the plans. Cupar Conservative councillor Tony Miklinski branded the shed as “cheap and not cheerful”, while Tay Bridgehead Liberal Democrat member Tim Brett expressed his hope of the plans being the subject of further discussions with planning officers.

In all, 138 representations were received to the proposals, with 82 supporting comments and 63 objections, including one from the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council. Some local residents went as far as using solicitors to file their objections on their behalf.

Mr Whiston claims the plans had been the subject of a “campaign of disinformation” seeking to undermine the plans and fuel objections from locals.

He added: “It’s been quite nasty, really. We’ve had police involvement, members of the Trust verbally abused by members of the local community – it’s not been a pleasant experience.

“At the end of the day all we are trying to do is support a working harbour with a shed with equipment in it and a toilet.

“In certain circumstances it’s not unreasonable to say that a very specific building with a very specific purpose should almost be exempt from planning. In this case, function is more important than form.

“It’s worrying that the council are, in my opinion, looking at planning concerns and putting that ahead of people’s lives and livelihoods.”