By Michael Alexander

A MAJOR new study that has identified possible options for future development of the former Crail Airfield is an opportunity to resolve a dispute which has now rumbled on for nearly a decade.

This was stated yesterday by Mid Scotland and Fife Tory MSP Ted Brocklebank who said he could not see why Historic Scotland cannot de-schedule the northern part of the airfield site to allow “sensible housing development” and road access to proceed.

This, he said, would still allow an area of the airfield site south of the road to be retained and re-furbished as a war-time museum which could be the centrepiece of a possible future leisure or recreational development.

Mr Brocklebank made the comment after he and prospective Tory parliamentary candidate for North East Fife, Mike Scott-Hayward, visited Crail Airfield to meet owner Willie Robertson and discuss issues at the site including future development proposals and the council’s controversial plans for a gypsy stop-over camp on adjacent land.

The development plan, involving Fife Council and Historic Scotland and aimed at identifying the way forward for land at the former airfield, has come up with a range of suggestions, including the possibility of housing, tourism, leisure and light industry.

Much of the site is protected as a scheduled ancient monument because of valuable military buildings such as the control tower, Nissen huts and pillboxes of the airfield that operated from 1918 to 1958.

In recent years the land has had several different uses, including pig farming, light industry, car boot sales and motor sport events that attract thousands of people.

Landowners Robertson Farms and Historic Scotland have debated at length about the extent and level of necessary protection. The conservation body and Fife Council jointly commissioned the study into possible development options.

The work has been carried out by DTZ Pieda Consulting along with LDN Architects, who had to look at conservation and built heritage, and prepare an independent assessment, a database of factual information, and a set of possible options.

During the study the consultants looked at issues such as the history of the airfield, use and ownership of all land and buildings, existing employment levels, traffic generation and comparisons with similar sites in the UK and Europe.

During the initial discussions it was found that the local community felt that current use and condition of the site are “problematic,” there is strong local opposition to the car racing events and there is no perception of economic benefit for the community from current uses.

The consultants based their proposed options on a set of initial conclusions which recognised that while the majority of the site is a scheduled ancient monument, a large proportion of the buildings are in a very poor physical condition. It was also pointed out that any development options have to be financially viable, that a significant amount of public/private investment would be required, and that local residents want to see the town’s amenity enhanced.

The consultants have said that there is “no doubt” that there is a need to secure the airfield, and that the most appropriate option would be to allow development which will result in re-investment.

The use which would allow such investment is without doubt housing, with the existing pig farm the most likely location.

The consultants have said that the demand is likely to be for high quality, low-density schemes, and while there is a general presumption against new build in the countryside, the site is a brownfield one.

It has also been pointed out that in addition to mainstream residential use, consideration could be given to use of some of the site for holiday accommodation.

Mr Brocklebank said, “Further meetings are to be held and the matter will be addressed at the forthcoming public consultation on the East Fife Draft Local Plan on April 20, but with a bit of give and take on both sides I see no reason why the future of the airfield cannot be resolved amicably.

“On the face of it I cannot see why Historic Scotland cannot de-schedule the part of the airfield site to the north of the golf course road to allow sensible housing development and road access to proceed.

“This would still allow an area of the airfield site south of the road to be retained and re-furbished as a war-time museum which could be the centrepiece of a possible future leisure or recreational development.

“A planned development...would mean there would be no further need for motor sports which have caused so much local controversy.

“On the question of a site for travelling people on land owned by the council adjacent to the airfield, this should be left to local people to decide.”