St Andrews residents say they are relieved after controversial plans for two luxury cliffside homes were dismissed on appeal.
A Scottish Government reporter described Martin Lightbody’s proposal for “overtly modern” houses as excessive and inappropriate in the town’s conservation area.
Mr Lightbody lodged an appeal after councillors rejected his application for bronze-clad homes, complete with underground garage and a rooftop solarium surrounded by glass.
He wanted to demolish St Regulus Cottage on East Scores to make way for the development overlooking St Andrews Bay.
However, while people in neighbouring properties are pleased with the appeal outcome, they are now bracing themselves for a possible fresh application.
Chris Main, who lives yards from the cottage, said: “The wording of the decision leaves the door open for the developer.
“The reporter said the design isn’t quite right but it would bring benefits to the town in terms of investment.”
St Andrews clifftop homes plan was ‘nuclear option’
Mr Main insists he is not against Mr Lightbody developing his own property.
But he described the plans as “the nuclear option” which would have overshadowed other homes in the street.
“There are already a few architectural atrocities in St Andrews and this would have been another one,” he said.
He also claimed many locals were being priced out of the market.
He said: “Just 200 yards away from us elderly housing association tenants on Marine Place are being evicted by their landlord, who are saying they can’t afford the cost of improvements.
“Those houses will probably be sold to a developer with the potential to make millions.
“Tenants don’t stand a chance against that kind of thing.
“We’ve also had students protesting about a lack of accommodation in St Andrews.
“Meanwhile The Scores is one of the most expensive streets in Scotland.”
New houses would make a strong statement
St Regulus Cottage is a few yards from St Andrews ancient castle.
And while Fife Council planners had recommended the application be approved, councillors rejected their advice.
They said it would be out of keeping with the setting and one member described it as a carbuncle.
But on refusing the appeal, principal reporter David Buylla said: “What is proposed would aim to make a strong architectural statement…
“I find the massing of the proposed replacement building to be excessive and the chosen design approach, which seeks to present a strong contrast with the sensitive surrounding townscape, to be inappropriate.
“I conclude that the effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be negative.”
Conversation