Three former teachers are standing by their decision to lodge a legal challenge against Fife Council’s granting of planning permission for a new £40 million Madras College on greenbelt land at Pipeland.
St Andrews Environmental Protection Association Limited (STEPAL) whose named directors are former Madras rector Lindsay Matheson and former teachers Mary Jack and Sandra Thomson have now formally lodged a petition for a judicial review with the Court of Session.
The court has set the first hearing for December 3.
The petitioners believe that Fife Council failed to act in a “fair and impartial” manner when it disregarded what they believe was a far more suitable site owned by the university at North Haugh.
Pro-Pipeland campaigners including Fife Council have expressed disappointment at the move amid fears that construction of a desperately needed new Madras could be further delayed by months if not years.
Questions have also been asked about the ability of the group to go through with its legal challenge when so far it only had “nearly one third” of the necessary funds.
A statement issued by STEPAL company secretary Sandra Thomson said: “STEPAL supports the proposal for a much-needed new school, but believes the council’s decision-making process failed to pay proper regard to material planning considerations and unfairly excluded an alternative site, which provides a better solution for future pupils and will be infinitely less damaging to the environment.
“In a judicial review, the court reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, and to take such action in the Court of Session is an expensive procedure.
“However, through private donations, STEPAL has already raised nearly one-third of the funds which it estimates will be needed for the process.
“It believes that the Pipeland Farm site has considerable inherent flaws and hopes that those who are opposed to the proposal particularly those who have already objected to the planning application will support this action and make a
contribution to the costs.”
Fife Council’s executive spokesperson for education, Councillor Bryan Poole, said: “It is disappointing that the group have decided to proceed with the judicial review that they advised us of their intent several weeks ago.
“In all honesty, I hoped they had reflected on their approach and decided that it was time to put behind them their disappointment, accept the democratic decision of Fife Council and in particular put the children to the forefront of their decision making. Sadly, that is not to be.
“I would want to inform and reassure the parents and pupils that Fife Council will be taking advice from the best available QC with a view to settling this judicial review issue as soon as we can.
“With regard to the recently lodged detailed planning application for the new Madras College, our intention is to proceed as planned. It will be considered at the September meeting of North-East Fife planning committee.”
Iain Matheson, chief legal officer with Fife Council, said the next steps will be to take legal advice from the authority’s QC.
The Courier asked STEPAL how much money it had raised so far and for an estimate of how much it required for a judicial review but they declined to give details.
Asked to clarify what funds it still required The Courier understands costs could potentially run into a six-figure sum Sandra Thomson said: “The funds required for the judicial review depend on the procedure and will vary accordingly.
“Most of the private benefactors are from St Andrews and some are also from North-East Fife. We are very confident that the rest of the funds will be raised as required.”
As the Court of Session told The Courier it could not give a cost estimate, the STEPAL secretary added: “It is not something undertaken for frivolous or vexatious reasons.
“Had Fife Council acted in a fair and impartial manner, discharging all the duties imposed on a planning authority under the planning acts, none of this would be necessary.”
STEPAL, which was registered with Companies House on June 4, notes on its website that the Pipeland proposal was narrowly recommended for refusal by Fife Council’s North East Fife Planning Committee.
Pipeland was ultimately approved by the full Fife Council.
It also states that Pipeland is significantly contrary to Fife Council’s own development plan and requires building on recently established greenbelt.
Taybridgehead councillor Tim Brett, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Fife Council, said many pupils and parents in both primary and secondary schools in the Madras catchment will be deeply disappointed that the review has been lodged.
Pro-Pipeland campaign group Parent Voice criticised the “faceless individuals who are bankrolling this legal challenge” and warned that it’s the children who will suffer.
A spokesman said: “Once again it looks like children in North East Fife will pay the price because a privileged few can’t accept that their views did not prevail in an open, democratic and lawful decision about a desperately needed school.
“Ignoring the growing feeling in St Andrews that it’s time to move on and bring the community back together, they persist in a vendetta that will only result in delay, division and significant waste of taxpayers’ money.
“We think it is particularly irresponsible that this action has been launched when as STEPAL themselves admit they do not even have sufficient funding. Who will be expected to pick up the bill for this cynical act? Presumably us, as taxpayers.
“Their arguments are the same as the ones that have already been overwhelmingly rejected by Fife Council and the Scottish Government. It saddens us because the three teachers who have been put forward as the public faces of this should understand the damage they are doing. We wish they would listen to the impassioned pleas of their former colleagues and the community to drop this ‘vanity’ project.
“More insidious is the role of the faceless individuals who are bankrolling this legal challenge and financing the ‘school blocking fund’ behind the scenes.
“If they had any integrity, they would stand up and be counted, but they prefer to let their money talk from the shadows.
“To anyone considering contributing to this pointless exercise, we implore you to think long and hard about who you will be hurting.”