Ruskin Lane Consulting Autumn 2013 | Page 44

MEMBERS AREA CASEWORK Tayside & East Fife Balfour Place, St Andrews, before alteration St Andrews University Students’ Union learly, I'm not the first to feel a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Looking back over earlier reports almost everything we opposed has come to pass. In the St Andrews conservation area the Brutalist 1970s era Students’ Union is currently being refaced with glass curtain walling, the only concession being that multi-coloured fascia panels will not now be used. At the foot of Westburn Lane, opposite the Bute Medical Building, an array of three and four storey blocks of flats will be built. We thought them too high and disruptive to the street pattern. Meanwhile, South Street will suffer a demolition at the Argos site although the buildings to go are unexceptional and date to around 1970. At street level there will be little change and student-type flats will be packed in behind the new facade. In fact, our comments often result in an application being considered by councillors, rather than officials, or lead to minor concessions being made such as retaining pantiled dormers when the architect wanted slate, for example at Balfour Place. In Anstruther we opposed the display of wall-mounted banners at the Fisheries Museum, on the grounds that they clashed with the traditional rhythm of gables and walls. Permission was granted anyway but we invite you to see what you think next time you visit. Near Collessie, where we supported local groups opposing yet another sand and gravel quarry, the developer(Muir Aggregates) has appealed. This is distressing for the residents of the hamlet of C 44 I THE ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND I AUTUMN 2013 Kinloch who have already endured years of uncertainty, even if the quarry is refused in the end. Unfortunately, despite a refusal, there is nothing to stop a developer having another go. In St Andrews the building of a nursery school in the long rig at 44 South Street was turned down by the Reporter, unfortunately, for the wrong reason. Road safety was the deciding factor, not the significance of the medieval garden. The developer intends to reapply, this time using a different access point. In practice this would simply shift the safety issue from a relatively quiet street