Former St Andrews care home to be transformed into £18m luxury hotel with 96 rooms

Plans for a 96-room hotel in St Andrews have been approved despite concerns over parking and that it was not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area.

Glasgow-based CAF Properties (WH) Ltd, had applied for permission to change the use of the former Gibson House care home in Argyle Street into a hotel for the Scotsman Group.

The plans will see a hotel built as well as a bar, restaurant and external alterations including the erection of extensions, alterations to access, landscaping, and other associated works.

It is expected that the development will create 100 construction jobs as well as 60 jobs once the hotel is built with £18m to be invested in the building and the grounds.

The application was given the green light by members of Fife Council’s North East Fife Planning Committee on Wednesday.

However, permission is subject to a legal agreement which will see off-site parking provided elsewhere in the town to allow a valet parking service to be in operation.

A report to councillors said the plans would involved a “substantial redevelopment” of a prominent Category B listed building within the Central St Andrews Conservation Area.

It acknowledged that the development would include extensions of significantly greater scale than those existing, a shortfall in on-site parking provision and impacts on residential amenity.

It continued: “These concerns, including those raised by Historic Environment Scotland, local residents and internal consultees, are fully recognised and carry considerable weight, particularly given the sensitivity of the surrounding historic and residential context.

“However, when assessed in the round, the proposal would secure the viable reuse and long term future of a vacant building, remove unsympathetic later extensions, and deliver a form of development that aligns with the development plan, notably in relation to town centre reuse, tourism and the efficient use of previously developed land.

“The contemporary extensions, while impactful, have been subject to amendment and are considered to achieve an appropriate relationship with the host building and its setting, preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area overall.

“On balance, and notwithstanding the acknowledged issues, the development is considered to represent an opportunity for positive change, securing the future of an important heritage asset while delivering economic and regenerative benefits.”

The council’s development management service manager, Alastair Hamilton, explained the parking solution which was set to be agreed.

“The applicant in this case is probably relatively unique for a proposal like this as they have two other large sites in the town where there are additional spaces that can accommodate off-site parking,” he told councillors.

“There is in the application through the proposals to secure that through a legal agreement. That is not there as an aspiration or wishful thinking, it is kind of being promoted and tied in in terms of that proposal.

“That would come forward as part of how that is tied together as part of the scheme.”

Concern was raised by local councillor Ann Verner who was unhappy with the proposals.

“I would like to say I wholeheartedly support that statement that it is no longer fit for use as a care home,” she said.

“What I do not agree with is the application for 96 rooms.”

Cllr David MacDiarmid was also against the final plans.

“For the importance of St Andrews being the jewel in the crown of Fife and the fact this hotel is going to be right in the centre of the conservation area, can I just say it is not the bonniest,” he said.

“The importance of the conservation area has not been taken into account. The importance of St Andrews to me is absolutely paramount and what we build in St Andrews should also be paramount.”

The decision to grant planning permission, subject to conditions including the legal agreement over parking elsewhere In the town, was taken after a vote was taken.

Six councillors voted to approve the plans while five had voted to reject the application.