The application by EnergieKontor was unanimously rejected by members of north east Fife area committee on Wednesday, prompting applause in the packed hall of Cupar's County Buildings.

Council officials had recommended approval of the five-turbine development at Gathercauld despite almost 600 objections and a three-year campaign against it.

But they had the support of one lone voice - that of Taybridgehead councillor Tim Brett, who failed to find a seconder for his motion to approve the controversial plans.

Speaking shortly after the decision, EnergieKontor's UK director Guy Wilson said the company was 'disappointed' at the outcome, since the project met all the necessary policy criteria and the turbine heights had been amended to avoid conflict with radars at RAF Leuchars.

"A lot of work has gone into this and we spent a great deal of time making sure it was right, " he said.

"We're aware it is an issue that has provoked much controversy, but nevertheless it was recommended for approval and we had significant local support. There was no reason to refuse it on planning grounds."

At the time of going to press, EnergieKontor had not yet decided whether to lodge an appeal against the decision - but, if they do, Ceres and District Environment and Amenity Protection Group, who have spearheaded the aniti-windfarm campaign since 2006, say they are ''psychologically and financially prepared.''

The group's spokesman, Graham Lang, said: "EnergieKontor's application failed quite simply because it did not meet the criteria set out in the Development Plan.

"The committee quite rightly decided that its adverse impact on the special landscape area of Ceres and Tarvit - and its significant impact on the residential amenity of many ordinary folk - was unacceptable.

"The area committee are to be praised for their decision to refuse the windfarm, which showed a clear understanding of the policy issues involved and is a vote for commonsense and democracy."

The motion to refuse the application was put forward by Cupar Councillor Margaret Kennedy and seconded by Councillor Roger Guy, who also represents Cupar.

They agreed that the development was contrary to policies in the recently-approved Fife Structure Plan and the finalised draft local plan, which the committee had discussed earlier in the day.

They maintained that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the environment as it would not maintain or enhance the character of the landscape.

In addition, Councillor Guy expressed concerns about noise and criticised what he described as a 'suck it and see' attitude towards shadow flicker.

As one of 39 conditions planning officials had recommended, developers would have been required to shut down the turbines when surrounding properties were affected by shadow flicker.

Meanwhile, Mr Lang was highly critical of the report by planning officer Alastair Hamilton in which approval was recommended, describing it as 'skewed and full of errors and omissions.'

He also criticised development manager Jim Birrell for signing off the report and suggested he should 'consider his position'.

However, the council's head of development services, Keith Winter, defended the officials, saying: "Our officers are highly professional and reach recommendations in reports to committee based on the development plan and other material considerations.

"Obviously opposing views are not uncommon, which is why councillors reach decisions through the democratic process at committee.

"The fact that this individual has chosen to level wholly unjustified criticism and name officers in a public statement is unacceptable and we will be considering any further action necessary."

This is the second blow for EnergieKontor in north east Fife in the last 18 months.

They lodged an appeal against a decision by the area committee to refuse a five-turbine development at Rossie, near Auchtermuchty, but last February the appeal was dismissed by a Scottish government reporter.