Councillors decide on controversial housing plan for Fife village
Controversial plans for housing in a Fife village are set to be taken forward after they were agreed in principle by local councillors.
Members of Fife Council’s north east planning committee have voted 8-4 in favour of proposals for 15 new homes in Auchtermuchty, specifically on land between MIllflat and Leckiebank Road.
A total of 29 letters of objection and seven letters of support were submitted in advance of the meeting, and council planners recommended approval of the application before them.
The vast majority of councillors agreed, despite concerns being raised about road safety issues likely to stem from the development.
SNP councillor David McDiarmid, who represents the Howe of Fife and Tay Coast, moved refusal of the application, suggesting the applicants had not provided sufficient information about what impact the housing would have on the existing road network.
“I’m aware that developers have been looking at these fields for at least 30 years and there’s always been the safety issue of transport through what is a pretty medieval area in the centre of town,” he said.
“I don’t consider it safe to add any more vehicles in this part of Auchtermuchty.
“It may only be 15 houses but it could potentially be 60 car movements a day.”
He added: “I’m not convinced this application has been thought through.”
However, solicitor Steven Paterson noted that certain issues had been addressed by the council’s transportation service, who did not object to the application, while the site itself had been allocated for up to 30 houses as part of the FIFEplan.
A report to committee highlighted the fact that the initial designs for the site were merely indicative, with further work to be done on the design and layout of any houses proposed.
Objectors claimed the proposal would result in the destruction of a “beautiful historically significant” wall on High Road, but supporters said the number of houses proposed was modest and would be sympathetic to the size of the land.
Councillor McDiarmid’s motion to refuse was seconded by Councillor Linda Holt, but Councillor Bill Porteous’ amendment to was eventually voted through 8-4.