Row continues over realignment of a busy Cupar road junction

TAG’s Douglas Provan said that during a meeting between the group and Fife Council, council representatives had joked about mistakes in the plans for the realignment of the junction of Tarvit Avenue and Pitscottie Road.

“They don’t seem to take their mistakes very seriously and made a joke of them which I think showed contempt for the public,” Mr Provan said.

“It seemed to me that they thought it was done and decided,” he added, accusing the council of “not showing any interest” in arrangements for pedestrians in the area.

The plans include use of a gate at the entrance which is currently closed, and Fife Council officials plan to approach the owners of the Lodge House with a view to securing agreement to open up the gate adjacent to the pillar, to allow pedestrian access.

But Mr Provan responded: “If Kingdom Housing was that worried about the safety of people using their footway they would have already approached the owners of the lodge.”

The realignment of the junction is one of the planning conditions imposed on the development of 49 affordable homes at Tarvit Farm when permission in principle was granted last year.

The solution proposed by Dunfermline consultants Scott Bennett Associates, sees a continuous path between the new development and Tarvit Drive, with crossing points clearly defined.

The junction would be re-aligned to improve visibilty but that means that the footpath would be reduced to just a metre wide at points, because of the pillars marking the entrance to Tarvit Avenue.

But it’s the lack of public consultation that is angering TAG members most, claiming that local residents would only know of the proposals if they had followed planning procedures online.

The group also accuses Fife Council and Kingdom Housing Association of lack of competence and attention to detail after an initial diagram of the preferred road layout was wrongly labelled, resulting in a vehicle being shown on the wrong side of the road.

“That shakes public confidence in those who should know best and raises the issue why we should trust their professional judgement further on this proposal,” Mr Provan commented.

“Saying something is safe or safer when making a basic error and not picking up on it for several days smacks of negligence.

“And to gloss it over the way they did – even laughing about it,” Mr Provan continued, “underlines their arrogance that whatever people think and feel this proposal will go through.”

He also raised concerns about the impact on proposals for the Cupar North development. “It doesn’t bode well,” he said, “if they can just go forward without taking into account the public’s view.”