Fife Council reject plans for two new homes at Crombie Point

The west and central planning committee agreed that James Corrie's development plans for the site down by the Forth shore were "not acceptable"

Last month, local objectors cried foul and complained that a 'devious strategy' had been used to manufacture support for the development.

At the committee meeting last week planning officers recommended refusal with Emma Baxter telling councillors that the site, 1.5km south-west of Crombie, was not allocated for housing and would be unjustified development in the countryside.

Her report said it was contrary to the council's 'cluster policy', as it would lead to coalescence between two distinct and separate settlements, and should also be ruled out on flood risk grounds.

Mr Corrie, of Blairadam, had sought permission to build two houses, plus garages and access, on a 3,000 square metres site at Crombie Point.

Vehicle access would have been from Shore Road.

Committee convener, David Barratt, said that 'more than half of the site is undevelopable' due to a flood risk. (Image: Fife Council)

Two previous plans to build two houses on the site were withdrawn, in February 2009 and in November 2022.

The application was previously discussed by the committee in March with some councillors arguing that it could be seen as development of a gap site, which would be acceptable under council policy.

It was agreed to defer a decision with further details also sought on flood risk.

When it came back to committee last week the convener, Cllr David Barratt, confirmed that the crux of the argument had been whether the eight homes in the remote spot were two settlements or one.

However he added that with further information now available about the flood risk, he was "slightly less torn" over the issue.

Cllr Barratt said it was clear that "more than half of the site is undevelopable" due to the risk of surface water and that the "proposed primary access route would be inaccessible" during a flood.

There were 37 letters of objection and 26 in support, with locals complaining that Yeoman McAllister, the firm representing Mr Corrie, had drummed up 'fake' support for the plans.

One of the objectors, William Stewart, said: "It is clear to us that the developer and agent have written letters of support for their own application.

"Furthermore, other letters of support have been generated by people who can be identified as relatives of employees and employees at Yeoman McAllister.

"As a retired architect I have never, in 43 years of practice, witnessed such a blatant attempt to distort the true situation over a planning application."

Cllr Sam Steele said there had been a "lot of media attention regarding comments and support statements" and sought clarification that the number of objections or supportive comments received was "not a material planning consideration".

She was told that while the local authority has to take all of the representations into account in their assessment of the application, the "quantity doesn't really matter" as it is the planning issues raised by the representations that informs the ultimate planning decision.

Cllr Steele said she agreed with the officer recommendation and added: "It's clearly two separate and distinct settlements. It's not one single cluster."

The committee agreed and the plans were refused.