By Claire Warrender

FIFE COUNCIL is planning to spend almost a quarter of a million pounds on creating a site for just one family of gypsy travellers.

The controversial proposal, which is subject to planning permission, has sparked fury among locals who have drawn up a 700-signature petition against it, claiming the cost is excessive.

A number of councillors have also expressed disquiet about the amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on one family of four.

However, council officers say they have a duty of care towards the family and must provide them with a home appropriate to their needs.

The family, who are from a travelling background, have for the last 15 years been living in a caravan at Guttergates, Halbeath, with no electricity or running water.

Now though, the local authority wants to sell the land to allow Dunfermline’s eastern expansion to continue—a sale which could net the council a considerable sum.

Also, because the current encampment is on a former landfill site, the council says the family must move for health and safety reasons.

The question of whether it is appropriate to spend £240,000 of taxpayers’ money rehoming them, though, was the subject of some debate at Friday’s adult services committee where members were asked to approve the submission of a planning application for the Woodend Farm site.

A report to the committee by housing manager John Mills said, “The cost of developing the Lathalmond site is estimated to be circa £240,000 but failure to relocate the family would mean the council foregoing a sum considerably in excess of this when disposing of land within the Dunfermline eastern expansion area.”

Mr Mills assured councillors that a legal agreement would be drawn up to ensure the land would be leased only to the family in question and could not be transferred or sublet to anyone else.

Councillor Jim Brennan, who chairs the travelling people’s working group, said he sympathised with those who had signed the petition but made it clear he was in favour of the proposal.

“The petition is based solely on cost. It’s about perceptions and I understand the people who signed the petition,” he said.

“Some are resentful that some things can’t get done in the public arena when there’s £240,000 being spent on this.

“It’s not a position I agree with. We have a duty of care for the family. If an autistic child moves into Fife it could cost us £180,000 because we have a duty of care.”

However, the family has previously rejected the offer of pitches at two of the council’s permanent travelling people’s sites at Kelty and Kirkcaldy because of a history of conflict with other travellers, and it was this point which rankled some committee members.

Councillor Les Woods made it clear he was against the proposal, saying, “It is a lot of money to spend on one family which has been so choosy.”

Councillor Jim Tolson said the committee was being forced to make an “uncomfortable” decision, and added, “We’re between a rock and a hard place because if we don’t make this provision for this family the fall-out would be much bigger for the council.”

Other councillors were concerned that the people involved were being made a “special case” as the council would not normally spend quarter of a million pounds rehoming someone they had evicted.

However, Mr Mills responded that the submission before the committee was the only way those in question could remain as a family unit.

The proposal will now go before a meeting of the west Fife development committee where members will decide whether to grant planning permission for the site.