Plans for a major new housing development in Kirkcaldy have been unanimously knocked back amid a number of ongoing concerns about the project.
Dyce-based JPR Services Limited had sought planning permission in principle for 48 flats and 26 townhouses on a vacant site at the junction of Hendry Road and Hayfield Industrial Estate along with associated car parking, access, open space and landscaping.
However, members of the region’s central area planning committee have now rejected the proposals after council planners recommended refusal.
The site, which is bound by Hendry Road to the west, Hayfield Place to the south and industrial buildings to the east, was cleared around a decade ago but has lain vacant for longer than that – with the proposed developers claiming it would provide 74 much-needed two to three-bedroom properties to help meet housing need in the area.
Nevertheless, council planners stressed that it should be blocked in the interests of safeguarding protected employment land, as the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the site cannot be redeveloped for employment uses, and because it could prejudice neighbouring commercial businesses.
Derek Simpson, lead officer, told committee members that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the site can accommodate 74 residential units and provide acceptable levels of open space and garden ground, and also suggested residents could be exposed to unacceptable levels of noise and odour impacts – as a car repairs garage and fish processing facility are located directly across the road.
Mr Simpson added that there was also a shortfall of 11 parking spaces in the development as proposed, which could impact upon road and pedestrian safety.
In considering the application, Councillor John Beare asked if the application had “any redeeming features” whatsoever, to which Mr Simpson replied: “There is a shortfall of housing but for the reasons I’ve outlined we don’t feel that outweighs the negative aspects.”
In her report to committee, case officer Katherine Pollack said it was her view that the proposal should be, on balance, turned down.
“Overall, the proposals are contrary to the Development Plan, the site is not an effective housing site and does not constitute sustainable development which is supported in the event of a shortfall in the supply of five-year effective housing land supply,” she said.
“The proposals would result in a loss of employment land, and would be unable to address the shortfall in the supply of effective housing land in the short term.
“Therefore the proposal cannot be supported and should be refused.”
Councillors on the committee unanimously agreed to go with the planners’ recommendation.
