Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Councillors’ tails up after snubbing planning officials’ advice for a second time

A Red Squirrel at Camperdown Wildlife Centre, Dundee.
A Red Squirrel at Camperdown Wildlife Centre, Dundee.

Councillors have dismissed the views of planning officials to approve a north-east Fife housing development for the second time.

Officers had objected to proposals for 15 new homes at Lathockar, south of St Andrews, partly because of the presence of a single red squirrel.

When members of the north-east Fife area committee rejected this view in September, planners prepared another report, again calling for the application to be thrown out.

They were branded ”unelected bureaucrats” by one councillor who claimed democracy had been turned on its head ahead of Tuesday’s strategic planning committee in Glenrothes.

However, members there agreed with the original decision and the application was again given the go-ahead.

This time Scottish Natural Heritage had withdrawn its original objection to the development, so planners could not recommend it be refused on the grounds the site was home to protected species.

The report before the committee did, however, state that the proposal did not comply with the Fife Structure Plan or policy requirements for housing in the countryside.

There was also concern that details of a sustainable drainage system for the site had not been prepared.

Members of the area committee were angry at officers’ attempts to overturn their view, with Donald McGregor stating: ”Officers are here to advise. Elected members are the ones who take decisions. That’s sometimes forgotten.”

Continued…

Mr McGregor who is not a member of the planning committee but was given five minutes to address the meeting added: ”It causes considerable resentment to find our area committee is not considered competent to decide.”

He said the development would support local businesses and the community, which wants the houses.

However, a report before members by planning officer Kathleen Illingworth concluded: ”It is considered that the proposal does not comply with the terms of the local plan allocation, in respect of the scale of the residential proposal, the compatibility of the proposal site and the existing industrial site in terms of residential amenity, its association with industrial uses and in terms of proposed means of vehicular access.

”The degree of woodland required to be removed as part of this 15 house scheme, based on the notional plan submitted, would undoubtedly have a significant and potentially detrimental visual impact on the character of the landscape in this case.

”Given the degree of concern raised by this application, the additional information required to be submitted and the concerns raised over the principle of the development itself, the proposal cannot be supported.”

Councillor Robin Waterston moved that the application be approved, saying the new housing was ”very much needed” and wanted by everyone locally.

”The woodland is not a reason for refusal. It is not protected in any special way,” he said. ”It’s of low conservation value and its loss would not make any significant impact on local biodiversity.”

”My proposal for approval is for conditional approval. Conditions would include additional survey work as Scottish Natural Heritage have requested.”

Councillor Ron Edwards called for the officers’ recommendation to be accepted on the basis of overdevelopment, the fact that the plan was detrimental to the biodiversity of the wider area and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

Put to the vote, the application was approved by six votes to three.