Fife Council said they will take enforcement action against a firm after refusing a retrospective planning application.

Permission had been sought by Gray and Adams to erect a boundary fence and change the use of open space at Lyneburn Industrial Estate, off Halbeath Place in Dunfermline.

The work has already been carried out and agents for the manufacturing firm said they were “unaware” that planning permission was required.

However the application was turned down by the council’s planning department as it said “insufficient information” about any potential flood risk had been provided.

A report from planning officer William Shand explained that the site is occupied by Gray and Adams, a manufacturer of specialist temperature controlled and bespoke vehicles for the transport logistics industry.

The new fencing – made of galvanised steel and approximately 2.5 metres in height – is the type “normally found surrounding commercial and industrial premises” and its design was a function of its purpose.

His report said: “Although the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to certain impacts (for example impact on trees, impact on road safety etc as set out in detail below) the proposal is not considered to have provided sufficient information to determine if the proposal will have an acceptable impact on flooding."

Mr Shand said a flood risk assessment statement was required, especially as the nearby Lyne Burn is "classified as a sensitive watercourse".

He added: "The applicant’s initial submission did not include the above required information nor did the applicant respond to several requests to provide this information post submission.

"Without this information it is not possible to determine if the proposal increases flooding or flood risk. Therefore, the proposal must be refused on the grounds of a lack of information.”

Network Rail had also objected to the plans as some of the affected land is their’s.

Explaining that this issue remained unresolved, he added: “The land ownership form with the application does not specify this and therefore may be incorrect. The applicant has been approached for information on a number of occasions and has been unresponsive.”

In refusing the application, Mr Shand said the proposal was “not supported by an appropriate level of information” and said enforcement action would be taken with respect to the unauthorised activity.