AN APPEAL over whether 80 homes can be built on farmland east of Kingseat has been rejected.

A Scottish Government reporter said that she did not consider the proposals to develop seven hectares either side of Cuddyhouse Road would be the "right development in the right place."

Gladman Developments Ltd tabled the plans in July 2019 for the new dwellings which would include 30 affordable homes and a new roundabout, play area, paths and cycleways, with open space and a community woodland.

The development would have extended the boundary of Kingseat east towards Cowdenbeath, one of the concerns raised in the 44 objections by members of the public.

The plans had been rejected by Fife Council's central and west planning committee who who agreed with planners that the homes were not needed – they said a five-year forecast showed a “surplus” in the area.

It was felt that locals would be faced with “unacceptable levels” of noise and the development would affect the “visual and landscape character” of the village, which has already been extended to the west.

However, the Livingston-based company submitted an appeal to the Scottish Government as they said the council’s decision to refuse was “not justified” and the development would provide “much-needed housing” for Kingseat.

Reporter Lorna McCallum said the proposed development was on a green field site at the edge of a village that is within the countryside and "completely lacking" in local services and facilities.

"The settlement is detached from the nearest urban areas with no shops, schools or train stations within reasonable walking distance," she said.

"The walking routes are such that they are not likely to encourage use by residents of the proposed development to the nearest urban area where services and facilities are located and only one of the bus services from the village runs on a frequent basis.

"I have concluded that the development is not sustainably located and that it would undoubtedly increase reliance on private cars.

"There is no doubt that this site could make a valuable contribution to the significant shortfall in the housing land supply. However, I find that there is also no doubt that the development would not be sustainably located.

"I find that the lack of sustainability tilts the balance heavily against the proposal."

Ms McCallum said the plans would also have "adverse effects" on the landscape character – particularly in relation to the setting of the village and the Hill of Beath – which added further weight to the negative attributes.

She added: "In applying the overall balance, even in applying a steep angle of tilt in line with the appellant’s assessment of the housing land supply position, I conclude that, due principally to the heavily negative sustainability implications of the proposal, the adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

"It is my conclusion that the proposal does not constitute sustainable development and I do not consider that it would be the right development in the right place."