AN appeal on the decision to refuse planning permission for a McDonalds and petrol station at Kelty has been dismissed.

The case was taken to the Scottish Government reporter in March this year with the applicants refuting the "reasons given for refusal".

Land owner Ian Maclellan and TG Convenience Stores also said the plans had "significant material considerations in its favour".

Councillors on the central and west planning committee rejected the "unacceptable" proposal in November despite 74 letters of support.

Planner Jamie Penman told the committee it was an "unjustified development in the countryside" and there was "no strategic need" for it.

Reporter Philip McLean dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.

He cited five main issues with the plans; the principle of the development in the countryside; the town centre first principle; vehicle and pedestrian safety; sustainable transport; and landscape and visual impacts.

The proposal would have seen the development of the Kathellan Home Farm site at junction 4 of the M90 as a roadside services, creating 72 full-time equivalent jobs and injecting £1.5 million into the local economy.

There would have been a McDonalds drive-thru and a SGN Ltd operated petrol filling station.

Mr McLean said he was "not convinced" that pedestrian activity would be as low as the appellants, who submitted this would be minimal at a roadside services, claimed.

He said: "I consider the proposed restaurant in particular could result in a significant increase in pedestrian activity, especially by younger people.

"The absence of a secondary school in Kelty, as highlighted by the appellants, does not persuade me otherwise, given the scope for students to visit after school and at weekends."

He also said that the development would not "safeguard the character and qualities of the local landscape, nor the area's visual amenity" and that the land could not be considered under the Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings policy, as suggested in the application.

He concluded: "For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed development is not in accord with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations that would justify granting planning permission.

"I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none that would lead me to alter my conclusions."

The appeal had been slammed by concerned residents earlier this year who were "angry" to hear the case had been taken to Holyrood.

At that time Lucy Hatchell told the Times it would be "absolutely outrageous" to put a services in "an area of natural beauty".

Another, Claire Brennan, believed the plans would bring issues with litter and vermin.