HomeVillage GuideLocal NewsWhat's OnThings to doNoticeboardLocal IssuesFeedbackCommunity CouncilFife CouncilLocal Links
Your Place Your Plan Feedback - Discussion Group Workshop Notes
Opinions, suggestions and ideas - to be used to inform the draft Local Plan for East Fife
more Planning Info   back to Your Place Your Plan

Your Place Your Plan - the second stage in the consultation process for the forthcoming Local Plan. Five 'locality' meetings were recently held in East Fife. Discussion groups explored issues such as housing, schools, facilities, town centres, countryside matters, green belts and conservation.

Kingsbarns group notes - for some reason, these notes were omitted from the officially released 'discussion group workshop notes.'

Discussion group workshop notes - recently released notes from the Your Place Your Plan meetings. There appear to be only four direct references to Kingsbarns in these official notes :

"Maybe need for housing for St.Andrews to be built outwith St Andrews ....... Strathkinness, Cameron and Kingsbarns identified as new housing areas so why is there a need in St. Andrews for housing/affordable housing?" - St Andrews
"With regard to the provision of affordable housing in Cameron and Kingsbarns, it was mentioned that at Cameron, Largoward Primary School is close to capacity and Kingsbarns Primary School is full, so development here would mean more bussing of children to and from school." - St Andrews
"Affordable Housing - Engage with land owners to sell/develop/rent land to build affordable housing eg Kingsbarns" - Pittenweem and Crail.

For the purposes of this exercise the Kingsbarns workshop was held at the St Andrews meeting.

Kingsbarns residents were not invited to take part in the Pittenweem and Crail workshop which was held at the East Neuk meeting.

It is interesting to note that Kingsbarns has been 'identified', by someone, as a 'new housing area.'

All the opinions, suggestions and ideas have now been passed to Fife Council Services and partner agencies, and will be used to inform the draft Local Plan for East Fife.

Discussion group workshop notes for St Andrews (Kingsbarns area)
more Planning Info   back to Your Place Your Plan   up to Top


What’s special?

  • Skyline and landscape setting
  • Quality of life
  • Historic core
  • Housing need/growth
  • Balance preservation/growth
  • Old town and its character
  • The coast is also a valuable asset.
  • The setting of the town is its prime asset, particularly the ‘green bowl’ and southern hillside.
  • The approach from the west is also important, together with views in to and out from the historic core.
  • Town’s built integrity and landscape

Key Issues:

  • Housing
  • Transport
  • Town Centre
  • School
  • Businesses
  • Hospital
  • Environment
  • Golf Courses
  • Bypass
  • Significant expansion of St. Andrews
  • Greenbelt area
  • Roads
  • Rail
  • Community facilities
  • Local economy
    • Work/employment
    • St. Andrews as a commuting town
  • Health Facilities
  • Cycleways
  • Affordable housing
  • Local centres for communities, not everything in town centre

Development Issues


  • Tourism and golf also drives the economy. Critical to local plan and an asset to the town
  • Golf related developments need to link to current structure plan


  • Current business sites being converted to housing development for profit e.g. Kinnessburn
  • Part of any planning must include displacement sites for small business use preferably within good access of town


  • Plans for Headon developments problematic - houses will drain into lower part of North Haugh, which is low lying area.
  • Impact on surface drainage, sewage capacity and pumping resulting from existing water table problem
  • Need more affordable housing, but challenge is to keep it affordable
  • Affordable housing in St. Andrews
    • Sold or rented?
    • Below market value?
    • Right to buy?
    • Government policy?
  • Doubt the ability of Fife Council to protect the area for affordable housing
  • Why provide cheap housing in an affordable area?
  • Recognise that there is an internal and external demand for housing in St. Andrews
  • There is a need for Council Policy to control the situation re affordable housing
  • Affordable housing was acknowledged to be a significant problem for St Andrews and the surrounding area, with concern that given the loss of council housing and rented accommodation, young people are finding it impossible to enter the St Andrews housing market in any way.
  • Everyone agreed that St Andrews has a seriously distorted housing market, skewed by the large retired population (high income, buying property within the town, golf) and an increasing student population. This is making it impossible for young people in St Andrews to enter the housing market and creating an unbalanced community.
  • Concern re new developments being high cost (6 figures) and the selling-on of ex-Council houses at high prices.
  • Affordable housing was also discussed in relation to the increase in the student population distorting the housing market in the town. 7000 students added to c15,000 of resident population and the university wants to grow further! With some 40% of students coming from independent schools and parents able to purchase property as an investment opportunity, there was general consensus that there is no point in providing affordable housing if it is bought up by students.
  • Following some discussion around the issue of legal clauses and keeping housing affordable, there was strong agreement that the current 10-year limit is not long enough, it merely postpones a problem rather than addressing it fully.
  • Support for affordable housing but not if it is sold off in 5-10 years. Mention was made of considering a residency limit as imposed in some places in Europe. Would this work here?


  • Preserve Guardbridge area of trees/woodland, area of natural beauty, currently marked as site for University park and ride
  • Ensure new housing has sufficient landscaping space and design, particularly between houses. Currently jammed together with no opportunity for vegetation and greenery. Bogward/Canongate development years ago provided privacy, trees and greenery
  • All in favour of Green Belt as a mechanism to stop development proposals
  • Strongly request and require a Greenbelt around St. Andrews
  • What is a Green belt?
  • No to further housebuilding
  • Protect openness of countryside around St. Andrews


  • Expansion over the last 30 years has been too large. Needs to slow down
  • University drives expansion, needs to look outwith St Andrews to grow? Guardbridge?
  • Expansion is not needed. University big enough. Town will not benefit from growth.
  • Maybe need for housing for St.Andrews to be built outwith St Andrews
  • Where is new pressure for expansion coming from? Bogward Road – recent expansion.
  • If expansion were to take place:
    • Redevelopment of locations within current boundaries
    • St. Mary’s Place?
    • St. Leonards Place?
  • Need to improve transportation/community facilities first
  • Slow down expansion
  • If 1,000 homes – retired or holiday homes seem to be the need at the moment
  • Strathkinness, Cameron and Kingsbarns identified as new housing areas so why is there a need in St. Andrews for housing/affordable housing?

If development, where, and what should it provide?

  • Kinnessburn (long swathe west)
  • Guardbridge
  • Smaller satellite settlements within St Andrews. There are no facilities at all in the SW wedge.
  • Settlements would need local shops and community centres
  • Rural developments to sustain rural schools

If no development, why?

  • Town centre is bursting at seams
  • Development will have to stop sometime, why not now?
  • Would tolerate limited development to fund a ring road to relieve traffic congestion and protect historic core.
  • Scale of development that has been built in recent years being out of character with the older built environment. Serious concerns were raised about the cumulative effect of large-scale development on views, landscape and the loss of wynds that contribute so much to the overall character. Allied to this was a feeling about the town centre becoming increasingly ‘shabby’, eroded by piecemeal development and poor quality design.
  • Support for maintaining and enhancing the medieval structure of the town. Definite concern about the scale of new developments in relation to the existing town and the need to have an overview of the town when considering any new proposals, rather than dealing with them in isolation.
  • The option of development at Cameron was suggested, given that it has community support. However, the issue of people who work in St Andrews having to commute was raised
  • With regard to the provision of affordable housing in Cameron and Kingsbarns, it was mentioned that at Cameron, Largoward Primary School is close to capacity) and Kingsbarns Primary School is full, so development here would mean more bussing of children to and from school.
  • While there is a big need for affordable housing in St Andrews, there remains the need to protect the southern hill, green belt and protected skyline.
  • Example of the development of Bruges in distinct historical phases, separated by canals. Would this type of expansion work for St Andrews, with a green belt protecting the existing town and new development further out beyond the green belt? Build in the valley, then another ring of green belt?
  • Something must be done to take the pressure off from the centre of town – we can look at communities such as Cameron, but housing must be developed in conjunction with schools, facilities and public transport links to St Andrews and beyond.
  • There is no more space in St Andrews, so where can new development/ housing go? How can we do it and protect the skyline, views, etc.? The landscape setting and intervisibility (sic) are important elements to retain in defining the green belt, but there was an appreciation that any boundary would have to include some capacity for growth.
  • Small sites in the centre of town need further consideration with regard to contributing to affordable housing – garage site proposed. There should be greater consideration to housing development on small sites within easy walking distance of the town and its amenities/facilities. There was concern that local infill/gap sites were not being filled with affordable housing.
  • It was generally agreed that the old hospital site, if not to be redeveloped for another hospital, should be safeguarded for affordable housing (the Community Council prefer the current site rather than St Leonards Fields for the hospital redevelopment)
  • There was some concern that with the ‘delay’ in production of the EFLP, we have lost infill sites in the interim. New housing on gap sites was also identified as resulting in further pressure on traffic flows in the town. The Community Council has proposed a contour-based system of protection.
  • There was a strong realisation that growth in St Andrews brings growth in traffic. One suggestion was a moratorium on new development, while still allowing redevelopment within the town.
  • Residents do not want endless urban sprawl, nor for St Andrews to become a retirement community.
  • Not all of the community is represented at public meetings, etc. and they are not all anti-development


  • Local plan needs to be looked at in tandem with structure plan. Can’t separate the two. Would have been helpful to have had sight of the latter.
  • Need to consider projected population rise for area and determine infrastructure required to support it.
  • Structure plan needs to link with local plan when looking at environmental change


  • University needs to provide more purpose built accommodation for students to take pressure off housing for local population being bought up by parents for their student children.
  • University has impact on local housing through accommodation needs of students, staff and graduates. Is University expansion part of local plan?
  • Expansion on University land? (North Haugh) – commercialisation of Technical Park; spin-out companies; expansion of halls of residence?
  • Longer term – is there need for further expansion? Expansion of post-grads – c 2000
  • No great demand as University students on the decrease?
  • The scale of the student population was also raised.
  • The university is such a big driver of housing change – what responsibility does it have/take for student housing? What commitment does it have to provide housing? With the university as a significant landowner the issue of what the community can gain from any future development was raised.
  • A further issue of concern is the nature of the student community. It is separate from the rest of the community of St Andrews and impacts on the housing market. The problem of new and old developments being bought up for the student market is large. One group member with a business in the centre of town suggested the imposition of business rates for flats rented out and used for multiple occupation. The argument was that people are buying properties to rent out as a business venture, yet are exempt from business rates
  • The role of the University as a key player in the town’s development was debated at length. In the 1990s, it was claimed that there was no hint of expansion, but by 2000 there was a dramatic turnaround. Now c.700 houses in the town are occupied by students. While the university does provide accommodation for a high percentage of the student population, there are very specific circumstances in St Andrews. There was a strong appreciation of the scale of the housing problem in the town and the difficulties in providing solutions.
  • What of planning gain from the university expansion? This was proposed as something to give serious consideration.
  • Also discussed were the new multiple occupancy/fire regulations, which can and will change the housing environment.

Community Centre/Facilities

  • Could developers contribute to community facilities?
  • Can Pipeland Road/Abbey Walk, previously identified for hospital site, be used for other development? Eg new community centre rather than housing?
  • Tie housebuilders into other developments, eg new hospital, new community centre, new sports centre/swimming pool, improvements to secondary school – redevelop site/new school in St. Andrews or NE Fife
  • If Kilrymont became one school, the South Street site could become a community facility.

Planning Gain

  • Opportunity for benefits from development
    • Enhanced public transport to the centre and edges
    • Rail link to the town
    • Parking issues and traffic management
    • Protect informal green space
    • Higher densities
    • Better design guide
    • Small industrial provision


  • Hospital location –if it is to include health centre present health centre site could be rationalised for community centre with access and present Cosmos could be moved there, freeing up the current Cosmos site for Hospital.


  • The harbour trust particularly mentioned the enhancement of the east end of the town/harbour and their objective of increasing/restoring the role of the harbour area as a focal point.


  • Need to have some small industry, etc in St Andrews to provide employment opportunities.



  • General concern that tourism is encouraged, but not managed.
  • Scottish Enterprise Fife, Tourist Board, ‘World Class’ – initiatives and organisations are all encouraging more people and tourists into St Andrews.
  • This increased pressure will damage what makes the place special now, becoming a victim of its own success, with no heed taken of local opinion.
  • A balance requires to be struck between the competing needs of residents, tourists and students. At present, many residents feel that their needs are given little weight, for example, parking measures creating problems for the elderly and those with mobility problems.


  • Through traffic must be taken away from the town. The town has the problem of so many roads going in/out of it – too many routes! We need to make better use of the roads we have, rather than building more.
  • A multi-storey car park would alleviate some of the problems, with the site of the old station proposed as an option.
  • Swapping priorities at the West Port was also mooted.
  • There was support for the pedestrianisation of Market Street and removing the tar from the cobbles – though there were allied concerns about accessibility for those with mobility problems.
  • The lack of neighbourhood shopping within the town was also identified as a major contributor to traffic in St Andrews – people have to get in their cars to go for a pint of milk as there are no local shops outwith the town centre.
  • Concerns were raised over the safety and sense of the reverse-flow cycle lane at Greyfriars Gardens (though the one cyclist in the group did not think it was a problem).
  • A relief road was discussed as part of the proposals for the western expansion, but there was no support for this option from the group. A park and ride site to keep cars outside the centre of the town was, however, supported.
  • Investment in road network needed for area. Should not just be linked to any new development which arises
  • Need to increase park and ride capacity and enforce greater town centre parking restrictions
  • Pedestrianise town centre – other towns have done it successfully, ensuring delivery times for local businesses are agreed
  • Town relief road needed – not development funded
  • Bypass
    • No clear consensus
    • Relief road possible?
    • No more traffic wanted
    • Becoming an issue with more traffic
    • Wish to restrict more development in St. Andrews
    • Local Transportation Plan
    • Look at traffic
    • Mixed feelings – not a strong case?
    • Access off low road into part of housing development?
    • Bogward Way/Strathkinness Road – busy road/large volume of traffic
    • Hungry Horse Road “C” Class road
    • Bypass would need to go around the town (Transportation advisor).
    • Mostly termination journeys – about 10% through traffic: 90% within and around St. Andrews (Transportation advisor)
  • Pedestrianisation required
  • Parking allocation – allocate additional space – Market Street?
  • Days of extreme demand for cars in/out St. Andrews needs to be taken into consideration
  • Need to build small multi-storey or underground car park
  • Demolish Fife Council building to free up St. Mary’s
  • Delivery vehicles – morning or late at night
  • Make efficient use of current town centre space, eg for parking
  • Road issues and the impact of traffic on the environment is a matter of concern. Access both to St Andrews and within the town is poor – it was mentioned that main roads stop at Glenrothes and that access roads to the town are unable to cope with current traffic levels.
  • The number of feeder primary schools for Madras covers a huge catchment area with the attendant need for great numbers of school buses – which pose a safety problem due to their lack of seatbelts.


  • Provision of a rail link from Leuchars to St Andrews.
  • Public transport access to the town was raised as a particular issue and the development of a railway link would assist in removing cars from the town.
  • Put a bus shelter in the town centre
  • Park and ride usage seems to be less than published figures
  • Establish a rail link to Cupar/mainline
  • Possible rail link to reduce car-borne trips to St. Andrews
    • Where would it enter the town?
    • Need a station near the centre of town – original site/adjacent to bus station
    • General concerns re termination point – Junction at Dairsie? Tram system leading on to road system?
    • Show land reserved on proposed route on Local Plan – most affordable route
    • If possible – reserve land (good idea but costly?); other options could then be considered, eg Tram system
    • Co-ordinate trains at Leuchars with local buses – run shuttle bus
    • Range of options considered – supported but sceptical
  • Public transport under-utilised through poor co-ordination with trains
  • Airport link needed
  • Visitors to St. Andrews from Edinburgh don’t stay due to poor infrastructure
  • Need park and ride site
  • Need better directioning of traffic – to parking areas around town and then bus centre
  • Transportation plan


  • Ensure architectural design guides are issued to ensure new developments 'fit' with town character – currently seems a 'free for all'. Reduce the number of obstacles e.g. signs, bins etc in town centre which impede people with disabilities and sensory impairment. Also aesthetically displeasing Keep the character of the town
  • Too much street furniture is having a detrimental effect on the town (and no more metal benches - need some warm wood to sit on!)
  • Pedestrian environment is increasingly poor – the proliferation of street furniture making movement difficult; the sheer amount of people crammed on to the narrow pavements and dodging traffic; cars dominating the town centre.
  • Need for pedestrian areas and better pedestrian access and a desire to retain something of the calmness of the town centre.
  • A lot of the character of the town centre has been lost already.
  • The character of the town is based on the town centre, tourism and golf. In the town centre, poor quality signage and shop fronts are eroding its charm.
  • Retail quality is also a growing issue, with the increase in charity shops a cause for concern.


  • Need second school to relieve pressure on Madras at? Tayport? Bridgehead
  • Madras split site not ideal – adds to traffic problems
    • Build another Bridgehead School
    • New Madras College?
    • New school site as part of the proposed St. Andrews expansion;
    • School built closer to playing fields at Madras.
  • Universal support for a Bridgehead school (suggested location being by the Newport roundabout, by the petrol station) which would take a huge weight off Madras and mean pupils would be bussed only short distances from north Fife.
  • It was agreed that this would still retain the need for two sites within St Andrews – which could provide an opportunity to split the school between junior and senior pupils – but the pupil numbers would be back to a manageable size.
  • There was also support for some sort of community facilities to be included within a new school – the Lochgelly Centre being the only suitable venue in Fife for many arts projects – and for an element of community use.
  • The time factor of bussing children from Newport to St Andrews, for example (30 minutes each way) is unacceptable, as is the cost – reported to be c. £750,000 per annum. There was unanimous agreement that this sum could go to better use.
  • Adult education was mentioned as something else to be considered when planning new school facilities. Suggestion of defining an area of search for a school in North Fife.


  • Population increases need to be matched by sufficient capacity within NHS – GPs and new hospital. Need to plan for 10-15 years in the future
  • Two sites proposed – is new hospital to be sited at current site of Largo Road site?
  • Strathkinness Road?
  • Needs to be suitable size for whole community/proposed population
  • Need to include GP surgery at same site and Day Centre facilities
    • Hospital is for East Fife area, ie East Neuk, Cupar and Taybridge too (health advisor). Currently securing purchase to proceed to Planning Permission; proposal submitted to Scottish Executive; timescale mid 2005 start date with about 18 months to completion late 2006. It will have outpatient and diagnostic services and will be a community hospital not a general hospital. Fife already has 2 General Hospitals, which need to be fully utilised. No need for full hospital in NE Fife – population size does not justify it (– health advisor)
  • No Day Surgery at Ninewells, Dundee – patients need to drive to Strathcarro Hospital – transport issues. Could some day surgery happen at St. Andrews? Depends on safety and staffing issues.
  • Studies currently being undertaken re hospital and transport issues


  • Shortage of industrial premises/land to ensure local businesses, essential to community, to survive e.g. joiners, plumbers
  • Largo road area too small
  • St Andrews is a nice place to live and work
  • Small business premises were another concern, with the loss of 2 joiners’ businesses and 2 garages recently, their yards sold for housing rather than small business use. There was concern that a loss of local services would make the town less attractive for everyone.


  • More local affordable access to golf needed
  • Discuss developers proposal.
  • Things for the young to do
    • sports facilities
    • playparks
    • community centres with facilities for young people

Environmental Services – waste pick up times


  • General support for cycle schemes within the town, but some are less good and there was a feeling that the tiny random sections that appear are pointless.
  • Location of facilities within the town - the cottage hospital, library, etc were in the wrong place in terms of ease of access for the majority of the town. They are not accessible from the south and east of the town, when this type of facility needs to be accessible from the major housing areas.

Note of meeting - St Andrews - Your Place, Your Plan
more Planning Info   back to Your Place Your Plan   up to Top


Facilitator: Siv MacArthur, Scribe: Neil Brown, Planner: Elspeth Cook

In general the Group suggested that the populations of Cameron 650, Dunino 450 and Kingsbarns 450 should be reflected within the type of development to be considered. Development in each village should be decided in the local community and the main aspects for any village were to keep them lively and healthy.

St Andrews Greenbelt

Issues relating by to St Andrews greenbelt were perceived to be driven by St Andrews although there all the surrounding areas were affected and there were implications for all the surrounding areas. St Andrews was dictating to the other local communities what the greenbelt should be and this was not right. The suggested size of greenbelt was certainly too large and it was suggested that the greenbelt should only be within the visual view of St Andrews. Members of the group marked their suggestions on map 1/12.

The current planning rules don't allow for large scale developments in the countryside. The countryside was already well protected and the proposed greenbelt would be a greenbelt like no other. A greenbelt imposed on local people by other people not in their community will have a serious effect. For example, if European regulations required cattle to be housed in farm buildings then additional buildings would need to be built and this might not be possible in a greenbelt.


There was a need for Kingsbarns to develop. However all sites should be looked at for development. Extensive consultation should take place to ensure that the development takes place in a suitable location. Affordable housing was a curious definition as soon as it got sold on it became unaffordable. Therefore if affordable housing was proposed then some sort of legal restriction was required to ensure that it remained affordable.

There was a need to keep the village vibrant and sustainable and it should not stagnate nor should it be a jungle of houses. There was a need to contain the village within the town centre and ensure that it was not sprawling away from the core.

The mixture of developments in Kingsbarns was already pleasant and any new development should be a good mix and type of houses. Only 13 to 14 houses were required in Kingsbarns to meet our social responsibilities share.

There does have to be some development in Kingbarns up to 20 houses would be viable. At the moment there were no playing facilities for the local school and the obvious space for the facilities was nearby. (Marked on accompanying plan – Station Road). A good social mix, modest scale of development and also aesthetically good looking buildings were requirements. Any development should fit in with the current type of the buildings in Kingsbarns and be well constructed e.g. steading type developments and agricultural type developments. A possible site at Croft Butts was indicated on a map.

Some sheltered housing was favoured in Kingsbarns and this could perhaps provide local employment for carers or wardens of the development. A was used to indicate agreement with a proposed site near the school.

There was no difficulty with having expensive houses within Kingsbarns as long as these were not the only type of development.

What people did not want to see was to have car ownership of 2.5 cars per household and 40 homes built in a field.


Cameron had seen a depopulation of the countryside in the last 20 years. Re-developed steadings has brought people back in to the countryside. New farming methods have not helped the population increase. The Council does not pay enough attention to the rural infrastructure including roads, health care or other facilities. There is also a need to have leisure facilities and cycling.

In particular Cameron required a focal point and a village centre of some sort. It was felt that objectors from St Andrews who disapproved of change should not be the ones who dictated which development took place.

There was a need to promote local business in the area and more and better guidance on this was required. Tourist accommodation and a farm shop were marked on the Cameron map.

Additional access to riding trails and facilities particular around golf courses should be explored.

There was nothing for kids in the Cameron area and there was also a need to make people stop in Cameron to encourage employment and business in the area.

More creative ways of building houses was also required in Fife including alternative material energy efficiency such as straw bales, underground houses etc. Perhaps these could be given priority in a rural area. An area for affordable housing was marked out on the Cameron map adjacent to Normand View Kennels.

Kirkcaldy Meadows was also suggested as a good type of development in a rural area.


There was a need for towns and villages to be lived in by wealth creators. This will bring employment and not fossilise villages or towns. For example Abernethy had been completely taken over by large developments whose populations worked elsewhere. There was a need to have a broad spectrum of all types housing not just larger bedroomed expensive developments.

Transportation and Road Infrastructure

There were some concerns in Kingsbarns that several thousand visitors to the Crail raceway speed through Kingsbarns at 4.30 in the morning. Perhaps speed cameras or the 20mph zone outside the school could help improve the situation.

The access at Dunino school was a road safety problem and there was a real possibility of an accident in the area.


the Group felt that generally they were in favour of small scale development as long as their local communities were vibrant and alive. However such development should be sympathetic and suitable to the area. A repetition of the development at Drumoig should be avoided.

The maps marked by the group will be handed in separately. A verbal account of marked areas are included in these notes.

Discussion group workshop notes for East Neuk
more Planning Info   back to Your Place Your Plan   up to Top


Key Issues

  • Housing – Second homes / Rented holiday homes / effect on countryside
  • Tourism
  • Local Business
  • Developments – Crail Airfield / Anstruther Holiday Camp / St Monans
  • Council Property – Usage / Lack of Usage

Development Issues

  • Affordable Housing
    • Engage with land owners to sell/develop/rent land to build affordable housing eg Kingsbarns
    • Engage in partnership arrangements
    • Identify Council owned land to enable affordable housing to be built
    • Land usage around settlements identified – See Maps
  • Employment
    • Identify land for the construction and rent of small business units for local business to develop
    • Concerns regarding Tourism – closure of local hotel results in local unemployment – reduces ability to attract tourists to stay for period of time
    • Planning Service should be more flexible regarding change of use criteria – listen to the local community
    • There is potential for the development of Crail Airfield but this is currently under Historic Scotland. The effect – no periphery development until the future of the Airfield is determined.
  • Balanced Communities
    • Keep settlements separate – maintain community identity
    • Provide affordable housing to our young people
    • Provide jobs for our young people
    • Commit to our communities.


  • Parking
    • Pittenweem parking problems every weekend – influx of Tourists
    • Creation of rest area for lorry drivers at Waterless Bridge, Sawmill Corner to allow lorries to deliver and leave the settlement as quickly as possible
  • Transport
    • Accessibility to major town centres of Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes etc
    • Train links – lack off – especially to Leuchars or Markinch / Kirkcaldy
    • Dire need for joint up transport links
  • Toilets
    • Pavilion needing replaces at Beachwalk Park, Crail along with a new public toilet facility – perhaps these could be combined?
    • Crail Town Hall has a new toilet facility but the public are not permitted to use this. Could this not be made an attendant toilet with a charge made to contribute towards the costs – this is vital to Tourism.
more Planning Info   back to Your Place Your Plan   up to Top