DULOCH neighbours have warned of a "traffic nightmare" after a new McDonald's drive-thru restaurant was given the go-ahead.

The burger chain had plans approved by Fife Council last week which will see a two-storey outlet built in the Tesco Extra car park.

A total of 65 jobs are set to be created after councillors voted 11-3 in favour of the proposals at the central and west planning committee.

There were 176 objections, and three letters of support, and concerns included traffic congestion, road safety, increased noise and litter, anti-social behaviour, flooding and the effect on local residents.

The new burger joint will be in the northern section of the car park, across the road from the Aldi store, and will result in the loss of 67 parking spaces at the Tesco store.

Council officers had recommended the application be approved.

One Duloch man, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Press that the new McDonald's would be a "traffic nightmare".

He said: "I don't really know why the area needs another McDonald's when there's another one just minutes away at Fife Leisure Park.

"It's difficult enough to get in and out of that Tesco car park without opening up a drive-thru restaurant.

"It will be a traffic nightmare.

"The people that live closest to it will also be very concerned over the potential for rubbish being left all over the place.

"Having two McDonald's restaurants so close to each other doesn't make much sense to me.

"I know it's going to create jobs but I think, overall, I'm quite negative about it all."

His concerns over traffic and littering were echoed by Dunfermline North councillor Ian Ferguson, who opposed the plans at the committee meeting.

He said: "There's already a McDonald's five minutes' drive away that struggles with throughput.

"The loss of car-parking spaces is enough to cause chaos at peak times, bank holidays and Christmas time.

"They're taking 67 spaces away and increasing traffic through the site? I'm not happy with that."

He said the proposal would lead to traffic "gridlock" in the area and that 20-30 parking spaces were flooded regularly and therefore unusable.

Cllr Ferguson added: "The Duloch area is a blackspot for anti-social behaviour and this has been recognised by the applicant in the report.

"They know there's a problem and expect the council and the police to resolve it. That's asking for trouble."

Not all Duloch residents are against the move, however, with one woman telling the Press that she "didn't see what all the big fuss is about".

The woman, who also didn't want to be named, added: "It's another place here that the kids will be able to go to and enjoy.

"There's already a Subway and Greggs in the park too, so it's another option for people.

"It's going to create jobs as well so I'm all for it as there's more positives than negatives in my opinion."

Officers said the fact there were other McDonald's restaurants nearby was "not something we can take into account in this application" and that the company had pledged to litter-pick not just at their own site but 100 metres beyond it, three times a day.

They added that they had "no concerns about a detrimental impact on the road network", as a transport assessment had shown that roads would be able to cope with the projected increase, and that, if flooding was an existing situation, it couldn't be taken into account when considering this application.

An amendment by Councillors James Calder and Ferguson said it should be refused as it would lead to increased traffic levels and road safety issues.

However, council officers felt the reasons given may not be strong enough and added that, if the decision to refuse was overturned on appeal by the Scottish Government, the developer may be awarded costs.

One officer told them: "You may have concerns that there's an issue with traffic but you don't have any evidence.

"There have certainly been appeal decisions where this has been raised by reporters.

"It's not enough to say that it's not good in terms of transport issues. Without evidence, the council would be very exposed, if this was refused, in terms of expenses being awarded against us."