THE Scottish Government have been asked to overrule Fife Council and approve plans for 80 houses east of Kingseat.

Gladman Developments Ltd, of Livingston, have submitted an appeal after their application to build new homes on greenbelt land either side of Cuddyhouse Road was rejected in June.

There were 44 objections from members of the public and the central and west planning committee ruled that the development was not needed as a five-year forecast said "there will be a surplus" of homes in the area.

In their appeal, the company said the council's reasons for refusing this proposal "are not justified" and the development would provide "much-needed housing" for Kingseat.

Gladman want to build 80 houses, including 30 affordable homes, on the seven-hectare site which would extend the village boundary to the east, towards Cowdenbeath.

The plans include a new roundabout, play area, paths and cycleways, open space and a community woodland.

However, the council said residents would be faced with “unacceptable levels” of noise and the development would have an adverse effect on the “visual and landscape character” of Kingseat.

They said there was no shortfall in the number of houses for the area and the latest estimate showed a surplus of 1,320 homes in the area from 2019 to 2024.

However, the officers based this argument on figures from the rejected South East Scotland Plan (SESplan 2).

The plan included a major reduction in the projected number of homes needed in the Kingdom but was refused last year by government ministers due to the lack of a proper transport assessment.

The council's argument is that the housing target figures should still be used as "the rejection letter raised no concerns” about them.

Gladman's appeal to the government's planning and environmental appeals division states that they should not.

It says: "As SESplan 2 does not form part of the development plan, and ceases to be a material consideration, the housing land supply position reverts back to the council’s previous position based on their assessment against SESplan requirements, wherein a clear and significant shortfall in the five-year supply of effective housing land is acknowledged."

It referenced recent appeal decisions in Crossford and Aberdour, where the council's refusal to grant planning permission for new homes was overturned, and added: "In both the Crossford and Aberdour decisions, the reporters concluded that there was a shortfall."

The appeal said the council accepted the decisions in these two cases and Gladman added that "it is unclear why the council have been inconsistent in their position and a similar approach was not taken in the determination of this appeal site".

It added that "any perceived negative effects do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the stated benefits" of building the new homes and that council guidelines about noise were "contradictory".