PLANS to get rid of an old concrete reservoir tank near Culross and build a house in its place have again been refused.

Fife Council had knocked back the application in August last year and the planning review body have now upheld that decision.

Bruce Ferguson, of Carnock Road in Dunfermline, had sought consent for a change of use for the site that's just to the north of the village.

The redundant tank is 260 metres away from the category A listed Culross Abbey House - the three storey mansion dates back to 1608 - and within the gardens of the historic property.

READ MORE: Work on 170 new homes gets underway

Mr Ferguson's proposals were met with 10 letters of objection, including one from Historic Environment Scotland.

Dunfermline Press: The old reservoir tank, in the right of the photo, and the view down towards Culross Abbey House.The old reservoir tank, in the right of the photo, and the view down towards Culross Abbey House. (Image: Fife Council)

Three previous applications were submitted and all three were later withdrawn.

Officers had argued that the plans would result in "unjustified development" in the countryside.

They said it would have a "significant detrimental impact" on the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside and the setting of Culross Abbey House and its garden.

READ MORE: Stunning home next to Forth Bridge on sale for offers over £1.5m.

And they said the proposed development would be "unable to provide adequate manoeuvring / turn space for vehicles within the site", nor would it be able to deliver the necessary visibility splays or off-street parking.

After the plans were refused, Mr Ferguson hoped the review body would overturn the decision.

He argued that the house was designed to be in keeping with the character of the area, the proposed traditional dwelling would re-use brownfield land by replacing "an industrial style building" and screening would mean it would not have a significantly adverse impact on Culross Abbey House.

The appeal also pointed out that "because of the road geometry" the speed of traffic coming from the north would be significantly reduced.

The review panel accepted some of the arguments but agreed, by a 3-1 majority, to refuse on the grounds of road safety, visual impact and the principle of development.