FiFEplan – Answers to Main Issues Report sent in 2013
Question 2: (Strategic focus of new development)
The CC welcomes the continuation of the strategic polices in the current Structure and Local plans for focusing growth in SDAs and areas where growth will support regeneration of communities, and supports the proposal to accommodate growth, beyond the levels in the existing plans, within the Dunfermline North and Ore/Upper Leven valleys. The CC welcomes the recognition that many communities, which includes Dalgety Bay, are constrained in their potential for expansion by sensitive landscape areas.
The CC takes the view however that it is important to recognise that many brownfield sites that have outlived their previous uses within built up areas may not now be appropriate for redevelopment and may provide greater community value as amenity or greenspace areas. It is noted that this is recognised in the proposals for green networks, which will include brownfield sites that have been rehabilitated as green spaces. Any revised policy for brownfield land should retain the qualification that redevelopment should make a positive contribution to the amenity of the community in which it is located.
Questions 6 and 8: (Organic growth in other communities and candidate site options)
The CC would not support development of any of the candidate sites located on the ‘rural’ eastern fringe of the town. This would compromise the setting of the town within an area of great landscape value.
It also continues to object to the proposed site for further residential development at St David’s. Inappropriate development of this key coastal site would compromise the amenity of the St David’s Village development and the coastal strip along the shoreline through the town which is followed by the Fife Coastal Path. The Community Council would support limited development that realises the original master plan concept for the St David’s village to provide local small scale commercial facilities (café, bistro, small scale retail, community facilities) that serve the village area and visitors to the coastal path and harbour. It is noted that the current strategic review of the industrial areas of the town might result in the identification of further small scale opportunities for ‘organic’ growth. If proposals for appropriate development do not come forward the site should remain as managed greenspace.
It is considered premature, however, to designate the candidate sites put forward in this area for housing.
Question 12 (Sites for travelling people)
The CC is keen to see early action on the identification of stopover sites as proposed. The town has suffered repeated nuisance from unauthorised temporary encampments in recent years. Because of the tightly defined character of the town that reflects its development as a planned new town there are not considered to be any suitable sites within the town.
Questions 13 and 14 (Employment and employment land)
The CC notes that there is currently very limited employment land within the town, but that there are some key vacant buildings and under-utilised areas within the industrial areas. The CC welcomes the current review of these areas, and would support measures to secure the effective redevelopment of vacant buildings and rationalisation of under-utilised sites. The industrial estates have been a prime employment area from before the construction of the new town and are a socially and economically integral component within the fabric of the town. The CC would support direct intervention by the council to secure the maintenance and upgrading of the industrial estates as strategic employment locations within both the town and the wider Bridge-head area.
Question 14 (Future f town centres)
The CC accepts that the role of town centres needs to be reconsidered, since retailing and some leisure activities