Plans to fill in pond at Prestonhill Quarry to make room for new homes rejected
Plans to fill in a Fife quarry pond to make room for a mixed-use development comprising holiday lodges and a cafe/bistro have been rejected by councillors.
About this development:
- Authority:Fife
- Type:Residential, Leisure
- Applications:
- Team:DDR (UK) Ltd (developer)
DDR (UK) Limited had been seeking planning permission in principle at Prestonhill Quarry in Inverkeithing.
Central to the developer’s plans for the site was a commitment to fill in a deep water-filled void on the quarry floor which has been the scene of four fatal accidents between 1973 and 2017 – three resulting from misadventure by under-19s and the other a 36-year-old diver engaged in an organised diving activity.
However, while planners felt the application was of sufficient quality to be approved, members of Fife Council’s central and west planning committee went against their recommendation and voted 7-4 to refuse consent.
Councillor David Coleman, who called for the refusal, said: “Something needs to be done on this site but this isn’t it.
“This is not sympathetic to the area and, while I do recognise the tragedies that have occurred, and god forbid it doesn’t happen again, I do think something better needs to come forward.”
Councillor John Beare, who seconded the motion to refuse, said the management of the site had been “nothing short of deplorable” and added: “There may be a proposal that could be considered on this site but I don’t believe this is it.”
The former dolerite quarry, which lies adjacent to the eastern edge of Inverkeithing, is partly naturally regenerated and is used as informal recreation space by the residents of both Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay and visitors to the Fife Coastal Path.
The water-filled void, which is around 11m-deep in places, has also been used over a number of years by divers as a training venue, although videos taken by divers over the years show the extent of illegal dumping that has taken place in the quarry pond, with items ranging from old tyres and trolleys to sunken boats and vehicles.
The hole has been the source of huge concern locally, in particular when individuals have died in the quarry pond.
Despite the fatal accidents, there has been significant opposition to the redevelopment plans and 162 letters of objection were submitted to the council, STV News reports.
Noting DDR’s contention that there is a serious issue of criminal and anti-social behaviour associated with the quarry area, Mary Farrell, chair of the Inverkeithing Trust, described that argument as “weak” and with “little merit”.
She said: “Arguably, the action to prevent the anti-social incidents should be through implementing other appropriate/security measures. If it is accepted that crime should not pay, then criminal or anti-social behaviour cannot be an argument for the development of 180 houses.”
A spokesperson for the Royal Burgh of Inverkeithing Community Council added that the results of a survey conducted locally suggested 81% of respondents were against the proposal, while 70% were against the quarry pool being filled in.
The spokesperson said: “In representing the people of the town’s opinion and for the reasons set out, Inverkeithing Community Council state it is firmly opposed to this development.
“There are clear and material planning grounds for refusal by Fife Council and should they do otherwise the Local Development Plan process would be rendered meaningless.”
However, while case officer Martin McGroarty said he “wholeheartedly” understood the community’s attachment to the asset as a beauty spot, he suggested it was “only by the grace of god” that no one had been killed by rock fall at the abandoned quarry.
He also noted that the plans still needed work, and that more detailed planning applications would be forthcoming for consideration further down the line to address a number of issues still outstanding – such as affordable housing, environmental impacts and lorry movements.
He said: “If this is approved, it will keep alive the prospect of an acceptable development while also removing a significant and ongoing hazard at the same time.”
Councillor Andrew Verrecchia lodged an amendment calling for the application to be approved as per recommendations, and that was seconded by councillor Bobby Clelland.
Nonetheless, Mr Coleman and Mr Beare’s motion to refuse was voted through.