springfield-fife

We are DISSOLVED

/ springfieldcommunitycouncil / Leave a comment

Springfield Community Council was forcibly dissolved by Fife Council in September 2026 because we did not have an operational bank account, and did not open a bank account when Fife Council asked us to.

Springfield Community Council has been financially dormant for the last 2 years or more, and has not applied for any grants from Fife Council or elsewhere. Therefore, while having a bank account is technically a constitutional requirement, it has been irrelevant to the operation of the Community Council as a representative body for the villages.

Though financially dormant, we continued to meet and to pursue issues that matter to residents in particular issues such as trying to stop reduction of bus services to the village, better play park facilities, Clushford Toll speed limit & relocated bus stop, pavement on Clushford Bridge, road condition and drainage where it floods, pavement parking on Main St so the combines can get through, and new signs for the village entry on Main St, etc. Residents can judge for themselves how much support Fife Council has given to the village in those respects.

Picture: Combine struggling to get through Springfield with pavement parking not allowed even on dropped kerb. Our request for pavement parking exemption was repeatedly dismissed by Fife Council.

Combine struggling to get through Springfield with pavement parking not allowed even on dropped kerb. Our request for pavement parking exemption was repeatedly dismissed by Fife Council

Thank you to all the residents and especially people that stood to be part of the Community Council over the years. Thanks are also due to the Fife Councillors that have supported us, the most diligent of which has been Cllr Margaret Kennedy who has been most regular at our meetings. Thanks to all of yous.

Fife Council require us to to close down this website by 16th October 2026 – but also require us to inform the community that the Community Council is dissolved. The website is our chief means of communication so closing it immediately would not be helpful to informing the community. We will close the website in due course.

Residents should note that our development trust Springfield Community Company Ltd is unaffected by the above, and continues to exist for the benefit of residents.

Comment on the Solar Farm proposal now!

/ springfieldcommunitycouncil / Leave a comment

The developer’s web form consultation is open only to the end of the week. Here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfs4veKlQZiyyY3dH5NLUBfpGEW9ExC0cw77zoKnJc3_R47xg/viewform

Closes on 11th April. So we need to get as many local residents to comment as possible.

Springfield Community Council is suggesting that you include the following in your response:

  1. Boundary is too close to the village. It needs to be pushed back behind the woodland strip.
  2. Access for walking must be preserved.
  3. Community benefit payment needs to be much more realistic. Not £25k/yr but £125k/yr

Solar Farm Public Consultation Event 4th April at Church 4-8pm

/ springfieldcommunitycouncil / Leave a comment

The developer of the proposed solar farm at Rankeillour is holding a public event to discuss the solar farm with the community.

We’ve been discussing it at the Community Council, and have also discussed the proposal with the developer. 

Springfield Community Council is not in principle opposed to a solar development though its large scale does concern us.  Its huge – over 200 acres.  It will stretch all the way to Bow of Fife railway crossing on Sweetholme Rd. 

We think there are several points that the village needs to come together on:

1. Boundary is too close to the village

The current boundary (red line) comes right up to the village.  Though the developer says the solar panels won’t come as close as the red line, they could do if planning permission is granted on the red line area.  We need to send a message that the boundary needs to be further away from the village – behind the beech wood strip. 

2. Access for walking must be preserved

Lots of people take access walking path, field edges and farm tracks.  The solar development must not prevent access because of perimeter fencing or other barrier.

3. Community benefit payment is too little.  It should be about £150k per year.

This is a £60 million plus project which would be one of the biggest in Scotland. 

The developer is proposing only £25k/yr as a community benefit payment  If this was an onshore wind farm of the same power, they would be paying over £300k/yr !!  Plus more for the battery energy store.

So we’re being short changed.  Solar is less profitable so a fair payment would be about a third of onshore wind, so we should be getting about £100k for the solar panels.  And more for the huge battery store.   A fair figure would be £150k/yr 

And think what Springfield could do with that sort of money each year.  New sports facilities,  a better hall, pay for more youth clubs.  It would make a huge difference. 

Council builds sixty new houses in village and then cuts the 63 bus service

/ springfieldcommunitycouncil / Leave a comment

Difficult to believe but after 60 new Council houses have been recently occupied, Fife Council think it is acceptable to cut the only good bus service the villlage has: the 63 St Andrews to Glenrothes. Springfield Community Council has strongly opposed the cutting of the service into the village, and we have been supported by Councillor Kennedy.

The 63 takes 30 mins to get to Glenrothes, and 64 takes an hour. Its literally quicker to get on a bike than take the 64 to St Andrews or Glenrothes.

Map of current 63 bus route at Springfield

The map shows the current route. The revised route will bypass Springfield, only stopping at Station outside the main village.

Why are young families in our rural village being abandonned by Fife Council, in favour of a better service for other villages?

This is what Fife Council said:

“…..one of the main reasons that Service 63 has suffered
reliability issues was the inclusion of Springfield within the timetable.
Previously the timetable operated as Service 94 and did not operate via
Springfield.  Following the changes to Stagecoach bus services in August
2024 the service was changed to operate as Service 63, the diversion via
Springfield was suggested by Moffat & Williamson who assured us that there
was enough time to do so, unfortunately it has transpired that there is
insufficient time for the service to operate reliably via Springfield.  Many
of the complaints received were from passengers suggesting that drivers were
speeding to make up their time, these complaints and the reliability of the
service was the main catalyst for this review.  Additionally the reliability
of the service was affecting the operation of Service M36 connections with
the bus service in Newburgh – Service 63 continues as Service M36 from
Glenrothes bus station to Newburgh.

I can confirm that various options were looked at to include Springfield
within the timetable, however any change that incorporated Springfield was
at the detrimental effect to other villages on the route.

I acknowledge the journey times to Glenrothes and St Andrews are longer,
albeit journey times to Cupar are similar.  Service 63 will operate between
Cuparmuir to Pitlessie via Cupar Road and the bus stops on the south side of
the station will be served.  I will arrange for the Springfield Rail Station
to be added to the timetable.  Ladybank and Cupar are natural interchange
points for onward travel for those seeking a faster journey.

Many comments were taken onboard during the consultation and implemented,
unfortunately for the reasons above Springfield cannot be included at this
time.  However we will continue to survey the services in the area to
determine if any journey time improvements can be made in the future. …”