Controversial plans to build a new “village” on the edge of Perth have been kicked out by councillors after protests by local residents.
On the same day that councillors waved through the huge £1 billion Bertha Park development, plans for around 1,300 homes at nearby Almond Valley were thrown out.
Councillors voted against the long-standing plan, claiming the site posed a flood risk and the scale of the development could be detrimental to nearby residents. But the development management committee was warned that their reasons for refusal were not competent and unlikely to stand up to scrutiny at an appeal.
The Pilkington Trust – the company behind the bid – is now expected to take its case to the Scottish Government.
As one of the main objectors, community councillor Ken Simpson, put it: “We may have won the battle, but we’ve yet to win the war.”
The Almond Valley plan, which is earmarked for land between Huntingtower and Rutherfield, was first raised about 20 years ago.
An early version of the plan was refused by the local authority in December 2011.
Developers tried to overturn the decision with an appeal to the Scottish Government and legal action at the Court of Session. Both bids were unsuccessful.
However, this time the project was backed by council planners because it now complies with the council’s adopted local plan.
It was standing room only at Wednesday’s committee meeting, which was attended by about 50 objectors.
They applauded councillors who spoke against the plan and heckled those who tried to approve it.
Councillor Alan Livingstone said he was worried Almond Valley would turn out like Oudenarde, a troubled housing development which stalled at Bridge of Earn.
He said, “I sit here with a tremendous sense of deja vu. About 10 years ago, I sat in meetings like this and heard similar things being said about a place called Oudenarde.
“That is now an impressive example of an approved application gone woefully wrong.”
The scheme was backed by convener Tom Gray, who said: “This is in the
development plan, it is considered to be a key site and I actually believe it will be a greener area.”
His motion to approve was backed by councillor John Kellas, who said he had heard nothing to dissuade him from approving.
Councillor Willie Wilson put forward an amendment to refuse – claiming there was still a risk of flooding at the site – although he was told his argument was likely to fall at appeal.
It was refused nine votes to four.
Protesters step out to halt ‘unwanted’ development
Councillors voted to reject Almond Valley after a heated showdown between objectors and developers.
The planning application attracted 85 letters and e-mails from locals calling for the scheme to be scrapped.
Ken Simpson, chair of the Methven and District Community Council, said: “The residents have had to put up with this proposal in various forms since 1990 – that’s 26 years.
“The local people and the people of Perth do not want this.”
He said that there were already about 11,000 proposed homes in and around the city. “Where are the people coming from to buy these houses? Are we going to become a dormitory city settlement?”
Mr Simpson added: “This development will definitely not be good for the local community who could find themselves living near a building site for the next 20 years.”
Sandy Simpson, of the Rutherfield Conservation group, also addressed the committee. “All the existing villages and hamlets will lose their identities because they will be swallowed up in the Almond Valley project as an extension of Perth,” he said.
“Perth city is currently haemorrhaging jobs and with no prospects of new employment, who would want to move into these new houses?”
Speaking on behalf of the Pilkington Trust, Alistair Wood, head of planning at estate agents Savils said: “Over the last two years, the trust – along with the joint applicants – have worked very hard on these proposals. This has been to ensure we have address all the requirements and taken on board all comments by local residents to ensure that this masterplan is robust and deliverable.”
Mr Wood stressed that no development was planned for any flood plains at the site.
