Developer behind Bertha Park project near Perth facing second planning refusal

The Elgin-based builder is seeking to revise its initial designs for the development so it can create 82 new properties in an area it currently has approval to build 68.

Planning bosses will risk the wrath of developers a second time by recommending their latest application involving the Bertha Park project be refused.

Perth and Kinross Council granted Springfield Properties permission to build over a thousand new homes at Bertha Park back in December 2016.

But officials have balked at the company’s latest proposal.

The Elgin-based builder is seeking to revise its initial designs for the development so it can create 82 new properties in an area it currently has approval to build 68.

But planners reckon the revision will also lead to residents being left with insufficient outdoor space and will recommend the council’s planning committee refuse the application when members meet virtually on Wednesday.

Springfield Properties has already asked the Scottish Government to consider reversing the council’s recent decision to refuse its application to build 67 new properties at Pitdownies Farm in Milnathort and the company could decide to appeal to the government if its Bertha Park application is refused.

Pipers' tribute to the Perthshire heroes of the 'forgotten Dunkirk' during WW2

A report due to be considered by councillors at the meeting explains: “It is important for all dwellings to have enough garden ground provision.

“Consistent with this, minimum standards seek to achieve an outside area that can perform the minimum to be expected of a garden; ie clothes drying, waste and recycling storage areas, sitting out facilities and plot futureproofing (such as development under permitted development regulations).

“The private garden ground incorporated into this layout falls way short of these minimum standard guidelines and is not considered adequate to cater for occupants’ needs.

“Across the 82 units, only 11 (13 per cent) achieve or exceed the minimum rear garden requirements set out in guidance.

“This leaves 71 units (87 per cent) falling significantly short of appropriate provision (by more than 10sqm shortfall).

“Of those that do not meet the minimum standards, there are substantial failings in many cases, with up to a 50 per cent reduction in the minimum standard.

“This is considered unacceptable in this context and constitutes a departure from LDP2 policy … and a reason for recommending refusal.

“It is acknowledged that, in some limited cases, there is potential for an exception for semi-private/communal spaces, which are carefully designed to replace or off-set private gardens.

“However, there is no such provision made and for most properties affected, it is not considered to constitute a viable option as a genuine alternative.”