Perth & Kinross Council planning committee voted 10-3 against accepting a recommendation to approve Ogilvie Homes’ application to erect the new dwellings on land at Kinfauns Holdings east of Caledonian House last year.

Councillors voiced concerns about road access issues likely to arise as a result of the development’s layout.

The local authority went on to argue when the decision was appealed to the Scottish Government that the development would create “significant adverse road safety issues” and would not “contribute positively” to the surrounding environment, The Perthshire Advertiser reports.

Now a reporter working for the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) has dismissed these arguments and granted Ogilvie Homes permission to press on with their plans as proposed.

Steve Field said in his decision notice of the arguments put forward by Perth & Kinross Council to refuse the application: “The council’s reason for refusal indicates that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on amenity as the houses could be set further back.

“The five houses proposed on the site frontage would be set back from the kerb edging the proposed footway for distances ranging from 8.5 metres to 11.5 metres. The existing houses opposite the site are set back between 11 metres and 15 metres from the edge of the verge on the north side of the road.

“In the absence of any specific design guidance for the site, I do not consider this difference to be material in terms of its impact on the character of the settlement.

“The proposed houses would be set sufficiently far back within the site that they would neither have an overbearing impact on the proposed footway nor on the houses opposite.”

He added: “The council’s reason for refusal indicates that… five driveways which would provide access to the houses fronting onto Kinfauns Holdings could be avoided.

“However, subject to the provision of dropped kerb crossings and provision of good visibility, both of which could be ensured through the use of planning conditions, I consider this to be an appropriate arrangement on what is a predominantly residential street.

“There is also concern about the level of additional traffic which would be generated on local roads. However, I have no evidence to suggest that the proposed development, which the appellant estimates would generate an additional 12 vehicles trips per hour, would exceed the capacity of the local network.

“I also note that the site has planning permission for 37 houses so it is probable that the proposed development would generate less trips than the development which could be implemented.”