Development faces the chop after deadline is missed

Developers have so far failed to submit a full environmental impact assessment

A bid to expand Perthshire’s biggest town is facing the axe after a spat with planning chiefs.

The multi-million-pound Westpark project involves building 400 houses, a primary school, supermarket and offices across 70 acres of fields and woodland on the outskirts of Blairgowrie.

Project leaders say the scheme will have tangible economic benefits for the area, while many have written to Perth and Kinross Council calling for the plan to be scrapped.

Now planners are also calling for the scheme to be refused.

When the plan was tabled in June, officers said developers had breached regulations by not submitting a full environmental assessment (EIA).

Westpark was given 28 days to come up with an appraisal, or face having its application binned.

A council spokeswoman said: “We can confirm the deadline for the submission of the EIA report has passed and to date the council has no record of the report being submitted.”

Agents have been given extra time to submit their assessment.

Westpark and architects Yeoman McAllister declined to comment.

In just four weeks, the council has received nearly 70 objections.

In his letter to planners, Dr Gordon Walker summed up the general feeling of opponents.

“The Westpark plan provides absolutely no benefit to the population of Blairgowrie,” he said.

“I believe has a detrimental effect on the lives and businesses in the town.

“I question the rationale behind this development.”

He said: “It is criminal that this particularly picturesque area could be irreversibly destroyed – and it will be – with no thought for tourism and wildlife.”

In their submission to council officers, agents for Westpark said: “Employment opportunities, council tax revenues, affordable housing provision and expenditure within the local area should all benefit from the development.”

Although there was no formal environmental document submitted alongside the planning application, there was an ecological assessment that deals with wildlife on the site.

Once planners have give their view on the scheme it is likely to be brought before councillors for a final decision later in the year.

It is criminal that this particularly picturesque area could be irreversibly destroyed – and it will be – with no thought for tourism of wildlife. DR GORDON WALKER

Planning officials are calling on the council to refuse permission for the 220-home development.