Almost two decades of debate came to a close when a new draft local plan was agreed by Perth and Kinross Council on Tuesday.
Central to the decision is a move that would likely block long-standing plans for a massive extension to the western edge of Perth which has caused considerable consternation for local residents.
Also discussed was the Cross Tay Link Road, which would create a third crossing over the river between the A93 Blairgowrie road and the A9, as well as possible alterations to the town’s green belt area.
Councillors backed an amendment to remove Almond Valley from the local development plan (LDP), ensuring that the area surrounding Ruthvenfield and Huntingtowerfield could not be used for housing.
Attempts by owners of that piece of land, the Pilkington Trust, to speak at the meeting were voted down by councillors.
The firm is behind a proposal for 1,800 houses, a primary school and leisure, retail and office facilities which was rejected only last month.
The main reasons given for refusal were that the masterplan had been drawn up and that the proposal contravened a policy of the 1995 local development plan.
There will, however, be an opportunity for employment developments, with space set aside within the boundaries of the Inveralmond Industrial Estate for further expansion.
Any new residential areas in the vicinity would be limited to Bertha Park, which lies to the north of the town and Perth West, which would be set in land across the A9 from the existing Western Edge.
Proposing the changes to the LDP, Councillor George Hayton told colleagues: ”I have heard from many residents and my two colleagues and I have the privilege and duty to speak up on their behalf.
”There are difficulties with the construction of the potential Almond Valley village and I would like people to think about the strategic aspect.
”If you have Bertha Park and Perth West, do you require to build on a flood plain and where residents have shown a very articulate opposition over the years?
”In the 1990s, there were plans for 800 houses which increased to 1,500 and finally the 1,800 properties the developer wants there today. I think this is part of our countryside which is worth preserving.”
His proposals were backed by Councillor Wilma Lumsden, who cited numerous incidents of flooding in Ruthvenfield and Almondbank as one of the main reasons why new housing developments should be rejected.
She said that the drainage systems in place would be unable to cope with the extra pressure, even with additional outlets.
Opposing the move to keep Almond Valley free of development was Councillor Ian Miller, who urged his colleagues to ”keep an open mind” when casting their vote between his motion to approve the plan as it stood with minor adjustments and Councillor Hayton’s amendment.
”This development has certainly been on the table for as long as I have been a councillor,” he said. ”My concern about Almond Valley is that it has never actually achieved anything.
”We have waited all this time for proposals to develop the area but none have come. I think by supporting my motion, it would keep our options open.”
Echoing these sentiments was Councillor Tom Gray, who claimed that the area could already be looking at a housing shortfall in years to come and that this would likely be exacerbated by excluding any development within the Almond Valley area.
Following a vote, the amendment was carried by 28 votes to 10.
The LDP is now set to be published at the end of the month, with a six-week consultation period taking place from February.