Developer Ribbon Homes wanted to create 12 homes on land which was once the scene of the 17th Century Battle of Tippermuir.

The scheme was originally rejected by Perth and Kinross Council after residents living in nearby Marlefield Grove objected to the building designs and complained that the development would result in a loss of privacy.

Councillors went against planners’ recommendations and rejected the plan on the grounds that it “does not respect the character and amenity of the place” and represented an “over development of the site”.

Historic Scotland did not object to the housing plan, although the organisation urged planners to consider the development’s impact on the site of “national importance”.

Alloa-based Ribbon Homes then appealed to the Scottish Government, calling for the decision to be overturned and planning permission for the proposed homes to be granted.

The firm also demanded expenses from the local authority, claiming its councillors acted “unreasonably”.

The Government’s planning and environmental appeals division dismissed the appeal.

Reporter Rob Huntley, who had been tasked to investigate the case, also found that the council should not have to pay Ribbon Homes’ expenses.

He said: “The proposed development would accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan, but that there would be an unacceptably adverse effect in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

“I have therefore dismissed the appeal and refused to grant planning permission.”

He added: “Members of the council’s committee were not bound to follow the advice of officers on these matters and were entitled to take their own local knowledge into account and make their own judgment in deciding the appeal application.”

Mr Huntley said: “The council proved support for their reasons for refusal.”

In a letter to Scottish Ministers, agents for Ribbon Homes said: “The application was refused by the planning committee on the basis it would harm the character of the area, in terms of density and access.

“In our view, there is absolutely no basis in planning policy, national or local, to support such a conclusion.”