THE billionaire Easdale brothers have launched a bid to overturn a council-imposed limit on the number of homes they can build at the former IBM site at Spango Valley.

Inverclyde Council has placed a 270-unit cap on the number of properties that can be built on their part of the sprawling site, with 420 allowed across the whole site in its entirety.

The Easdales had wanted to create 450 properties as part of a £100m development there, in partnership with Advance Construction, only to be thwarted by the conditions set down.

We reported in January how they were considering legal action against the local authority over its cap.

Now fresh plans have now been submitted on behalf of Advance Construction, seeking to amend the condition by lifting it to 450 units.

The new proposals have been made under Section 42 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which allows conditions imposed as part of planing permissions to be varied.

A planning statement accompanying the fresh bid outlines reasons why the applicants believe the cap of 270 properties is unjustified.

Concerns about the council's insistence that Spango Valley's three landowners collaborate, the level of financial burden planning permissions place on the developer and 'arbitrary' split of land uses are among those raised. 

The document states: 'Spango Valley cannot come forward as a comprehensive redevelopment and as a single entity.

'We consider that this site should not have been allocated in such a stringent manner as it renders the site undevelopable, reliant on an unrealistic ideal that every party is seeking the same goal. 

'The applicant has a track record in delivering regeneration projects, whilst the adjacent land owner has a track record in computers and electronics, which suggests that their respective aspirations are highly unlikely to align. 

'Considerable efforts have been made by the applicant to seek an agreed combined approach with the adjacent landowner but this has not been successful. 

'Therefore, if the council insist on a combined approach, it is likely that the entire site will remain undeveloped in perpetuity.'

It continues: 'At the core of our client’s concerns with regards the unit number restriction is the fact that it...render(s) this development proposal unviable as it stands. 

'We have stressed this matter throughout the application process as well as through the submission of representations to the emerging local development plan. 

'Unfortunately there has been no account taken of these assertions.'

The document claims that, when asked whether a restriction would be applied, the council's case officer for the site said it would not. 

It is also alleged that the council did not discuss the possibility of a cap with the applicants, despite them offering on several occasions to meet and discuss their concerns.

The statement adds: 'We were not informed of condition four, restricting unit numbers, until the committee report was made public. 

'Therefore, we were never given any opportunity to discuss this matter in detail with the council.

'What makes this particularly exasperating is the number of times throughout the consideration of the application and in the period of two months immediately prior to the committee, that we requested (via email/phone calls) to discuss the key matters with officers and to have sight of draft conditions.

'These requests were ultimately ignored by the council.

"This has led to us having to submit this further application under Section 42.'

Inverclyde Council planners will now consider the new proposal.

A representative for the Easdales declined to comment.