2401696 review case statement - 05.03.2025

Argyll and Bute Council · 7 April 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 7 April 2025 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

STATEMENT OF CASE 
FOR 
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL 
LOCAL REVIEW BODY 
RHU HOUSE, RHU ROAD, PORT CHARLOTTE,
ISLE OF ISLAY, PA48 7TP 
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE
NUMBER 24/01696/PP 
LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE 
NUMBER 25/0003/LRB 
5th March 2025

Page 2

STATEMENT OF CASE 
The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant
is Mrs Ann Smith, 28 Sandhaven, Sandbank, Dunoon, PA23 8QN (‘the
appellant’). 
The planning application, reference number 24/01696/PP, for the installation
of replacement windows and door at Rhu House, Rhu Road, Port Charlotte,
Isle of Islay, PA48 7TP (“the appeal site”) that was refused on the 3rd
December 2024. The sole reason for refusal has been appealed to the Local
Review Body. 
DESCRIPTION OF SITE 
The application site, which comprises a detached, two storey dwellinghouse
known as Rhu House which is a Category B Listed Building (Ref: LB12436),
lies within the Key Rural Settlement area of Port Charlotte as designated in
the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP 2). It is also within the
Scottish Water mains supply, the Scottish Water drainage operational area
and an airfield safeguarding zone (Islay Airport) in LDP 2. It is also in
proximity to, but outwith, the Loch Indaal Marine Consultation Area. 
SITE HISTORY 
The planning history of the site and locality is detailed in Section C of the
Report of Handling. 
STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED
Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides
that where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is
to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in
accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 
This is the test for this application. 
STATEMENT OF CASE 
As detailed above, the planning application was refused by Argyll and Bute
Council on 3rd December 2024. 
This review is centred upon the sole issue of the proposal’s impact, or
otherwise, on the character and setting of the host building and the character
and appearance of the Port Charlotte Conservation Area. 
No other material matters in respect of the proposal are the subject of this
review.

Page 3

As such, Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issue in relation to
the case is as follows:- 
- Whether the proposal would respect the architectural/historic
character and setting of Rhu House and preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the Port Charlotte Conservation Area. 
The Report of Handling (copy attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of
the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material
considerations. 
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING 
It is considered that no new information has been raised in the appellants’
submission. A detailed planning policy assessment (which was relevant at the
time of the assessment of the planning application) and all other material
planning considerations including the assessment of roads matters is covered
in the Report of Handling. As such it is considered that Members have all the
information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the
proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not
been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is
considered that a Hearing is not required. 
COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION 
Having regard to the grounds for review set out in the appellant’s submission,
the following points are noted: 
1. The appellant states:
‘This house has been in my family for over 100 years. The
windows and door have been in situ for at least 60+ years
probably more. They are single glazed, draughty, the wood is
rotten. They cannot be opened. The door is also draughty and
insecure. Condensation is also a big factor’. 
The Council does not dispute the appellant’s description and
characterisation of the condition of the existing windows and door
which are proposed to be replaced under 24/01696/PP. 
The Council acknowledges the minor inaccuracy in its Report of
Handling (RoH) in so far as the colour of the existing door is dark green
and not black as stated in the RoH and that the replacement new door
would include glazing bars the effect of which would be to create the
visual appearance of the door incorporating a 4-pane window. 
The colour of the existing door, even if it was correctly reported in the
RoH, and the proposed incorporation of a 4-pane window into the
proposed design of the replacement door would not overcome the
Council’s fundamental concerns in respect of the proposal that it would
not respect the architectural/historic character and setting of Rhu

Page 4

House or preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Port
Charlotte Conservation Area that it would justify granting planning
permission for the proposed development. 
In respect of the condition of the existing windows, as set out in the
Report of Handling for the listed building application under
24/01803/LIB (copy attached), for listed buildings, the Council’s
Windows Working Note (copy attached) states only refurbishment or
like for like timber replacement shall be permitted. This position is
supported by Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic
Environment Windows Guidance Note (copy attached) which at page
18 also sets out ‘In replacing sash windows, materials other than
timber, e.g. uPVC, will rarely be acceptable’. 
2.  The appellant states:
‘Given the location and the effects of climate change-windier and
wetter-we feel the very best option is to replace with upvc double
glazed look alike units’. 
The Council would respond that the host building is a Grade B Listed
Building which also lies within a Conservation Area. For this reason,
and in these circumstances, relevant planning policy applies and
adopts a more stricter approach/test as to the acceptability, or
otherwise, of development proposals. 
In respect of proposals within Conservation Areas, the relevant policy
test is that the proposal must preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area. In respect of Listed Building, the
relevant policy test is that the proposal must respect its
architectural/historic character and setting. 
For the reasons stated in the RoH, the Council contends that in the
particular circumstances of this case the proposed development
satisfies neither of the policy tests detailed above. Accordingly, the
Council concluded that planning permission should be refused. 
3. The appellant states:
‘The consultee response from Historic Environment Scotland did
not object to the proposals per se, instead it was left to the local
authority’. 
For clarity, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) was consulted for the
associated listed building application (24/01803/LIB) but not consulted
in respect of the application for planning permission which is the
subject of this review. 
For assistance, and under 24/01803/LIB, HES stated, in summary, as
follows: 
‘The existing windows appear to be of a traditional timber construction
arranged in a two over two pattern. The door is a modern replacement

Page 5

with an upper glazed panel. There is no condition report for the existing
windows, particularly an assessment of whether they are beyond
economic repair. 
Where windows are historic or original we advise that they are repaired
and sensitively upgraded unless they are beyond economic repair. If
the principle of replacement is accepted, we recommend your Council
seek further information on the proposed material of the windows, to
clarify whether they would be a good match for the existing. You can
find more advice about windows in our Managing Change in the
Historic Environment: Windows | HES | History and Guide to Energy
Retrofit of Traditional Buildings | Hist Env Scotland
(historicenvironment.scot). 
As detailed above, the Council’s Windows Working Note (copy
attached) states only refurbishment or like for like timber replacement
shall be permitted. This position is supported by Historic Scotland’s
Managing Change in the Historic Environment Windows Guidance
Note (copy attached) which at page 18 also sets out ‘In replacing sash
windows, materials other than timber, e.g. uPVC, will rarely be
acceptable’. 
For the reasons stated in the RoH, the Council concluded that planning
permission should be refused. 
4. The appellant states:
‘I feel there are inconsistencies in the decision to refuse planning
permission. 
I know of at least three other B listed properties with the self same
windows and a couple of others listing status not known. 
A street view of the village shows numerous upvc windows with
two panes, some with planning permission granted pre-
installation others granted retrospectively. 
I have come across numerous Category B listed houses within the
Port Charlotte conservation area where planning permission has
been granted for upvc windows’. 
The Council notes that the appellant has not provided details of those
dwellings, Listed or otherwise, to which she refers in her statement of
case. In the absence of this evidential context, the Council contend that
limited weight must be attached to any inference that planning
permission granted to those proposals must automatically follow in
respect of the proposal which is the subject of this review. 
In any event, the Council would respectfully state that each planning
application must be considered on its own individual merits and in its
own evidential context. In this case, the Council concluded that, for the

Page 6

reasons detailed in its RoH, the proposal would not respect the
architectural/historic character and setting of Rhu House or preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the Port Charlotte
Conservation Area. Accordingly, it refused planning permission for the
proposed development as it was contrary to Policies 7 and 14 of NPF4
and Policies 01, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Argyll and Bute
Local Development Plan 2. 
5. The appellant states:
‘At the end of the day I am keen to keep the house looking as it
always has only more comfortable and energy efficient’. 
The Council strongly advocates the pursuit of sustainable development
and energy efficiency. In the particular circumstances of this case,
however, and given the listed status of the host building and its siting
within a Conservation Area, the Council considered that the proposed
development, as one method of helping energy efficiency, would not
overcome the strong policy concerns against the proposal as detailed
above and in the accompanying RoH to justify setting them aside in
this case. Accordingly, the Council respectfully states that planning
permission should be refused for the proposed development. 
CONCLUSION 
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all
decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. 
The determination of these proceedings will accordingly require a decision to
be made with regard to the extant ‘Development Plan’ position. The report of
handling includes commentary that identifies the provisions of the Argyll and
Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP 2) which were relevant to the
determination of this application. 
In this case the LRB must therefore ensure that proposal complies with
Policies 7 and 14 of NPF4 and Policies 01, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of
the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 which, together, represent the
relevant planning policy upon which to assess the merits of the proposed
development in the particular circumstances of this case. 
Appended documents:
Report of Handling 24/01696/PP
Report of Handling 24/01803/LIB
ABC Windows Working Note
Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Windows
Guidance Note
Historic Scotland consultation response to LIB application which is subject to
a separate Appeal submitted to Scottish Ministers