Report of Handling - 24-01696-PP
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.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 24/01696/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mrs Ann Smith Proposal: Installation of replacement windows and door Site Address: Rhu House, Rhu Road, Port Charlotte, Isle of Islay ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Installation of replacement windows and door (ii) Other specified operations • N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission is refused. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 07/00437/LIB - Replacement roof covering – 13.07.2007 24/01803/LIB - Installation of replacement windows and door – Pending __________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: N/A ______________________________________________________________________
Page 2
(E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times Advertisement - published 10.10.2024, expired 31.10.2024 Conservation Area Site Notice – expired 17.10.2024 Neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: N/A (i) Summary of issues raised N/A ____________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) Sustainability Checklists: No – Given however the nature of the application, it is nonetheless considered that there is sufficient information on the file to make a decision. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Photograph of existing windows and door – 12.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 Door Details – 12.09.2024 _____________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ___________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No ___________________________________________________________________
Page 3
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009. • Scottish Planning Policy • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Technical Note – Windows (Apr 2018) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No ____________________________________________________________________________
Page 4
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No _______________________________________________________________ (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (N) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Not required _________________________________________________________________________ (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: - None (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? No (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Brownfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Key Rural Settlement Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: n/a (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Rhu House, Rhu Road, Port Charlotte, Isle of Islay, within the Port Charlotte Conservation Area, is a Category B listed Building (Ref: LB12436). The listing states as follows: Earlier 19th century. Traditional. 2 storeys. Rubble; partly rendered; slate roofs. The host building, which comprises a detached, two storey dwellinghouse, is within the Key Rural Settlement area of Port Charlotte as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development
Page 5
Plan 2 (LDP2). 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. Rhu House is a Category B listed Building (Ref: LB12436). The listing states as follows: Earlier 19th century. Traditional. 2 storeys. Rubble; partly rendered; slate roofs. The Proposal The application proposes the installation of 5No. existing windows and the replacement of the existing entrance door. The windows and door are positioned on the front elevation of the host dwellinghouse. The existing front door opening measures some 1.93m high x 0.860m whilst all of the existing 5No. window openings measure some the rear sitting room door opening measures some 1.2m high x 0.710m wide. The original front door, which is painted black (externally) and white (internally) is comprised of vertical timber panels with a square single pane/glass window positioned in the upper part of the door. Each of the 5No. existing windows are timber in construction, sliding sash in their design, white in colour and each leaf incorporates 2No. single panes of glass separated by a central vertical glazing bar. The proposed replacement front door, which will be installed within the existing opening, comprises a composite door (colour green) which incorporates a vertical timber-panelled design (to match the same design of the existing door), a chrome lever door handle and a square single pane frosted plain window in the upper part of the door. The proposed 5No. new windows, all of which are Upvc in their construction, each comprises a vertical slider movement with both the top and bottom leafs incorporating a single double-glazed pane of glass. The windows will be installed within the existing opening incorporate a white frame, sash, bead and cill. Permitted Development Permitted Development Rights covering aspects of development are detailed in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended (the Regulations) and the associated Circular 1/2024: Householder Permitted Development Rights. Class 7a of the Regulations states at paragraph 4 as follows: (3) Paragraph (4) applies to development to alter or replace a window in a conservation area where— (a)the window is part of— (i)the principal elevation, or (ii)a side elevation where that elevation fronts a road, and (b)the window as altered or replaced would not be the same, or substantially the same, as the window to be altered or replaced in the following respects— (i)the manner in which the window is opened and closed, (ii)the number, orientation and colour of the panes comprised in the window,
Page 6
(iii)the dimensions and colour of the frame of the window or any astragal bars comprised in the window. Circular 1/2024: Householder Permitted Development Rights confirms that whilst materials of the proposed and existing windows do not need to match, but notes that replacement windows of a different material that do not match the existing window in respect of the free criteria (e.e. width of the frame) then prior approval would be required. In this case, were the proposal submitted for prior approval, the local planning authority would have refused prior approval. As such, the proposal does not benefit from being considered as permitted development. Accordingly, planning permission is required for these works. Principle of Development Policy 7 ‘Historic assets and places’ of NPF4 states that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. Policy 14 ‘Design, quality and place’ of NPF4 states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. In terms of the adopted LDP2, Policy 01 gives support for proposals within settlements that are compatible with the surrounding uses and respects the character and appearance of surrounding townscape in terms of scale, massing, design and external finishes and complies with all relevant LDP2 policies such as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 05 ‘Design and Placemaking’ of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP 2) states that to achieve good quality places, proposals should endeavour to comply with a number of placemaking criteria which include that the design should develop the area’s sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. Policy 09 ‘Sustainable Design’ of LDP 2 goes on to state that development proposals should demonstrate consideration of and where possible utilisation of sustainable design and construction methods in terms of embodied energy; conversion and re-use; and adaptability. Policy 15 ‘Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment’ of LDP2 states that Development proposals will not be acceptable where they fail to: • protect, preserve, conserve or enhance the special characteristics and/or cultural significance of the historic built environment in terms of its location, scale, form, design or proposed use; or • avoid any cumulative effect upon the special characteristics and/or cultural significance of designated built environment sites. Proposals for development that would affect either a designated or non-designated heritage asset or their setting will be expected to demonstrate that they would enable positive change by balancing the need to secure the long-term sustainability of the asset against the need to address the impacts of climate change and to meet the council’s wider regeneration objectives, where appropriate.
Page 7
Policy 16 ‘Listed Buildings’ of LDP2 states that a development proposal which affects a Listed Building, its curtilage or its wider setting will only be supported when it meets the following criteria: • It respects the original structure in terms of setting, scale, design, materials and proposed use, OR • The proposal is essential to securing an appropriate use of the Listed Building without undermining its architectural or historic character, or its setting, AND • It conforms to national policy and guidance, including but not limited to those set out in the section above ‘Related Documents’. Policy 17 ‘Conservation Areas’ states that there is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed conservation area or its setting. These policies are considered below. Impact on Port Charlotte Conservation Area I consider the host building to be a locally important building within the context both of the Conservation Area and Port Charlotte in general by reason of its size, scale, design, proportions, materials and setting within the streetscape. It is evident having regard to the details/drawings for the new windows, that in respect to the proposed new windows, they do not represent a ‘like for like’ timber replacement of the existing timber sliding sash windows. Notwithstanding that there would be no alteration to the size of the existing window openings and that the general proportions on the new windows would be the same as the existing windows, I nonetheless consider that a combination of the introduction of Upvc finishes, double glazing, the different glazing pattern and the design/style of the proposed windows including their colour, would both individually and cumulatively, undermine the host buildings character, architectural/historic interest and setting. Moreover, given that the host building is attached to another building of similar vernacular style, proportions and character and whose front elevation windows are timber sliding sash, I also consider that the introduction of the proposed new windows would unacceptably detract from the setting of this pair of buildings and the streetscape as a whole. In respect of the replacement front door, and whilst I consider its proposed colour to be sympathetic to the host Listed Building, I nonetheless consider that a combination of the proposed introduction of its composite finish and the insertion of frosted double glazing would similarly undermine the host buildings character, architectural/historic interest and setting. The relevant policy test in respect of Conservation Areas is whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed conservation area or its setting. For the above reasons, given that I consider that the proposals, both individually and when read as a whole, would undermine the host buildings character, architectural/historic interest and setting, it logically follows that as a result, the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Port Charlotte Conservation Area contrary to Policies 15 and 17 of LDP 2. Siting and Design
Page 8
Notwithstanding that I consider that the new windows and door would in themselves incorporate sustainable design and construction methods such that Policy 09 of LDP 2 would be satisfied in so far as stated, for the reasons previously detailed, as I consider that the combination of the design elements including materials, double glazing, glazing pattern, decorative finish, and style of the new windows and door is unacceptable, and particularly on its prominent front elevation, I conclude overall that the proposal would as a result be contrary to Policies 01 and 05 of LDP 2. Impact on the Host Listed Building It is considered that the proposed development, for all the reasons detailed above, would unacceptably harm and detract from the character, appearance and setting of this Category B Listed Building. Furthermore, given that the host building is attached to another building of similar vernacular style, proportions and character and whose front elevation windows are timber sliding sash, I also consider that the introduction of the proposed new windows in particular would unacceptably detract from the setting of this pair of buildings and the streetscape as a whole. Accordingly, and for these reasons, it is considered that the proposal would therefore undermine the host building’s architectural/historic character and its setting contrary to Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy 16 of LDP 2. Recommendation For these reasons, and notwithstanding my conclusion in respect of the matter of sustainable design, as the proposal overall is 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, full planning permission should be refused for the proposal. _____________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Francis Gillespie Date: 25.11.2024 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 03.12.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 9
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01696/PP 1. The proposed development is 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 in that it would, if permitted, undermine the host building’s architectural/historic character and setting and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Port Charlotte Conservation Area. APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/01696/PP (A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No (B) The reason why planning permission has been approved: N/A
Page 10
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT None.
Page 11
APPENDIX TO DECISION APPROVAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 22/00174/LIB (A) Has the application required an obligation under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended): ☐Yes ☒No (B) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. ☐Yes ☒No (C) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan? ☒Yes ☐No (D) The reason why planning permission has been approved: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act.