Agenda reports pack
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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 31 March 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 7 APRIL 2025 at 1:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: RHU HOUSE, RHU ROAD, PORT CHARLOTTE, ISLE OF ISLAY, PA48 7TP (REF: 25/0003/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 58) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 59 - 124) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 125 - 128) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum, Committee Services Officer Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Ref: AB1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/** NOTICE OF REVIEW OFFICIAL USE 17 Feb 2025 Date Received Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use Block Capitals. Further information is available on the Council’s website. You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to complete this form. (1) APPLICANT FOR REVIEW (2) AGENT (if any) Name Ann Smith Name Address 28 Sandhaven Address Sandbank Dunoon Post Code PA23 8QN Post Code Tel. No. Tel. No. Email Email (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you x or your Agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application 24/01696/pp (b) Date of Submission Submitted 12/09/24 Validated 26/09/24 (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) Received 03/12/24 (5) Address of Appeal Property Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle of Islay PA48 7TP Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(6) Description of Proposal Replace 5 old single glazed timber sash windows and timber door with ‘look alike’ white upvc vertical sliding sash windows with mock horns and central glazing bar to give the appearance of four panes also dark green composite door again in ‘look alike’ style with vertical grooves and frosted glass panel (no decoration)on upper part of door to allow for privacy. (7) Please set out detailed reasons for requesting the review:- 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. Having recently replaced old storage heaters with new Dimplex Quantum ones, I feel without new windows they will not work efficiently wasting energy and money. The house is located in what is probably one of the most exposed spots in the village. Being so close to the sea impacts on the maintenance required-a big factor in opting for upvc. 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 as described above. I want to have this decision reviewed as I feel it was unfair basing it on the house’s location in the village at the bottom of the brae. The refusal said original door colour was black .That is incorrect, it is dark green,which is why I chose the darkest green I could find for the proposed new door.Also no mention of the glazing bars which we had proposed making it look like 4 pane window.The Consultee response from Historic Environment Scotland did not object to the prposals per se,instead it was left to the local authority. It is at this point I feel there are inconsistencies in the decision to refuse planning permission. It's a category B listed building within the Port Charlotte conservation area. I know of at least three other B listed properties with the self same windows and a couple of others listing status not known. These houses are all of a similar style and structure to Rhu House.A street view of the village shows numerous upvc windows with two panes, some with planning permission granted pre-installation others granted retrospectively. It's my family home which I inherited on the death of my brother in 2005.We live in Dunoon and visit frequently more or less every other month. The house is for our own and our family's use. It is not let out .I pay double council tax on it as a result.At the end of the day I am keen to keep the house looking as it always has only more comfortable and energy efficient. Page 4
Page 5
Having looked through the council’s planning website I have come across numerous Category B listed houses within the Port Charlotte conservation area where planning permission has been granted for upvc windows. Appeal being made to Scottish ministers for application 24/01803/LIB If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm (8) Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time determination of your application was made No If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review. Page 5
Page 6
(9) If the Local Review Body determines that it requires further information on “specified matters” please indicate which of the following procedure you would prefer to provide such information:- (a) Dealt with by written submission x (b) Dealt with by Local Hearing (c) Dealt with by written submission and site inspection Page 6
Page 7
(d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection NB it is a matter solely for the Local Review Body to determine if further information is required and, if so, how it should be obtained. (10) Please list in the schedule all documentation submitted as part of the application for review ensuring that each document corresponds to the numbering in the sections below:- Schedule of documents submitted with Notice of Review (Note if posting your paperwork 3 paper copies of each of the documents referred to in the schedule below must be attached): No Detail 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Submitted by (Please sign) Ann Smith Dated 12/02/2025 Important Notes for Guidance (1) All matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must be set out in or accompany this Notice of Review Page 7
Page 8
(2) All documents, materials and evidence which the applicant intends to rely on in the Review must accompany the Notice of Review UNLESS further information is required under Regulation 15 or by authority of the Hearing Session Rules. (3) Guidance on the procedures can be found on the Council’s website -: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/local-review-body (4) In in doubt how to proceed please contact 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk (5) Once completed this form can be either emailed to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk or returned by post to Committee Services, (Local Review Body), Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT (6) You will receive an acknowledgement of this form, usually by electronic mail (if applicable), within 14 days of the receipt of your form and supporting documentation. If you have any queries relating to the completion of this form please contact Committee Services on 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll- bute.gov.uk For official use only Date form issued Issued by (please sign) Page 8
Page 9
1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Your Ref: Our Ref: 24/01696/PP Date: 26 September 2024 Mrs Ann Smith 28 Sandhaven Sandbank Dunoon PA23 8QN Dear Sir/ Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) APPLICANT: Mrs Ann Smith PROPOSAL: Installation of replacement windows and door SITE ADDRESS: Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay I acknowledge receipt of your revised application together with the planning fee of £325.00. Further to checking the revised details your application has been found to be valid on 26th September 2024 and has now been registered. Your application reference number is 24/01696/PP which should be quoted in all communications with the Council. Please note that for the purpose of the planning decision notice, the description of your application will be as described in the “proposal” above. If you disagree with this description in any way, please do not hesitate to contact the Area Office in order for any changes to be made. Contact should be made within 5 working days of this letter to allow for any changes to be made, or it will be assumed that you accept the application description. If you have not received a formal decision within 2 months of the valid date noted above and would wish a review into the non determination of your application you should contact Mr David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT. Please note that regulations prescribe that any such review request must be lodged within three months of the above date. If this situation does arise, I would suggest that you get in touch with the relevant area planning office to discuss the application as a review may not be necessary. If you wish to discuss the application while it is with the Council, please contact us on 01546 605518. If you wish to view the progress of this or any other application you can do so by visiting the Council’s Website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Gháidheal agus Bhóid Development And Infrastructure Services Executive Director: Kirsty Flanagan Page 9
Page 10
In addition to this facility the public can submit an application electronically by visiting the Scottish Government Website at www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk Your application will then be electronically forwarded to Argyll and Bute Council for processing. A ‘Live’ update on the status of the Development Management Service, including information on current average determination times is available at Planning Service Status. Yours faithfully Central Validation Team Development and Economic Growth 01546 605518 Page 10
Page 11
Page 11
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
Page 13
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
Page 29
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 31
Page 31
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 33
%%[TO:] Huws Gray Ltd (North) Llangefni Ind Estate Llangefni Anglesey LL77 7JA QUOTATION CUSTOMER QUOTE DETAILS TEL :01248 723947 Glazed JOB SPEC : HUW001ACCOUNT : 16/09/2024QUOTE DATE : 457812OUR REF : IslayYOUR REF : Fax : O/A Frame Size 710mm x 1190mm : Basic Frame Size 710mm x 1190mm : 1 Qty : 5 Vertical Slider [V/S] Location : 10 Year Warranty MACO PLUS WER : A BS7412 SBD X X X Frame White Sash White Bead White Cill White Colour Spec Non Standard Spec Bead type Sculptured Bead VS Drainage Concealed/Base Fitting colour White Glass decor shade EWhite Sculpt 11mm Glass decor shade IWhite Sculpt 11mm Handle White Handles Standard Locking C Restrictor Travel Restrictor 5 x 4/20/4 Clear Soft Coat : 20mm Black S/Spacer Blk S/S MSpac V [56] White Sculpt 11mm White Sculpt 11mm Argon Gas Filled (522 x 488) 5 x 4/20/4 Clear Soft Coat : 20mm Black S/Spacer Blk S/S MSpac V [56] White Sculpt 11mm White Sculpt 11mm Argon Gas Filled (522 x 490) Glass Spec Panel Spec O/A Frame Size 860mm x 1930mm : Basic Frame Size 860mm x 1930mm : 2 Qty : 1 70FS Solidor Composite [Style 1] Location : Open in 10 Year Warranty MACO PLUS WER : SBD X Frame White Bead White Colour Spec Non Standard Spec Bead type Sculptured Bead 70FS Cill No Cill Door hinge White Flag Drainage Face Handle Bright Chrome Handles Sweet LeveThreshold Milled Ali SG AM370 O/IN x Glass Spec 1 / Trieste / 1 Glazed Aperture / Backing Glass / 68 Lam SC/18/4mm SATIN COMP / Clear / Forest Green White Internal (745 x 1854) -- / Sweet Chrome Letterbox / / Standard Cassette / Grooved / Forest Green Rain Deflector / Panel Spec QuantityExtra Items Page 1 of 2 Powered By Page 33
Page 34
QUOTATION YOUR REF :IslayOUR REF :457812 NOTES: (1) This quotation is valid for a period of 30 days from the date of issue (2) Glass &/or Panel Sizes are not Confirmed manufacturing sizes at this stage DATE:PRINT NAME: We have checked the quotation details (inclusive of specification) and would like to proceed as an Order SIGN: All Items are viewed from outside unless stated otherwise Page 2 of 2CONTACT US %%[SEND] Powered By01204 479157 www.glazeritewindows.co.uk www.facebook.com/glazerite.trade.window.supplier twitter.com/GlazeriteLtd Unit 7 Lodge Bank Est Crown Lane Horwich Bolton BL6 5HY Page 34
Page 35
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED), RELATED LEGISLATION PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 The application listed below together with the plans and other documents submitted may be viewed electronically through Argyll and Bute Council website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Documents are available to inspect electronically at this time. Customers requiring assistance can contact us by e-mail: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk or tel. 01546 605518. Anyone wishing to make representations should do so in writing to the undersigned within 21 days of the appearance of this notice. Please quote the reference number in any correspondence. SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PLANS Ref No: 24/01696/PP Applicant: Mrs Ann Smith Proposal: Installation of replacement windows and door Site Address: Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Listed Building/Conservation Advert Oban Times Publication Date: 10.10.2024 Closing Date: 31.10.2024 Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
THIS FORM IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT A PLANNING APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE THAT MAY AFFECT YOU PLEASE READ THE NOTES CAREFULLY Owner, occupier or lessee Date: 26 September 2024 N E I G H B O U R N O T I F I C A T I O N Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013 Ref Number 24/01696/PP Location Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA48 7TP Proposal Installation of replacement windows and door Applicant Mrs Ann Smith Agent - if applicable Agent’s address Notice is hereby given that an application for planning permission has been received for the above development that may be of interest to you. VIEWING THE PLANS The application, plans and other documents submitted may be viewed electronically through Argyll and Bute Council Website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Having regard to Schedule 6, Part 3, s10 of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020, documents are only available to inspect electronically at this time. Customers requiring assistance can contact us by e-mail: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk, or tel. 01546 605518. SUBMITTING COMMENTS Comments can be made on the application, either: • Online through Argyll and Bute Council Website using the Online Planning Information system and searching for the planning reference number above. • By email to planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk • By post to Argyll and Bute Council, Development Management, Kilmory Castle, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT. Customers are requested to use electronic communication where possible during the coronavirus pandemic as access to Council buildings and processing of postal mail is currently restricted and may take longer to be acknowledged and attached to the planning file. You have 21 days from the date on this notice to make comments. Please read the Advice to Neighbours information which is printed with this letter. A plan of the proposed development is also part of this document. Page 37
Page 38
A D V I C E T O N E I G H B O U R S Why have I received this notice? This notice has been sent to you because we have received an application for planning permission to carry out the proposals on the front page. Your land is either adjacent to or lies within 20 metres of the site (identified by the cross-hatched area on the attached map). As a result the Council is legally required to inform you of the proposals. You have the right to make comments on the proposals National and Major Planning Applications If you have already made comments to the applicant at pre-application stage, you will have to make comments to the Council on this application if you wish us to take them into account. What can I comment on? The Council can only consider comments about planning matters. These are called “material considerations” and some examples are listed below (this list is not exhaustive): • Compliance with Development Plan Policy; • Appearance (design, materials etc.); • Traffic, parking or access problems; • Residential amenity (noise, overshadowing etc.); • Impact on natural or built environment. Loss of view, property values and structural problems, for example, are not material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account when determining the application. What happens if I make representations? If your comments are in time and relate to planning matters, they will form part of the report by the Head of Planning and will be considered before a decision is made on the planning application. Representations form part of the background papers on the application and will be made public. If you have made material representations you will be advised of the Council’s decision. You do not have a right of appeal against this decision. Further advice on commenting on planning proposals can be found on the Council website or we can send you a copy. How we handle planning applications Details of how we handle planning applications and make decisions on them can be found on the Council website. Contact Details If you have any questions please contact the Area Office on 01546 605518 or email planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 38
Page 39
Map Page 39
Page 40
Properties notified. Tigh Nam Frangach Main Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Port Charlotte Store Main Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Port Charlotte Stores House Main Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Cala Na Ruadh Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Aillidh Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Page 40
Page 41
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS & CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 SECTION 65: APPLICATION AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF A CONSERVATION AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE UNDERNOTED APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL AND IS HEREBY ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE LEGISLATION AS THE PROPOSAL AFFECTS THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF A CONSERVATION AREA. ANY PERSONS WHO WISH TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THE APPLICATION SHOULD MAKE THEM IN WRITING TO THE UNDERSIGNED BY THE FOLLOWING DATE: Expiry Date: COPIES OF THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION MAY BE INSPECTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE ARGYLL AND BUTE WEBSITE AT www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Customers requiring assistance can contact us be e-mail: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk or tel. 01546 605518 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REF NO: 24/01696/PP PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE APPLICANT: Mrs Ann Smith PROPOSAL: Installation of replacement windows and door SITE ADDRESS: Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 26th September 2024 NOTE: The information in the Description Of Proposed Development above can assist when using the Simple and Advance search facility on the Public Access Planning pages of the Website. Written comments can be submitted electronically using the Public Access Planning page on the Council website, or submitted by post addressed to: Argyll and Bute Council, Development Management, Kilmory Castle, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT Members of the public are reminded that any letter of representation received on a planning application is considered a public document. As such members of the public and organisations alike should note that any representations received in respect of any application will be made available for public inspection. In terms of the Freedom of Information Act, the same representations will be copied on request. The representations will be published on the Council’s web site. It should be noted that the author of a representation is solely responsible for its content and accuracy. Representations that are marked Confidential will be returned to the sender and will not be taken into account when the application is being considered. It should also be noted that anonymous representations will be “shredded” and not taken into account when the application is being considered. Page 41
Page 42
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 43
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 43
Page 44
(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 44
Page 45
(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 45
Page 46
(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 46
Page 47
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 47
Page 48
(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 48
Page 49
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 49
Page 50
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 50
Page 51
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 51
Page 52
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT None. Page 52
Page 53
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. Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE NUMBER: 24/01696/PP Mrs Ann Smith 28 Sandhaven Sandbank Dunoon PA23 8QN I refer to your application dated 12th September 2024 for planning permission in respect of the following development: Installation of replacement windows and door AT: Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Argyll and Bute Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Regulations hereby refuse planning permission for the above development for the reasons(s) contained in the attached appendix. Dated: 3 December 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 55
Page 56
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 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. Page 56
Page 57
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 24/01696/PP 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) within three months from the date of this notice. A Notice of Review request must be submitted on an official form which can be obtained by contacting The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT or by email to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, and it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the landowner’s interest in the land, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Page 57
Page 58
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. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission The proposal is considered to be in conflict 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 grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development. Page 58
Page 59
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 59 Agenda Item 3b
Page 60
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 60
Page 61
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 61
Page 62
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 62
Page 63
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 63
Page 64
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 Page 64
Page 65
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 65
Page 66
(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 66
Page 67
(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 67
Page 68
(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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
(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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT None. Page 74
Page 75
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. Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 77
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: 24/01803/LIB 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) Works requiring listed building consent: • Installation of replacement windows and door (ii) Other specified operations • N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Listed Building consent is refused ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 07/00437/LIB - Replacement roof covering – 13.07.2007 24/01696/PP - Installation of replacement windows and door – Pending __________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Historic Environment Scotland – No objection – 21.10.2024 Page 77
Page 78
______________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times/Edinburgh Gazette Advertisement - published 10.10.2024, expired 31.10.2024 Listed Building Site Notice – expired 28.10.2024 ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 - The application was submitted prior to the adoption of LDP2 and it is considered 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 – 01.10.2024 Door Details – 01.10.2024 _____________________________________________________________ (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 78
Page 79
(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 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 High Quality Places Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings (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. • ABC Technical Note – Windows (Apr 2018) Historic Environment Scotland: • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland • Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 Page 79
Page 80
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 Main Town 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 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. 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. Page 80
Page 81
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. Assessment Policy 7 of NPF4 states, “Development proposals for the reuse, alteration or extension of a listed building will only be supported where they will preserve its character, special architectural or historic interest and setting”. Policy 16 of Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP 2) 2024 states “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’. The Council’s Technical Working Note (Working Note) states that windows ‘are an essential element in the external character, appearance and composition of traditional buildings. They are an important element of a building’s design and weatherproofing. The size, shape and position of the openings are significant, as are the form and design of the framing and glazing. Their style, detailing and materials help us to understand when a building was constructed or altered, its function and advances in related glazing technology. In simple vernacular buildings a considerable amount of the character comes from the windows. When replaced unsympathetically the appearance of the building is damaged, and the unity that comes from the repetition of window patterns and traditional materials is diminished. Cumulatively this leads to an erosion of the character of the street and over time the whole area’. The Working Note goes on to state that in respect of Listed Buildings, ‘only refurbishment / repair or ‘like for like’ timber replacement shall be permitted’. This position is supported further wherein it states that all replacements (frontage and rear) should be sympathetic to the original and traditional windows. Page 81
Page 82
In this case, neither refurbishment nor repair of the existing sliding sash windows are proposed. Moreover, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that these options have been considered even in the first instance. It is evident, having regard to the details/drawings for the new windows, that 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. All in all therefore and when assessed both individually and as a whole, for the reasons detailed above, it is therefore considered the proposal is contrary to Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy 16 of LDP 2. Recommendation: As it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy 16 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, listed building consent should be refused for the proposal. _____________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ____________________________________________________________________________ (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 ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01803/LIB 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policy 16 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 in that it would undermine and thereby fail to preserve the host Listed Building’s character, architectural/historic interest and setting. APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 24/01803/LIB (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 84
Page 85
0 | P a g e Seirbheis Planaidh Earra-Ghaidheal is Bhoid Argyll and Bute Planning Service TECHNICAL WORKING NOTE ARGYLL and BUTE WINDOWS April 2018 FINALISED DRAFT – 27.03.18 Page 85
Page 86
1 | P a g e Contents INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2 WINDOWS POLICY STATEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 INVESTMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 AIMS AND RELATED ADVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1 - THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONSENT .................................................................................................. 2 2 - THE IMPORTANCE OF WINDOWS ...................................................................................................... 3 3 - INVESTING IN ARGYLL AND BUTE’S CONSERVATION AREAS ............................................................ 4 4 - EXISTING POLICY........................................................................................................................... 5 NATIONAL POLICY .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 LOCAL POLICY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 5 - ARGYLL AND BUTE WINDOWS – TECHNICAL STATEMENTS .............................................................. 7 STATEMENT 1 – PREFERENCE FOR RETENTION, REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT ............................................................ 8 STATEMENT 2 – REPLACE ‘LIKE FOR LIKE’ IN LISTED BUILDINGS AND PRIME TOWNSCAPE BLOCKS ........................ 10 STATEMENT 3 – FLEXIBILITY FOR UNLISTED BUILDINGS & OTHER TOWNSCAPE BLOCKS ........................................ 12 STATEMENT 4 – REPLACING NON-TRADITIONAL WINDOWS ..................................................................................... 13 6 - ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 14 APPENDIX A – PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................. 15 APPENDIX B – COST COMPARISON ................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX C – PRIME TOWNSCAPE BLOCK ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 19 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 20 Page 86
Page 87
2 | P a g e Argyll and Bute Windows Technical Working Note Introduction & Background Argyll and Bute has 32 conservation areas and around 2,000 listed structures. Of these Rothesay is the second largest in Scotland and has benefited considerably from its own Technical Working Note for replacement windows. The success of this document has led to the creation of this technical working note to stand alongside the adopted Local Development Plan to assist building owners seeking to replace windows in a conservation area and / or a listed building. The document will provide certainty and advice with respect to appropriate window replacements and repairing existing windows. Windows Policy Statements There have been significant changes to local and national policy and guidance since the original window policy statements of the mid-1990s. However, the general principles about replacement windows in Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings have remained fairly consistent over this time. There have also been advancements in restoration / refurbishment techniques, energy efficiency technology and new window products have come onto the market in the past 20 years that now influence replacement options. Investment Since 2008 there has also been significant investment into the council’s historic environment. Almost £15m has been invested in the conservation areas of Campbeltown, Inveraray, Dunoon and Rothesay. This has seen a significant uplift in these areas and property owners have reacted positively with match funding whilst the planning department has seen a willingness to invest in timber windows and doors. Aims and related advice This Technical Working Note aims to provide clear and consistent planning advice in relation to the replacement and refurbishment of windows in Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. This Guidance must be read in conjunction with the Development Plan, the Councils Historic Environment Strategy 2015 and Scottish Historic Environment Policy – Managing Change (see Section 4 – Existing Policy, for more information). Page 87
Page 88
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 3 | P a g e 1 - The requirement for consent Through the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Argyll & Bute Council have a statutory obligation to ensure the preservation and protection of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. The designation of a Conservation Area or Listed Building is not intended to prevent change but rather to ensure the special character or appearance of the historic asset is protected or enhanced. Maps for each of Argyll and Bute’s 32 conservation areas can be found on our website In order to manage change in Conservation Areas, planning consent is required for the replacement of any window in both residential and commercial properties. Listed buildings will also require Listed Building Consent. The fee currently set for submitting a planning application is £202 per development (could include multiple window replacements). Consent is not required for the majority of repair / refurbishment works or ‘like for like’ replacements (please see Statement 1 and 2 below). Contact the Planning Department for further information before commencing your project. 2 - The importance of windows Many local streetscapes rely on historic, materials, doors and windows for much of their architectural impact and character. Windows are an essential element in the external character, appearance and composition of traditional buildings. They are an important element of a building’s design and weatherproofing. The size, shape and position of the openings are significant, as are the form and design of the framing and glazing. Their style, detailing and materials help us to understand when a building was constructed or altered, its function and advances in related glazing technology. In simple vernacular buildings a considerable amount of the character comes from the windows. When replaced unsympathetically the appearance of the building is damaged, and the unity that comes from the repetition of window patterns and traditional materials, particularly in tenements and terraced properties, is diminished. Cumulatively this leads to an erosion of the character of the street and over time the whole area. Page 88
Page 89
Argyll and Bute Windows 4 | P a g e Examples of inappropriate doors and windows, whether by design or use of materials, can be found in most conservation areas. Their presence does not mean that they are appropriate or necessarily that a precedent has been set. 3 - Investing in Argyll and Bute’s Conservation Areas Argyll and Bute has benefited greatly from various sources of public funding in key conservation areas of Campbeltown, Inveraray and Rothesay. We have been successful in bidding across various funding streams including Historic Environment Scotland grants including Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) and Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS), Heritage Lottery Fund and LEADER. These funding streams are competitive across Scotland and preparation often takes years. Rothesay has seen a significant investment under the THI. This is a 5-year programme which seeks to revitalise the historic town centre, by offering grants to property owners to assist with structural and external repairs to historic buildings. Individual upgrading projects include the upgrading of Guildford Court Apartments, Duncan’s Hall, Guildford Square gap site and various shop front improvements. Both Campbeltown and Inveraray have also seen significant investment and their successes can be seen in projects such as the town hall in Campbeltown and the Discovery Centre in Inveraray. Funders recognised the value of Argyll and Bute’s heritage and supported heritage led regeneration projects to the value of:- Campbeltown £8,540,778 Inveraray £3,766,273 Rothesay £1,653,997 Dunoon £1,889,429 TOTAL £15,850,477 This means that an approximate investment of £15.8 million has been made in the area between March 2011 and March 2018 principally for heritage led projects. It should be noted that this figure does not include the investments made by private owners which will add a significant additional value of funding to these figures. To this extent, it is essential that this Technical Working Note supports conservation principals, protects and promotes improvements in the Conservation Areas and underpins the wider heritage led regeneration. Page 89
Page 90
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 5 | P a g e 4 - Existing Policy The primary statutory and non-statutory policies and guidance in relation to window replacement are contained within the following documents:- National Policy Historic Environment Scotland Policy (June 2016) Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (June 2016) Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Windows (January 2018) Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Windows (January 2018) o ‘Repairs and alterations to a historic building should protect its character and special interest. The contribution windows make to this character must therefore be understood before proceeding.’ o ‘Where windows are of historic interest, repair of their components is preferable to replacement. This approach not only retained historically- important fabric and character, but is sustainable.’ o ‘Where existing windows are beyond repair, or of little historic interest it should be acceptable to replace them.’ ‘Generally, replacement windows should seek to match the original windows in design, form, fixing, method of opening and materials. In replacing sash windows, materials other than timber, e.g. uPVC, will rarely be acceptable.’ o ‘In most cases, as thermal performance is a major driver for change, replacement windows will be double glazed. In such cases care is required to adapt the detailed design of new timber windows to incorporate double-glazed units.’ ‘Standard double-glazing may occasionally be acceptable for some replacement windows, e.g. one-over-one sashes. However, the thicker astragals required by standard units … mean they often cannot replicate historic multi-pane patterns, especially those windows with thinner astragals. INFORM – Maintaining Sash and Case Windows (July 2007) Historic Scotland INFORM series - Maintaining Sash and Case Windows (July 2007) Page 90
Page 91
Argyll and Bute Windows 6 | P a g e Local Policy Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ldp The following policy is contained within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and associated Supplementary Guidance and has been endorsed by the Scottish Government appointed Reporter:- Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment A development proposal will not be supported when it does not protect, conserve or where possible enhance the established character of the built environment in terms of its location, scale, form and design. SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings Development affecting a listed building or its setting shall preserve the building or its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. SG LDP ENV 17 – Development Impact on Conservation Areas 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, or a Special Built Environment Area. New development within these areas and on sites forming part of their settings must be of the highest quality, respect and enhance the architectural and other special qualities that give rise to their actual or proposed designation and conform to Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 and accompanying Managing Change Guidance Notes. Argyll and Bute Historic Environment Strategy (2015) Argyll and Bute Council - Historic Environment Strategy 2015-2020 Page 91
Page 92
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 7 | P a g e 5 – Argyll and Bute Windows – Technical Statements Similar to the previous windows policy notes, this new Technical Working Note seeks to add a third and more detailed layer of guidance over and above the established National and Local Policy context as specified in the previous section. It is also acknowledged that there have been a number of unfortunate and unsympathetic alterations to buildings that have occurred over the years as a result of permitted development rights, unauthorised works or consents which has negatively affected the historic integrity of a number of buildings and townscape blocks. There is also acceptance that a number of properties have suffered from lack of investment and maintenance meaning some traditional timber windows are now in poor condition or not as thermally efficient as they once were. This Technical Note seeks to add a degree of pragmatism and flexibility to the specific development pressures in Conservation Areas. This is in light of the considerable loss of traditional windows in some of the townscape blocks, previous national policy position (outlined in the Windows Policy Statements) and acknowledging that new windows products are now on the market. It is also accepted that expectations for thermal efficiency, ease of maintenance, security and noise cancelling from windows have increased in line with modern living standards. It remains the unaltered position of the Council that economic benefits can arise from preserving and enhancing the outstanding built heritage of our conservation areas through maintaining and improving the appearance of its historical buildings. Such enhancements and uplift can lead to a more vibrant town centre, improved visitor attractions and outstanding environment beneficial to everyday living. Above all, this Technical Note aims to build upon the successful heritage led regeneration by improving the overall management and appearance of windows in our Conservation Areas. It provides clarity / certainty to owners of buildings in the Conservation Areas, guiding them upon what options they have when repairing or replacing their windows. It also has a strong emphasis of improving the current situation (the status quo) and uplifting the appearance of the Conservation Areas by seeking that unsympathetic windows are not replaced by similarly poor products. This Technical Working Note does not replace or supersede the statutory guidance contained within the Development Plan but shall be afforded weighting and be considered as a material planning consideration when assessing new proposals for window refurbishment or replacement. Page 92
Page 93
Argyll and Bute Windows 8 | P a g e Statement 1 – Preference for retention, repair and refurbishment Summary of Statement 1 – Repair and Refurbish Heritage – Excellent. Retains the existing character and appearance of the building as intended by original architect. Cost - Excellent – Refurbishment is regularly cheaper than replacement options. A planning application is not required. Retains local carpentry skills / employment. Cost dependant on extent of overhauling required, shutters, level of draft proofing or installation of secondary glazing. Energy efficiency & noise attenuation – It is accepted that poorly maintained traditional windows can prove to be thermally inefficient. Draft stripping and the installation of timber shutters, curtains or internal secondary glazing can significantly improve performance. Maintenance - Simplex hinges are normally fitted (inward swing) and can make maintenance, cleaning and repair quite straightforward. Certain parts of window can also be replaced / painted in isolation as required. Historic Environment Scotland recommends painting every 5 years. Ease of opening – The weight of certain traditional sash and case windows may make them difficult for some people to open. Consideration should be given to re-balancing the windows or the installation of a fenestrator. In all circumstances, it is the Councils preferred option that traditional windows are retained, repaired or refurbished over replacement. Timber sash and case windows have a long life if adequately maintained and they can be a sound investment in the overall value of a building as it retains the historical character and design as it was originally intended. Such works do not require planning or listed building consent as long as they are ‘like for like’ repairs (see below definition of ‘like for like’) so there shall be an immediate saving of over £202 in terms of an application fee in comparison to a replacement option. The Council considers windows of significant heritage value such as cylinder sheet, curved glass, crown and patent plate glass to be of particular importance. The repair and refurbishment of timber sash and case windows can be carried out by most joiners and supports local skills and employment. The Rothesay THI ran practical courses on traditional skills. The practical sash and case windows repair course was attended by local joiners, who on completion of the course were asked, ‘how will the skills and knowledge you gained be useful within your present job?’ to which they replied: “[the skills] will help produce a better quality finish”, “[I have] more confidence to promote [my] business” and the course will “help widen [the] range of jobs [I am] able to take on”. The scope and cost of the repair / refurbishment shall be very dependent on the condition of the windows and requirements of the building owner. There is a misconception that traditional timber sash and case windows are expensive or difficult to maintain and are incapable of meeting modern performance standards in terms of energy efficiency and noise attenuation. Page 93
Page 94
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 9 | P a g e Simple techniques for maintenance such as regular painting (every 5 years) or use of long lasting patent paint can significantly improve the function, life and performance of a traditional window. In addition, a joiner can cost effectively re-hang, draft strip and repair seals on exiting windows to improve acoustic and energy performance. Additional performance improvements can be obtained from the introduction of secondary glazing, installing shutters or heavy weight curtains. More information is contained within Appendix A – Performance Improvements. New timber sash and case windows @ 27 Main Street, Campbeltown ‘Like for like’ repairs and refurbishment For the avoidance of doubt, it should be emphasised that ‘like for like’ in this context means the same materials (timber), glazing (single glazed), proportions, thickness, profile, glazing pattern, details of construction, decorative finish and details as the existing. Careful attention needs to be paid to replicating astragals, glazing bars, horns and colour. If any element is not identical then you may require planning or listed building consent. Please contact the planning department before commencing your project. Page 94
Page 95
Argyll and Bute Windows 10 | P a g e Statement 2 – Replace ‘like for like’ in listed buildings and prime townscape blocks Summary of Statement 2 – Like for like replacements Heritage – Good. Largely retains the existing character and appearance of the building as intended by original architect by using traditional materials and proportions. Cost - Most expensive option especially if installing slim line double glazing. Retains local carpentry skills / employment. Cost dependant on product chosen. Planning application may not be required (no £202 fee). Extent of overhauling required, shutters, level of draft proofing or installation of secondary glazing. Energy efficiency & noise attenuation – Excellent. New materials and draft proofing mean these will perform as good as most uPVC windows – especially if double glazing installed. Shutters, curtains or internal secondary glazing can significantly improve performance. Maintenance - Simplex hinges are normally fitted (inward swing) and can make maintenance, cleaning and repair quite straightforward. Ease of opening – The weight of sash and case windows may make them difficult for some people to open. New ones should be balanced properly or consideration should be given installing a fenestrator. Listed Buildings have been designated by Historic Environment Scotland (HES - formally Historic Scotland), on behalf of Scottish Ministers, specifically due to their special interest. They contribute significantly to the overall heritage appeal of the Conservation Areas. Arguably, they are the most important buildings in the context of a Conservation Area. When an application has been received for proposed replacement windows the planning authority will need to consider the current condition of the townscape block and what contribution the block makes to the overall qualifying interests of the conservation area. The townscape blocks approach is pivotal to establishing the appropriateness of different window materials and types in a building. If the townscape block is a pristine example of quality timber windows then it should be considered ‘prime’ in the context of the wider conservation area. This will be on a case by case basis but officers will look for the overall contribution the block makes to the conservation area. Townscape blocks, like listed buildings, will play a pivotal role in creating the unique sense of place and heritage interest in the conservation area. Appendix C contains a brief guide to assist officers with this assessment. In Listed Buildings and Prime Townscape Blocks, only refurbishment / repair (Statement 1) or ‘like for like’ timber replacement shall be permitted. Replacement sash and case units are widely available from glazers, window fitters and joiners and can be a good substitute for traditional windows, especially if the original is incapable of being repaired or refurbished. The new material and seals shall have very good energy efficiency and noise attenuation properties similar to uPVC ones. New modern timber sash and case windows are also likely to be fitted with Simplex hinges or inward opening to allow ease of access for painting and cleaning. When considering the design of your replacement window its essential to consider the fine detail and characteristics of your existing window to get a ‘like for like’ match. If the same materials (timber), glazing (single glazed), general proportions, glazing pattern, details of construction, decorative finish, Page 95
Page 96
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 11 | P a g e thickness of profile and details as the existing are proposed then the Council may consider this as a ‘like for like’ replacement. Most joiners should be able to create a ‘like for like’ replacement timber sash and case units. In these cases neither planning nor listed building consent will be required. A saving of over £202 for submitting a planning application could be achieved over other replacements. In opting for a ‘like for like’ solution careful attention needs to be paid to replicating astragals, glazing bars, horns and colour. If any element is not identical then you will require planning or listed building consent. We advise that you contact the Planning Department before commencing your project. In prime Listed Buildings all replacements (frontage and rear) should be sympathetic to the original and traditional windows. Rear Elevations and De-Valued Listed Buildings On rear or secondary elevations of some Prime Townscape Blocks additional flexibility may be afforded (similar to approach under Statement 3, below) depending on the availability of public views, contribution to the Conservation Area and integrity. In exceptional circumstances, where a listed building has been identified as being ‘de-valued’ (as assessed by officers) through unsympathetic historic window replacements and alterations a more flexible approach will also be applied. In such cases we will always seek to secure uplift in design and window quality in the first instance. High quality timber dual swing which give the appearance of a sash and case windows in all respects except when open and high quality well-proportioned uPVC sliding sash units which retain the distinct step of sash and case windows are likely to be acceptable. Fixed pane windows should also seek to have a stepped effect but greater flexibility will be afforded as long as the proportions and window pattern are acceptable. Double glazing The introduction of double glazing within new timber sash and case windows is likely to be acceptable but will require planning and listed building consent. The inclusion of slim line double glazing is the preferred option and shall significantly increase sound reduction and energy efficiency. Slim line double glazing is filled with a mixture of Krypton and Xenon gases which are heavier gases and offer much better performance than most uPVC windows which are filled with Argon. They usually come with a much longer guarantee than most windows. Glazing replacement is unlikely to be supported where the glass is original and has heritage value such as curved glass, crown glass, stained glass or other significance. Regular (i.e. non- slim line) double glazing may be acceptable however it can present problems with small paned windows as the glazing bars have generally to be deeper and wider than the original patterns to accommodate the sealed glazing units. It is acknowledged that new or replacement timber sliding sash windows, particularly if double glazed, can be expensive. See Appendix B – Cost Comparison. Page 96
Page 97
Argyll and Bute Windows 12 | P a g e Statement 3 – Flexibility for unlisted buildings & other townscape blocks Summary of Statement 3 – Flexible approach for un-listed buildings and other townscape blocks Heritage – Fair. May include materials or opening mechanism that is not authentic. When windows are closed the appearance of a traditional sash and case will be apparent. Shall only be applied to buildings or elevations of lesser importance in the Conservation Area. Cost - More expensive than refurbishment / repair but some units likely to cost less than replacement timber sash and case. Price dependant on the style and material of window unit. Energy efficiency & noise attenuation – New materials and draft proofing mean these will perform very well – especially if double glazing and good quality. Maintenance - May offer a variety of opening arrangements to clean from inside and unlikely to require surface treatment (painting). uPVC windows usually cannot be repaired – defects will require total new unit. Ease of opening – May offer a variety of opening arrangements for internal cleaning Buildings that are not listed or have not been identified as a Prime Townscape Block are still important within the Conservation Area and can contribute effectively to it. For these buildings it is still recommended that either repair, refurbishment or ‘like for like’ timber replacement is pursued in the first instance. However, it is accepted that these buildings have already lost some or all of their original windows or historical fenestration value through inappropriate replacements over the years. In these circumstances, a number of different units will be permitted including:- 1. Good quality, well-proportioned white uPVC sliding sash and case; 2. White painted timber double swing / tilt & turn with a stepped effect which give the appearance of a sash and case windows in all respects except when open; and 3. uPVC fixed pane units (no opening mechanism in accordance with Building Standards) and double swing opening mechanism windows with good proportions and that mimic the stepped effect of sash and case window will also normally be acceptable Timber swing windows Example of poor quality uPVC windows Page 97
Page 98
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 13 | P a g e In all of these situations planning consent will be required (£202 fee) along with suitable drawings and manufacturer specifications. Care is should be taken when considering the introduction of new materials and double glazing to ensure that the thickness of the mouldings/ surrounds, proportions, ironmongery and detailing match the original window as closely as possible. This can be particularly difficult to achieve with some low quality or older styles of double glazed uPVC units. In all instances the general glazing pattern should mirror the existing traditional window unless there are strong reasons for permitting a change e.g. to reinstate some consistency or unity to a building or street frontage where different glazing pattern predominates and where there is no sound reason for maintaining a different pattern. Where glazing bars or astragals are required, these must be carefully designed and detailed to match the original or, where appropriate the predominant window style. Rear Elevations On rear elevations additional flexibility may be afforded depending on the availability of public views, contribution to the Conservation Area and overall integrity of the block. Replacements should match the original in terms of general design, but does not necessarily have to replicate a traditional sliding sash and case in terms of opening mechanism or stepped effect. Most white coated modern materials and products are likely to be acceptable if the glazing pattern and proportions are broadly similar to the original or surrounding the windows. Statement 4 – Replacing non-traditional windows One of the important aims of this Technical Working Note is to uplift the current status quo and reverse the damage caused by some of unsympathetic window replacements that have occurred over the years. The presence of poor quality windows in certain townscape blocks does not mean that they are appropriate or necessarily that a precedent has been set. Whilst ‘like for like’ replacements do not need consent the Council shall always seek to improve the current arrangements where possible. In all properties the planning authority shall seek uplift in the appearance of existing windows. In properties where they are seeking to replace poor quality uPVC and / or aluminium framed windows any replacement that provides an overall improvement to the appearance of the building shall be considered by the planning authority. When assessing applications to replace windows that are not original / traditional a sequential approach should be applied:- 1. Re-introduction of timber sliding sash and case units; 2. Installation of better quality windows than currently installed - good quality uPVC sliding sash or timber swing units for example; then 3. Installation of units of any material which retain the distinct step of sash and case windows and which give the appearance of a sash and case windows in all respects except when open. It is unlikely that windows outside the parameters listed above shall be acceptable unless there is clear benefit or enhancement from what has already been installed. Page 98
Page 99
Argyll and Bute Windows 14 | P a g e 6 - Enforcement Replacing windows without obtaining the necessary planning or listed building consents is a serious matter. Argyll and Bute Council has the power to challenge any owner / occupier and require a retrospective application to be submitted or instigate formal enforcement proceedings if the replacements are deemed to be unacceptable. In situations where a mutually agreed solution cannot be reached the Council may pursue the owner / occupier to restore the property to its original state. Alternatively, the Council may undertake the works themselves and then place a charge upon the property. Enforcement action can only be taken within 4 years of the installation or replacement taking place for most buildings however for listed buildings there is no time limit. Unauthorised and unsympathetic alterations to a Listed Building can be a criminal offence and you may be reported the Procurator Fiscal. Any formal enforcement action may lead to problems in the sale of your property as it shall be recorded as a burden against the address until it is resolved. Page 99
Page 100
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 15 | P a g e Appendix A – Performance Improvements Maintenance The poor performance of many traditional timber sash and case windows is caused by substandard maintenance. Decay in sash windows is mainly caused by moisture penetration which can be prevented by thorough painting. Historic Scotland recommends painting timber sash and case windows every 5 years. Where rot has penetrated a frame it is possible to splice in individual sections to match the originals in all respects. More detailed guidance for owners of property with sash and case windows is available within Historic Scotland INFORM series - Maintaining Sash and Case Windows (July 2007) the Council’s own Window Advice Note published as part of the Rothesay Townscape Heritage Initiative http://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/RothesayWindowAdviceNote1.pdf The ease of opening and cleaning of traditional windows can be significantly improved by re-balancing the weights within the exiting windows, fitting Simplex hinges (if not already fitted) or Fenestrators and usually be attended to from within the property. An application to the outer pane of slim profile double glazing is applied to make it self-cleaning. This cannot be removed by water cleaning agents or high pressure equipment and the coating is much more scratch resistant than normal glass. It is water and dust repellent and improves light transmission by around 2%. It also comes with a 10 year guarantee. http://www.slimliteglass.co.uk/slimlite-self-cleaning-double-glazed-units.html Until recently there was only one supplier making the product but there are now eight due to the level of demand. The benefit of timber is that is can be repaired. New sections can be spliced in if they rot, however plastic windows cannot be repaired and need to be completely replaced when they fail. Please see advice on maintenance at the following: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/chord/maintenance-advice https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/ Performance REPAIR Draught proofing, repairing seals, and re-hanging can have the following effect: • Reducing draughts • Eliminating rattle • Substantially reducing noise • Smoother operation Many traditional timber windows are sound and can be overhauled to retrofit slim profile double glazing and other draughtproofing measures. Page 100
Page 101
Argyll and Bute Windows 16 | P a g e Historic Scotland Technical Paper 01 - Thermal Performance of Traditional Windows (October 2006) Well-fitted external or internal wooden shutters dramatically decrease heat loss from both draughts and conduction through the window. Conduction losses alone are cut by 60%. Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) Repairing windows, rather than whole scale replacement is often the most cost effective approach, as well as being the most environmentally friendly and most aesthetically pleasing. ENERGY Heat loss is often cited as a factor as to why people want to alter windows. A window renovation process, which retains much of the existing material, has clear environmental benefits over manufacturing replacement windows, be these wooden or uPVC. Most heat is lost through gaps in the seal around the glazing and/or the window itself. The process of renovation, rather than replacement, has the benefit of using 1/40th of the embodied energy of replacement. Where a window is clearly ‘leaky’ (with gaps around the frame and rails where sash windows meet) research has shown that repairing and draught proofing it can reduce air infiltration by over 80%. Further benefits can be gained simply by closing curtains, blinds and shutters and these can produce the same heat savings as double glazing. The addition of secondary glazing can also reduce heat loss by nearly 60% (and is also effective in reducing sound transmission). Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) Secondary glazing, rather than double glazing, actually offers the best U value performance. The whole-life environmental costs of replacement will be much greater than simply refurbishing. It will take many years before savings on heating offset the large amounts of energy used to make PVC-u windows in the first place. Although recycling does exist for PVC-u windows this is limited to waste sections left over in manufacturing rather than for complete redundant windows. Discarded windows end up in landfill sites with the potential for releasing some of the most damaging industrial pollutants. Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) The environmental benefits of window renovation are: • Uses 1/40th of the energy of replacement • Material sent to landfill is reduced • Use of finite resources is minimised • Invested energy, or carbon store, is retained ACOUSTIC Re-hanging and draught proofing original seals around the window will significantly reduce noise levels. Page 101
Page 102
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 17 | P a g e Draught proofing can increase sound protection levels by up to 10 decibels. The inclusion of double glazing further increases sound reduction. Many new windows are filled with Argon gas, which is very light and ineffective for sound reduction, however slim profile double glazing is filled with a mixture of Krypton and Xenon gases which are heavier gases and offer much better sound reduction as a result, offering up to 31 decibel noise reduction. http://www.slimliteglass.co.uk/sound-reduction-a-u-values.html Windows are one of the most vulnerable parts of a building to noise transmission due to their relatively lightweight construction. Depending on the number of openings and the quality of the seals between the openings, a single glazed window without seals may only achieve a noise reduction of 18–25dBA. When closed, sealed double glazed units perform little better than single glazing because the two panes of glass are rigidly connected with a minimal cavity so the two panes resonate together. A secondary window with an air space of 100mm or more de-couples the movement of the two panes of glass and reduces the resonance between the two. Sound insulation of up to 45dBA can typically be achieved. Higher levels of sound insulation are obtained as the gap increases, particularly if the reveals are lined with an acoustic material, though minimal improvements occur with cavities beyond 200mm. The use of thicker or acoustic laminate glass within the secondary window also improves the acoustic performance of the installation. Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) Quality If a town’s buildings are well maintained, people are more likely to spend time in that town. Heritage acts as an economic driver for a number of towns with historic interest. The Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland submitted a paper to Scottish Ministers in 2009 to provide strategic advice to matters affecting such historic environment. http://www.heacs.org.uk/documents/2009/economicimpact.pdf They found that the historic environment played a large part to the prosperity of the nation: ‘The greater share of economic impacts relate to tourism expenditure attributable to the historic environment. Indeed, tourism expenditure attributable to the historic environment is estimated to support some 37,000 FTE employees in Scotland, with this representing nearly £1.3 billion in respect of GVA’. They concluded that: ‘There is a compelling case for increased investment in the historic environment. Traditionally, the case has been made for greater investment to ensure the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. The results of this study demonstrate that there is also a strong economic rationale for increased investment in order to maximise the contribution the historic environment makes to the prosperity of the nation. The Scottish Ministers should consider the appropriate level of investment in the historic environment against this wider background. The Townscape Heritage Initiative and Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme projects running in Campbeltown, Inveraray and Rothesay are therefore critical to the economic development of each town and seek not just to preserve each respective town’s historic architecture but to instigate positive change by making substantial improvements in key areas with large visual impact. Page 102
Page 103
Argyll and Bute Windows 18 | P a g e The historic value of each town is also critical in attracting external funding. The appropriate use of materials is crucial in assisting this positive change and in lifting the appearance of town centres. If poor quality materials are used they not only undermine the positive change but can also be harmful to the performance of the building. Environmental The environmental advantages of Window Renovation are as follows: • Consumes up to 40x less energy than would be needed for replacement • Reduction in material needed to be sent to landfill • Less dependence on, and usage of, finite resources • Carbon store and invested energy is retained PVC-u is short for Poly Vinyl Chloride un-plasticised and these windows are assembled from factory- made components designed for rigidity, thermal performance and ease of production. Their design, detailing and operation make them look completely different to traditional windows. Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) Appendix B – Cost Comparison Research has been undertaken to obtain an indicative price quotations for the most popular types of window refurbishments or replacements:- TYPE OF PRODUCT OR WORKS DESCRIPTION COST Paint window £65 Add simplex hinge £55 Make small repair £50 Good overhaul of window Include draft strip and fixing of loose parts / joints £140 Install slim line Double Glazing On standard window (1m X 2m) £350 Make big repair Including a new cill on standard sized window £185 Big repair on big window Including new cill and installation of double glazing £900 New top swing (fully reversible) uPVC Unit 900 X 1170 dimension. Flat profiled unlike traditional sash and case. Excluding fitting £310 New uPVC casement unit 900 X 1170 dimension. Flat profiled unlike traditional sash and case. Excluding fitting £386 New vertical sliding sash and case (uPVC) 900 X 1170 dimension. Good proportioned uPVC sash and case unit including stepped profile. Excluding fitting £412 New timber vertical sliding sash and case 900 X 1170 dimension. Excluding fitting £681 Page 103
Page 104
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 19 | P a g e Appendix C – Prime Townscape Block Assessment In order to assist officers in undertaking a townscape block assessment the following methodology has been developed from the existing Technical Working Note - Rothesay Windows. All planning applications for replacement windows should seek an ‘uplift’ to the current situation. However, it is up to the planning authority to determine if a townscape block can be considered ‘prime’ i.e. pristine or ‘de-valued’ i.e. significant poor quality interventions having an adverse impact on the character. The below method is a general guide to identifying these blocks, however the overall decision will rest with the decision makers. Blocks may be individual buildings (likely to be listed buildings), small terraces, or whole streets. Identifying Prime Townscape Blocks These will be buildings that have retained their historic integrity and provide a significant degree of quality to the overall conservation area. They will depend on their location, outlook and exposure but they will all be of high quality with mostly traditional windows and doors. These important buildings that have retained their integrity can be considered Prime Townscape Blocks. De-Valued Townscape Blocks De-valued blocks will be those in secondary locations in conservation areas. Buildings will be compromised by a large degree of unsympathetic window and door replacements. Public views will be restricted. These blocks will generally not be located in prominent public areas such as main squares and shopping precincts. Ultimately it will be for the assessing officer to make the judgement on the status of the townscape block and how the proposed window replacement will affect its integrity and how this might impact on the overall qualifying interests of the conservation area. Page 104
Page 105
Argyll and Bute Windows 20 | P a g e Additional Information Useful sources of information Scottish Civic Trust: Windows: a frame of mind, a guide to window repair and replacement Historic Scotland: Thermal performance of traditional windows Historic Scotland: Caring for your sash and case windows a home owners guide Historic Environment Scotland: Managing change in the historic environment: Windows (this document is a material consideration in determining planning applications) English Heritage: Secondary glazing for windows English Heritage: Draft proofing doors and windows Maintenance Advice for homeowners Historic Scotland – INFORM Series – Maintaining Sash and Case Windows (July 2006) https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- research/publications/publication/?publicationid=de744d4d-0610-48f4-af5e-a59500f93be8 Historic England – Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) https://www.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/traditional-windows-care-repair-upgrading/ Product Information Sash Fenestrator (makes it easy to open sash windows) https://www.mightonproducts.com/products/sash-window-hardware/window-assistance/fenestrator# Other Useful References: Case Study South Uist, insulation to windows, doors walls and roof http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/hs-refurb-case-study-6.pdf Case Study: Five Edinburgh Tenement Flats – Wall and window upgrades http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/hs-refurb-case-study-1.pdf Case Study : Garden Bothy, Cumnock http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/hs-refurb-case-study-8.pdf Slim‐profile double glazing Thermal performance and embodied energy Page 105
Page 106
Argyll and Bute Windows - Technical Working Note - 2018 21 | P a g e http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/techpaper9.pdf Historic Scotland: Technical Paper 23: Thermal assessment of internal shutters and window film applied to traditional single glazed sash and case windows (January 2014) http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/hs-technicalpaper-23.pdf Historic Scotland Technical Paper 01 - Thermal Performance of Traditional Windows (October 2006) This paper presents research from testing the thermal performance of traditional timber sash and case windows, comparing the original single glazed windows against various upgrading options such as blinds, curtains, shutters, secondary glazing and double glazing. https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- research/publications/publication/?publicationId=f3e97c76-b4fa-4c76-a197-a59400be931b Historic England: Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading (February 2017) This guidance covers both timber and metal windows and is aimed at building professionals and property- owners. It sets out to show the significance of traditional domestic windows by charting their history over centuries of technical development and fashion. Detailed technical guidance is then provided on their maintenance, repair, thermal upgrading as well as on their replacement. https://www.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/traditional-windows-care-repair-upgrading/ Historic Scotland – Guide For Practitioners: Conservation of Timber Sash and Case Windows (February 2002) http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/publication-detail?pubid=8563 Inform easy read guide to improving thermal efficiency : http://conservation.historic-scotland.gov.uk/inform-energy-efficiency.pdf Page 106
Page 107
MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS January 2018 Page 107
Page 108
2 MANAGING CHANGE IS A SERIES OF GUIDANCE NOTES ABOUT MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT. ALONG WITH HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SCOTLAND’S POLICY STATEMENT (JUNE 2016), THEY SUPPORT THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICIES SET OUT IN SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY (2014) The aim of the series is to identify the main issues that can arise in different situations, to advise how best to deal with these, and to offer further sources of information. They are also intended to provide advice to local authorities when developing their planning policies, and in the determination of applications relating to the historic environment. Cover image: Signet Library, Parliament Square, Edinburgh. A round-headed sash and case window with astragals, or glazing bars. Below: Gourock Rope Works, Port Glasgow. Conversion of a former industrial building with the addition of new windows suitable for its change to residential use. 3Cover image: © Nick Haynes Page 108
Page 109
KEY ISSUES 1. The windows of a historic building form an important element in defining its special interest and character. 2. The contribution windows make to the character of a historic building must be understood before considering alteration. 3. The size, shape, design and proportions of a window, the reflective sparkle and irregularities of old glass, the pattern of design, the materials and details of construction, the method of opening, the finish, and associated fixtures, typically contribute to the character of a historic window. 4. Maintenance and appropriate repair is the preferred means of safeguarding the character of a historic window. 5. Improvements in energy efficiency of existing windows can be achieved by draught-proofing, internal secondary glazing, and use of shutters and lined curtains. 6. Some types of double-glazing can be incorporated within existing window joinery and may be acceptable where no historic glass remains. 7. Where a window is of limited interest or beyond repair, its replacement should be permitted. New double-glazed windows may be acceptable, if they can closely match the original window design, detail and materials. 8. Local planning authorities give advice on the requirement for listed building consent, planning and other permissions, and will often have their own detailed guidance on windows. Listed building consent is required for any works affecting the special interest or character of a listed building and planning permission may be required for window replacement within a conservation area. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT Historic Environment Scotland is charged with ensuring our historic environment provides a strong foundation in building a successful future for Scotland. One of its roles is to provide advice about managing change in the historic environment. This note sets out the principles that apply to altering the windows of historic buildings. It has been produced to guide local authorities when developing their planning policies and in the determination of applications relating to the historic environment. Historic Environment Scotland will be consulted on listed building consent cases for works to windows in A and B listed buildings, and expect this guidance to inform decision making. Local authorities alone determine listed building consent applications for windows in Category C listed buildings and planning applications, where applicable, for windows in unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Whilst this guidance is best practice for historic buildings generally, local authorities will often have specific window guidance for listed and unlisted buildings in conservation areas, reflecting local character and particular circumstances, and thus, other approaches may be appropriate. In this guidance note the term ‘historic window’ is used for both original and significant historic windows. Monuments scheduled under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act 1979 require scheduled monument consent for any works. Where a structure is both scheduled and listed, the scheduling controls take precedence. Further advice is available from Historic Environment Scotland’s website: www.historicenvironment.scot/advice- and-support/listing-scheduling and-designations/scheduled-monuments 4 5MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Page 109
Page 110
1. WHY ARE HISTORIC WINDOWS IMPORTANT ? Windows make a substantial contribution to the character, authenticity and physical integrity of most historic buildings and also to the character and interest of historic streets and places. They are an important element of a building’s design. The size, shape and positioning of the openings are significant, as are the form and design of the framing, astragals and glazing. Their style, detailing and materials help us to understand the date when a building was constructed or altered, its function, and advances in related technology. Windows can be a product of many factors, including the status of the building, architectural fashions, technological changes, local customs and even individual designers. In simple vernacular or plainer buildings a considerable amount of the character and visual prominence of a building can derive from the windows. 2. IDENTIFYING THE INTEREST OF HISTORIC WINDOWS The significance of a historic window is derived from a number of factors including its form or shape, the characteristics of historic glass, the materials and details of construction, the method and pattern of opening, associated fixtures, and sometimes even the paint colour. This guidance is focused on the most common type of traditional historic window, the double-hung vertically-sliding timber sash and case window (the sash window). Other window types will be addressed later in the document. FORM AND DESIGN There are many shapes and sizes of historic window, from simple rectangular openings to arched or elaborately- traceried windows. Whilst some windows are sized and located for purely functional purposes, in most cases, windows are carefully provided as part of a broader design for a building or group of buildings. Window proportions and spacing frequently relate to other elements of the building, such as the overall dimensions of an elevation or other features (e.g. doorways). Windows are important components of the hierarchy of an architectural design or interior, perhaps expressing different parts of a building and principal rooms within, through differences in size, positioning and design. 6 7MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Six over six pane timber sash and case windows, Edinburgh. This style of window was popular from the eighteenth to the mid nineteenth century. This one image shows the varied reflections provided by different kinds of crown, cylinder and plate glass. Page 110
Page 111
HISTORIC GLASS The different production methods for various types of historic glass resulted in a wide range of thicknesses and tints, whilst irregularities in the process often provide an attractive reflective sparkle, refractive variety and distinctive appearance to each window. Two forms of early glass predominated until the later nineteenth century. Crown glass was made by hand-spinning molten glass into a thin circular disc which was then cut into individual panes. From around 1700 onwards, cylinder or broad sheet glass was made by forming cylinders of molten glass that were then cut and flattened into thick panes. Both these methods were expensive, had a restricted pane size, and produced distortions and bubbles in the glazing that add character, and identify the production process. Surviving examples of this hand- made glass should be retained. Early plate glass was quite thick and expensive, made in a similar method to cylinder glass or by casting molten glass on a table and then grinding and polishing it flat. The cylinder sheet glazing process was greatly improved in the 1830s which is also when Patent plate glass was invented, allowing thinner low-tax glass to be produced, with later mechanical polishing further reducing costs. The production methods of improved cylinder and plate glass retain varying levels of imperfections and irregularities in the glass that can add character to a window. MODERN GLASS Drawn flat sheet and float glass are both C20th mechanised processes, the latter producing glass with few imperfections. More recently, glazing technology has produced many different types of glazing, the major change being the advent of double-glazing or Insulated Glass Units (IGUs) with two panes of glass separated by either a vacuum cavity, or a cavity filled with air or an inert gas, to reduce energy loss through the glazing. Standard double glazing has two panes, usually of 4-6mm glass, with a cavity of around 13- 20mm. Slim, thin or narrow-profile/section double-glazing has cavities of between 3mm and 6mm and a narrower edge strip. Vacuum glass has a ‘cavity’ between the panes of only 0.2mm. The latter two are sometimes used to replace historic glass within existing or new frames. Both double glazing and specialist single glazing can be fitted with low-emissivity coatings which can further improve their thermal efficiency. GLAZING PATTERNS The vertically sliding sash and case window was introduced to Scotland in the early 1670s. After some variation it commonly comprised two equally-sized glazed sashes that slide vertically, on counterbalanced lead or iron weights, in a sash case or box set in a rebate in the wall for weather protection. Windows were made of softwood, usually well-seasoned pine, often imported. 8 9MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Early sash windows were sometimes fixed or held open by pegs rather than counterbalanced weights. Their sashes contained small thick panes, often square, held by thick glazing bars or ‘astragals’. As the eighteenth century progressed an arrangement of two equally-sized sashes containing six ‘portrait’ format panes each became the standard. Generally, over time, astragal sections and glass thicknesses reduced as window openings increased in size and glazing technology improved. The standard six-over-six ‘Georgian’ pattern was widely used until at least the mid-nineteenth century, with occasional use of ‘lying-panes’ (‘landscape’ format) and margin panes, but the advent of improved cylinder and patent plate glass, and the removal of taxes, allowed larger panes of glass and fewer astragals. There was a gradual transition to larger panes with four-over-four and two-over-two panes frequently used, but by the later nineteenth century the one-over-one pattern was common. Horns, added to the meeting rails of sash windows to address these heavier panes of glass, are not very common in Scotland and often do not appear until late in the C19th, if at all. When larger pane sizes first became available, often the astragals in existing sashes would be removed and retrofitted with single panes of glass. Again, due to expense, frequently only the front windows of properties would be re-glazed in this fashion. Likewise, in new buildings, sometimes the rear elevations continued to be designed with cheaper smaller panes. Either side of 1900 saw experimentation with different sash sizes, often a lower large-paned sash with smaller multi-paned sash above, or sometimes decorative glass. The popular ‘Queen Anne’ style saw the reintroduction of smaller panes, and sometimes exposed sash cases, whilst multi-paned sashes were popular in inter-war social and private housing developments. OTHER WINDOW TYPES Besides the sash and case window, there were other types of window used in Scotland, including timber and metal casements, often with leaded lights, associated with the ‘cottage orne’ style and with Arts & Crafts style housing. Although timber windows continued to predominate as a framing material until the Second World War, the early C20th saw the introduction of steel casement windows, popularised by the Crittall Company. They allowed schools and industrial buildings to have large expanses of glazing and curtain walling, and also facilitated ‘picture windows’ in housing. The use of steel windows was largely superseded in the post-war period by aluminium, and later still, uPVC. Page 111
Page 112
10 11MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Pulley Shutter Top Sash Parting Bead Window Case Pulley Stile Sash Cord Sash Fastener Bottom Sash Baton Rod Astragal/Glazing Bar Sash Lift Window Back Lining Panelling Pulley Sash Cord Sash Weight Stone Cill Window case inner lining Window case outer lining Window Case Simpson and Brown Meeting Rails Sash Stile Sash Bottom Rail A typical sash and case window, including the terms used to describe parts of the window in this leaflet 2 The component parts of the sash and case window Weight Box (Recess in Case) Removable Pocket Piece (concealed behind shutter or in inner or outer pulley stile at low level) METHOD OF OPENING The way in which a window opens can contribute significantly to the authenticity and appearance of a historic building. All traditional ‘double hung’ sash and case windows open by sliding the sashes up and down in the same plane: in the open position they never project outwards or inwards from the building. Other common forms of opening method are casements, which are hinged at the side and open outwards (or more rarely inwards), and hoppers, which are hinged at the bottom and usually open on a track or restrictor. Some C20th metal-framed windows use a vertical or horizontal pivot mechanism. FINISH Like most softwoods, window frames were traditionally painted, and this is the preferred finish. It is sometimes possible to sample underlying layers to establish the original paint colours. Whilst shades of white are now ubiquitous, many traditional colours were much darker, with green, brown and black often used. Lead-based paint is now prohibited, but more recently natural paint systems have offered an alternative to synthetic paint. ASSOCIATED FIXTURES A wide range of fixtures are often associated with historic windows, including sash cases, cords, weights, sash lifts, catches, shutters (and their ironmongery), architraves and blinds. Surviving original ironmongery should be retained and reused. Many sashes in Scotland incorporate ‘simplex’ hinges that allow them to be opened inwards for cleaning. Associated fixtures such as traditional timber shutters, where they survive, contribute to the interest and character of a window Illustration of a typical sash and case window Page 112
Page 113
3. PRINCIPLES FOR REPAIR AND ALTERATIONS CHARACTER AND INTEREST OF THE BUILDING Repairs and alterations to a historic building should protect its character and special interest. The contribution windows make to this character must therefore be understood before proceeding. In assessing the character, it is essential to determine whether the windows are original to the building or, if later, whether they are of historic significance in their own right: e.g., part of a major or important scheme of overall works or decoration to the building. Evidence from adjacent or similar buildings, especially planned set-pieces or terraces, will be important. Such an assessment will inform any subsequent strategy for repair or replacement. REPAIR Where windows are of historic interest, repair of their components is preferable to replacement. This approach not only retains historically-important fabric and character, but is sustainable. Historic timber windows often used high-quality close-grained softwood, not easily available today, and with maintenance, have frequently lasted hundreds of years. In some cases there will be cosmetic damage to windows, with sashes painted shut, or peeling paint, often only on the more exposed faces of the building. There may also be individually decayed elements, such as rotten cills, which can normally be repaired or replaced. However, there will be situations when a window is in such poor condition, damaged or rotten to an extent that it is not possible or practicable to repair it. A specialist joiner may be able to advise on condition, and more detailed advice on the repair of timber windows can be found in our Inform and Short Guides (details at the end of this leaflet). Steel windows can also suffer from rust and distortion and, although repair is possible and preferable, sometimes this may not be practicable. 12 13MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS ALTERATION An assessment of character and special interest will be important when changes to the window’s design are envisaged. If clear evidence for an earlier pattern exists, reinstatement of that pattern should be acceptable, unless the later windows are of interest in their own right; for example, if they relate to significant alterations and additions that are part of the building’s special interest. In other cases the windows may be modern replacements, sometimes inexact copies of the original examples, or using inappropriate sections or materials. In such cases it should be acceptable to replace the windows with an aim to regain the original design intention or improve the existing situation. VENTILATION Sometimes additional controlled ventilation is required, especially in conversion works. Discreet vents inserted in the head, meeting rail or sides of the window should be used rather than adding prominent trickle vents. Further information on providing alternative methods of ventilation is available in our Short Guide to Sash and Case Windows. SECURITY Additional window security measures, such as security bolts or sash restrictors, can normally be installed discreetly without damage to the historic character of the building. Use of traditional internal shutters, or if necessary internal retractable grilles, is likely to be less disruptive to the historic appearance of a building than external shutters. Where external measures are unavoidable, removable grilles are more acceptable than permanent fixtures (including roller shutters). Where no historic glass remains laminated, toughened glass can often be installed to increase security. COLOUR Where colour or early paint schemes can be established by analysis, their use should be acceptable, although individual changes to set-piece designs or terraces may be unwelcome. Some local authorities control the palette of window paint colours to maintain the unified design of a conservation area or groups of listed buildings in multiple ownership/ occupation. In addition, some areas have developed a custom of using specific colours; e.g., black-painted frames in the West End of Glasgow and white frames in Edinburgh New Town. Repair of a sash and case window showing replacement of some of the component parts, such as the cill. Image:© Derek Thompson Page 113
Page 114
14 15MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS NEW WINDOW OPENINGS Location and design are key considerations in proposals for new window openings. New openings must be carefully located to avoid disruption to the characteristics of the surrounding external and internal context. For example, subsidiary elevations with no formal symmetry, or rooms with few internal features, are likely to be more suitable for new window openings than principal elevations or rooms. In cases where the building forms part of a larger grouping, it may be necessary to consider the wider context of the group and the potential for unsuitable precedent and cumulative effect if similar work was undertaken on every building. Where the location is appropriate in principle, the design of the new window must take account of the size, proportion, material and detailing of surrounding nearby windows. BLOCKING UP WINDOWS Permanent blocking of windows by building up the opening should only occur where the window makes very little contribution to the character of the building. If the window is of any interest, evidence of the opening, such as the window surrounds, cill, lintel or relieving arch should be retained, preferably with the window kept in-situ with blocking materials set behind or with the blocking recessed to the position of the former window, creating a traditional blind window. If the window being blocked is of no interest or detrimental to the building it can be blocked without any evidence being kept, using materials compatible with the surrounding masonry. CONVERTING WINDOWS TO DOORS Subsidiary elevations are more suitable for work of this type. Wherever possible the existing width of the window should be maintained and the opening expanded downwards to ground level. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to match any external window-surround detailing at the lower level. Where windows contribute to the character of an elevation or internal space, the replacement door should be solid to cill level and glazed above to match the pattern of surrounding windows. Any internal joinery, such as shutters or panelling, should be retained and matched at the lower level of the new opening. Doors are also sometimes converted to windows. Here, if the door is an important part of the character of the building, it will be desirable to provide a glazed or part-glazed door rather than blocking up the opening to insert a window. BLIND WINDOWS Original blind or dummy windows form an important part of the interest of a historic building and should not normally be opened up. Such features were originally designed to maintain the pattern and symmetry of window openings in the external elevations of a building, or sometimes to provide a visual trick or ‘trompe l’oeuil’. They are often faced in large stone slabs designed to resemble the sashes. Often fireplaces, chimneys, or other internal features prevented the creation of working windows in some locations. Windows specifically blocked to avoid paying window taxation are rarer. South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh. The blind openings are detailed with cills and a meeting rail to maintain the symmetry of the architectural elevation. There are chimney flues behind them within the walling. Image: © Nick Haynes Page 114
Page 115
16 17MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS 4. UPGRADING WINDOWS ADDRESSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND HEAT LOSS Having regard for the energy conservation of buildings in use is an important element in addressing climate change and reducing heating costs. In many cases effective and sustainable improvements to the energy efficiency of historic buildings are possible and can be achieved without damage to their character. It is important to consider heat loss throughout the entire envelope of a building and, in most cases, less invasive approaches than double-glazing or window replacement may be more cost- effective in both the short and longer term. However, single-glazed windows are often the worst-thermally performing element in a building and a readily identifiable route for heat loss, especially in buildings with large window-to-wall ratios. There are several methods of improving the energy efficiency of existing windows. Low-key and low-cost improvements include applying low-emissivity window films onto or behind the glass. At night, considerable improvements to heat loss can be obtained by lined curtains, insulated blinds, or using historic shutters, which can also be insulated. A combination of the above measures can be particularly effective. DRAUGHT-PROOFING Sash windows were designed to allow some air flow into a room but not to be draughty. Draught-proofing can reduce air-leakage and the feeling of cold within a building. It is relatively simple to draught- proof a window using silicone sealant, foam-backed strips or by inserting brush strips into the baton rods and meeting rails. Removing draughts can lead to reductions in the heating levels required and can also be helpful in reducing dust and noise. SECONDARY GLAZING Recent technical research (see section 6 & 7) shows internal secondary glazing can reduce heat loss by over 60% and also has the advantage of leaving the original windows untouched, a welcome approach where the window is significant, retains historic glass, or where adaptation for double-glazing would be complicated or damaging. It can also be cheaper than replacement, and can be a more permanent solution than double-glazed units, whose performance will degrade over time. Acoustically, secondary glazing can also be better at reducing noise transmission than double-glazing. Systems vary, but normally comprise glass in thin aluminium or timber frames set on the internal window framing or staff beads, and they can sometimes be designed and fitted to still allow historic shutters to function. Secondary double-glazing is rarer, but has also been used. Care should be taken to keep frame sections minimal and match up internal meeting rails or frames with outside sashes. Painting the external frame face black can further disguise units from external view. Care is needed to allow ease of use for both opening and cleaning. Temporary or demountable secondary glazing solutions are also available, utilising clear rigid acrylic or polycarbonate sheets. These can also provide significant reductions in heat loss, and can be fitted easily (often with velcro or magnetic strips) for winter and removed and stored in summer. Another approach is to fix the sheets to individual panes. Again, these approaches can significantly reduce heat loss at a lower cost than more invasive works. RETROFITTING DOUBLE-GLAZING In some cases, where no historic glass survives, it can sometimes be possible to retrofit double-glazing within existing window frames. Due to the design and construction of historic windows, it is normally only vacuum- or narrow-profile double glazing that may be able to be used. Vacuum glazing is thin enough to directly replace single glazing, but if narrow-profile glazing is used, the windows concerned will have to be robust enough to withstand any adaption or routing required to accommodate the thicker panes. Any works that either weaken the window or may lead to exacerbated decay should be avoided. The use of traditional shutters at night can help reduce heat loss. Inveraray Castle, Argyll, showing the discreet addition of secondary glazing, in this case polycarbonate sheeting on magnetic strips. The placing of the unit allows the shutters to operate freely. Image: © Glaze & Save Ltd Page 115
Page 116
18 19MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS 5. REPLACEMENT WINDOWS REPLACEMENT DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS Where existing windows are beyond repair, or of little historic interest, it should be acceptable to replace them. This can involve replacing just the individual sashes or the sash case as well. Where a new sash case is fitted it should be set wholly within the wall’s rebate, with no, or minimal, protrusion of the case’s facing plate, unless exposed sash-cases are a feature of the original design. Sash cases were traditionally fixed with timber wedges and burnt sand mastic. Internal shutters and joinery should always be retained. Generally, replacement windows should seek to match the original windows in design, form, fixing, method of opening and materials. In replacing sash windows, materials other than timber, e.g. uPVC, will rarely be acceptable. Softwood is traditionally used, now often treated to improve durability. For metal windows, steel replacement double-glazed windows are available, although can be expensive for individual replacements. Aluminium may be acceptable as an alternative if original patterns and sections can be successfully replicated. The success of a replacement window will depend on its detailed design, and on how well the new replicates the old. Features to consider in the design of new windows may include the correct placing of the case within the wall and, importantly, its method of operation with vertically sliding sashes. Sections of sash meeting rails and astragal profiles should match the original as closely as possible, and horns should only be provided if there is historical evidence for their use. In seeking the best replication of the design and construction of the window, how astragals hold the glass is important. Therefore, true, or through, astragals should be provided. In most cases, as thermal performance is a major driver for change, replacement windows will be double-glazed. In such cases care is required to adapt the detailed design of new timber windows to incorporate double-glazed units Narrow-profile double glazing has been specifically developed to allow more accurate replication of historic window patterns, and vacuum glass is similarly marketed. Such approaches have directly resulted in double-glazing becoming more generally acceptable in historic buildings, with consequent improvements in energy efficiency. Although some narrow-section units may not be optimised for thermal performance, they give significant improvements in heat loss from single glazing and can allow for near like-for-like replacement windows. Standard double-glazing may occasionally be acceptable for some replacement windows, e.g. one-over-one sashes. However, the thicker astragals required by standard units, together with limitations on some manufacturer’s guidance on edge-sealing of units, mean they often cannot successfully replicate historic multi-pane patterns, especially those windows with thinner astragals. Example of narrow-profile double- glazing retrofitted within an existing sash window. Page 116
Page 117
20 21MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Some manufacturers have attempted to address this by using a standard double- glazed unit with applied astragals or an astragal cassette, often in conjunction with integral dividers in the cavity. Such approaches may be considered in cases where a replacement window will improve the current situation, allowing an aesthetically accurate match. Astragals sandwiched between panes alone, will be very unlikely to be acceptable. FITTING GLAZING Double glazed units can be fitted with putty, or a synthetic glazing compound. Windows should be fitted according to manufacturer’s instructions as linseed oil putty may damage unit seals. It may be possible to use timber fixing beads, but the beads should replicate the 45-degree section of traditional putty. Smaller details such as the colour of internal spacer bars in unit cavities can also be important; e.g., white can better replicate the glazing bar colour. 6. CONSENTS Listed building consent is required for any work to a listed building that affects its special interest and planning permission may be required for replacement windows in conservation areas. The local authority determines the need for consent/permission. With listed buildings, they may consider minor works such as draught-proofing will not require consent. Other works, such as the installation of secondary glazing, may sometimes require consent, often depending on its detailed design. More intensive works; e.g., retrofitting double glazing, will be likely to require consent, as will window replacement. Where consent is required, an application is made to the local planning authority. This should include accurate scale drawings showing both the existing windows and the proposed works in context. It is normally helpful to provide detailed technical information and photographs. A brief description of the interest of the windows and an explanation of the impact of the alterations are always helpful in assessing change. Where an application proposes the replacement of a window or windows in poor condition, a condition survey by an appropriately-skilled tradesman is useful. Notwithstanding the need to protect the historic environment, applicants and local planning authorities should ensure replacement windows comply with the requirements of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. Some change of use applications may have implications for windows (e.g. window guards). Historic Environment Scotland’s guide for Practitioners 6 – Conservation of Traditional buildings – provides further guidance on the application of the Scottish Building Standards. MEETING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS If you are replacing your windows you will want assurance that the units being supplied achieve the results you seek. New glazing, in particular, Insulating Glass Units (IGUs), should be manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the Product Standard EN 1279-5, a requirement for legal compliance with the Construction Products Regulations (CPR). The industry body, the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF) has a wealth of information for consumers and providers on its website and in its publications; http://www.ggf.org.uk/publications, which includes the Industry Guidance details on the Construction Product Regulations and the tests that must be complied with to meet them. Page 117
Page 118
22 MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS 7. FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE For the full range of Inform Guides, Practitioner Guides, Technical Advice Notes and Research Reports please see the Publications section of the Historic Scotland website. The following will be of particular interest; Looking After your Sash & Case Windows (2003) Guide for Practitioners: Conservation of Timber Sash & Case Windows (2002) Research Report: The Historical & Technical Development of Sash & Case Windows in Scotland (2001) Inform Guide: Maintaining Sash & Case Windows (2007) Inform Guide: Maintaining Traditional Plain Glass and Glazing (2007) Inform Guide: Decorative Domestic Glass (2007) Short Guide: Fabric Improvements for energy efficiency in traditional building (2013) Technical Paper 1: Thermal Performance of Traditional Windows Technical Paper 23: Thermal assessment of internal shutters and window film applied to traditional single glazed sash and case windows In addition we have several Refurbishment Case Studies that show the upgrading or replacement of windows and also include costs for such works. GRANT ASSISTANCE In some cases grants and loans are available for energy efficiency improvements, including windows. Home Energy Scotland provide free, impartial advice. On 0808 808 2282 or www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/ grants-loans 23MANAGING CHANGE IN THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT WINDOWS Page 118
Page 119
Historic Environment Scotland Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SH Telephone 0131 668 8716 Email HMEnquiries@hes.scot www.historicenvironment.scot Text © 2018 Historic Environment Scotland This edition published January 2018 Historic Environment Scotland is the lead public body established to investigate, care for and promote Scotland’s historic environment. Page 119
Page 120
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 121
Historic Environment Scotland – Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH Scottish Charity No. SC045925 VAT No. GB 221 8680 15 By email to: planning.maki@argyll- bute.gov.uk Argyll and Bute Council - Lochgilphead Office Planning Services 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SH Enquiry Line: 0131-668-8716 HMConsultations@hes.scot Our case ID: 300075857 Your ref: 24/01803/LIB 21 October 2024 Dear Argyll and Bute Council Planning (Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA48 7TP - Installation of replacement windows and door Thank you for your consultation which we received on 01 October 2024. The proposals affect: Ref Name Designation Type LB12436 "RHU" BY PORT NA CEASACH, 1. DICK, 2. MCLELLAND Listed Building Our Advice Category B-listed Rhu House is an earlier 19th century traditional 2-storey, 3 bay house. The proposal seeks to replace the windows and door to the principal elevation. The existing windows appear to be of a traditional timber construction arranged in a two over two pattern. The door is a modern replacement 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). We have no comments regarding the proposed new door. Planning authorities are expected to treat our comments as a material consideration, and this advice should be taken into account in your decision making. Our view is that the Page 121
Page 122
Historic Environment Scotland – Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH Scottish Charity No. SC045925 VAT No. GB 221 8680 15 proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore we do not object. However, our decision not to object should not be taken as our support for the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on listed building consent, together with related policy guidance. Further Information This response applies to the current proposal. An amended scheme may require another consultation with us, which should be sent to HMConsultations@hes.scot. Decisions affecting the historic environment should take the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) into account as a material consideration. Our series of Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes supports national policy on the historic environment, including HEPS, and explains how it should be applied. Technical advice is available through our Technical Conservation website at www.engineshed.org. Please contact us if you have any questions about this response. The officer managing this case is James Turner who can be contacted by phone on 0131 668 8912 or by email at James.Turner@hes.scot. However, if you wish to reconsult us on this proposal please email HMConsultations@hes.scot. Yours faithfully Historic Environment Scotland Page 122
Page 123
Page 123
Page 124
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 125
Classification: OFFICIAL case: LBA-130-2030 Site Address: Rhu House, Rhu Road, Port Charlotte, Isle Of Islay, PA48 7TP Case Detail: Installation Of Replacement Windows And Door At: Rhu House Rhu Road Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay I have comments to make on your reply. The reason I did not specify actual houses is that I was concerned about GDPR and did not want to fall foul of the data protection legislation. Having phoned the planning department I was advised that the information was in the public domain therefore could be used in my appeal. I have checked various applications on the planning website and have included them in my reply today. I have also included partial quotes on the planning permitted correspondence Regards Ann Smith The application site, which comprises a detached, two storey dwellinghouse known as Rhu House which is a Category B Listed Building (Ref: LB1243) The house is in fact semi detached the proposed incorporation of a 4-pane window into the proposed design of the replacement door Proposal is for plain window no glazing bars frosted glass for privacy. 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. Details: Cat B Main Street 18/00723/pp “*It should be noted that, although the building is category ‘B’ listed, an application for listed building consent is not being required in this instance. As the openings are not changing, the removal of the existing frames does not entail loss of any historic fabric and the proposed windows are a clearly improvement, it is not considered that the works will affect the building’s character as a building of special architectural or historic interest” Page 125 Agenda Item 3c
Page 126
Classification: OFFICIAL Cat B Main Street 17/03058/pp and 17/03059/lib “Whilst it would always be preferable that the replacement windows were of timber construction, in this case the windows installed are of a high quality sash and case type and it is not considered that their construction in upvc presents an unacceptable impact upon the Listed Building” Cat B Main Street 20/00224pp “Replacement windows are designed to benefit the house occupants with regard to reducing energy consumption. In a conservation area the first consideration should be repair and refurbish of the doors and windows. If that proves to be impractical the replacements should be designed to replicate and/or improve the existing as far as possible. In this case modern materials will be used” Cat B Main Street 22/0971/pp and 22/0970lib “Subject to conditions, the proposal would preserve the architectural and historical interest of the listed building, and thus meet the requirements of Policy 7 of NPF4 and Policies LDP 3, LDP 9 and SG LDP ENV 16(a) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. As such, listed building consent should be granted for the proposal.” Cat B Main Street 20/00224/pp “The proposal is to replace five windows to the front of the property. They are visible within the streetscape but as they should be recessed within their openings to match the existing style, proportions and positioning they are unlikely to be incongruous The new windows are to be of white uPVC which is acceptable in this case.” Cat B Shore Street 23/02122/pp and 23/02123/lib “In response to the concerns raised, the proposed windows have been amended to include a sash opening movement in order to protect the architectural interest of the building. This approach is also considered to be consistent with HES guidance on Managing Change, and the Council's Guidance on replacement of windows in listed buildings and conservation areas. Additionally, there were no 3rd party representations made.” Cat B Shore Street 15/01050/lib -“ The windows which are proposed to be renewed are of good quality with a traditional appearance, despite the modern materials.” Page 126
Page 127
Classification: OFFICIAL Cat C Main Street 23/01010/pp “The new replacement windows installed in March 2023 are considered an improvement and consist of white upvc sliding sash and case” Cat C Main Street 22/01887/lib and 22/01889/pp Unlisted Main Street 21/00875/pp “The proposal will not give rise to any material planning considerations which would support a recommendation other than approval of an application which accords with Local Development Plan policy and relevant guidance. “ All of these examples I have given were mentioned in my original statement though not identified.All these examples have been granted planning permission.All are UPVC,some four pane some two pane. Ann Smith Page 127
Page 128
This page is intentionally left blank