Agenda reports pack

Argyll and Bute Council · 3 September 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 3 September 2024 and its agenda

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

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

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 
27 August 2024 
NOTICE OF MEETING 
A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT
TEAMS on TUESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2024 at 11:30 AM, 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: ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE
STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD (REF: 24/0012/LRB) 
(a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 94)  
(b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 95 - 118)  
(c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 119 - 136) 
Argyll and Bute Local Review Body 
Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green (Chair)
Councillor Fiona Howard   
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392
Public Document Pack

Page 2

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 3

Page 1 of 5
Central Validation Team at Argyll and Bute Council 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD  Tel: 01546 605518  Email:
planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk
Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.
Thank you for completing this application form:
ONLINE REFERENCE 100679101-001
The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The  Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when
your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application.
Applicant or Agent Details
Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting
on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant  Agent
Agent Details
Please enter Agent details
Company/Organisation:
Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *
First Name: * Building Name:
Last Name: * Building Number:
Address 1
Telephone Number: * (Street): *
Extension Number: Address 2:
Mobile Number: Town/City: *
Fax Number: Country: *
Postcode: *
Email Address: *
Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *
  Individual    Organisation/Corporate entity
HLM Scotland Ltd
Martin
Hannah
Draffen Mount
23
Kilnview
KA3 5LG
UK
Stewarton
Page 3 Agenda Item 3a

Page 4

Page 2 of 5
Applicant Details
Please enter Applicant details
Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *
Other Title: Building Name:
First Name: * Building Number:
Address 1
Last Name: * (Street): *
Company/Organisation Address 2:
Telephone Number: * Town/City: *
Extension Number: Country: *
Mobile Number: Postcode: *
Fax Number:
Email Address: *
Site Address Details
Planning Authority:
Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):
Address 1: 
Address 2:
Address 3:
Address 4:
Address 5:
Town/City/Settlement:
Post Code:
Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites
Northing Easting
Mr
ROSEBANK
Ken
Argyll and Bute Council
MacQuarrie
BREADALBANE STREET
Breadalbane Street
TOBERMORY
Rosebank
ISLE OF MULL
PA75 6PD
PA75 6PD
UK
755221
Tobermory, Isle of Mull
150326
Page 4

Page 5

Page 3 of 5
Description of Proposal
Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the
application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: *
(Max 500 characters)
Type of Application
What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *
 Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals).
 Application for planning permission in principle.
 Further application.
 Application for approval of matters specified in conditions.
What does your review relate to? *
 Refusal Notice.
 Grant of permission with Conditions imposed.
 No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal.
Statement of reasons for seeking review
You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement
must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a
separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters)
Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce
all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account.
You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at
the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that
time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances.
Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No
Determination on your application was made? *
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: * (Max 500 characters)
23/02358/PP | Rosebank Breadalbane Street Tobermory, Isle of Mull PA75 6PD | Application for planning permission for
alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio
See attached Statement of Case (Production 1) and submissions.
Page 5

Page 6

Page 4 of 5
Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend
to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters)
Application Details
Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning
authority for your previous application.
What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? *
What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? *
Review Procedure
The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review
process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be
required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or
inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case.
Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other
parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. *
 Yes  No
Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may
select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures.
Please select a further procedure *
Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it
will deal with? (Max 500 characters)
In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:
Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No
Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No
Productions 1-4 attached
23/02358/PP
16/05/2024
By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates
11/12/2023
To enable the LRB to understand the characteristics of the land, the Conservation Area and other examples of building extension.
Page 6

Page 7

Page 5 of 5
Checklist – Application for Notice of Review
Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure
to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid.
Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No
Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No
review? *
If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name  Yes  No  N/A
and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the
review should be sent to you or the applicant? *
Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what  Yes  No
procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? *
Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider
require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review
at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely
on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review.
Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on  Yes  No
(e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review *
Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a
planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the
application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent.
Declare – Notice of Review
I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.
Declaration Name: Mr Martin Hannah
Declaration Date: 20/07/2024
Page 7

Page 8

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 9

1
HLM SCOTLAND LTD | CHARTERED TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT
KILNVIEW | DRAFFEN MOUNT | STEWARTON | EAST AYRSHIRE | KA3 5LG
T.
M.
Email
_________________________________________________________________________________
Chairperson
Local Review Body
Argyll and Bute Council
C/O Committee Services
Argyll and Bute Council
Kilmory
Lochgilphead
PA31 8RT
Your Reference: 23/02358/PP
17 July 2024
Dear Sirs,
23/02358/PP | Rosebank Breadalbane Street Tobermory, Isle of Mull PA75 6PD | Application for
planning permission for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio
1. Introduction
On behalf of our clients, Mr, and Mrs K MacQuarrie (the applicants), Notice of Request for Review is lodged
under Section 43(a) 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.
On 11 December 2023, our clients lodged application for full planning permission to improve and extend
their Tobermory home Rosebank under planning reference 23/02358/PP.
The application was validated on 12 January 2024. Under delegated procedures, the application was
refused by the appointed officer on 5 May 2024.
A single ground for refusal is listed in the decision letter. It is the judgement of the appointed officer that
the proposed development, by virtue of its design, would be detrimental to the appearance of the original
dwelling and materially harmful to the character and special qualities of the Tobermory Conservation area,
therefore contrary to the Policies of the Development Plan.
The policies material to the assessment and determination of the application are listed in the report on
handling. The policy conflicts identified by the appointed officer in the reason for refusal are listed as
National Policies 4,7,14 and 16; also, LDP2 Policies 1,4,5,8,9,10 and 15.
The Council has published Design Guidance: Sustainable Design Guidance 3. (2006). This predates the
adoption of the Local Development Plan and is non statutory but appears to represent the most up to date
design guidance published by the Council. The Council’s Development Plan and Policy Team advise that
the guidance is a material consideration to the assessment and determination of the application.
The applicants disagree with the reasoning for the refusal decision and seek Review.
Page 9

Page 10

2
.
The applicants respectfully ask the Members of the Local Review Body to reconsider the written and
drawing submissions; reexamine the merits of the proposal, and to grant planning permission in the terms
applied for.
This statement of case for the applicant is submitted as Production 1.
2. The Proposal
This proposal involves the down taking of a dilapidated outhouse and store rear annex and construction
of a two-storey house extension; to form a kitchen-family room, entrance hall, utility room and additional
storage on the ground floor, with the addition of a master bedroom, ensuite and a small study space on
the upper floor. A hardstanding patio is proposed along the extended southern elevation. A Juliet style
glass balcony is proposed on the upper floor, benefiting the proposed master bedroom.
Reconfiguration of the internal accommodation involves the loss of bedroom three and kitchen in the
original dwelling, but the space sacrificed will provide en-suite, circulation and access to the extension and
the larger master bedroom and second en-suite. On the ground floor, the original small kitchen area will
be reconfigured to provide a utility room and accessible w.c which the dwelling currently lacks.
Upon completion of the proposed works, Rosebank will remain a three-bedroom dwelling, although better
adapted to modern family living, fit for the future, a bright liveable and generous space and flexible enough
to meet the lifetime needs of the applicants and their family.
Rosebank is not and will not be used for short term holiday rental. Rosebank was constructed by Mr
MacQuarrie’s grandfather in 1909 and it has remained in family ownership for more than a Century. Mr
MacQuarrie has long family connections to Tobermory dating back generations and he hopes that the
improved home will eventually be occupied by his own daughter and family and remain in family ownership
and occupation.
3. Site Analysis
The application site has a Breadalbane Street statutory address and occupies an urban corner plot within
Tobermory that aspects towards both Breadalbane Street and West Street. The Scottish Government
publishes guidance to help determine the principal elevation, it is our judgement that the principal elevation
addresses West Street as the front garden area, pedestrian, and the vehicular access reference West
Street, not Breadalbane Street. Building extension to the rear, parallel with West Street help to reinforce
the corner setting of the building and relationship with this street.
The dwelling is 1¾ storey with upper floor bedroom accommodation within the roof space. The application
site is sizeable for a single urban dwelling and measures 0.16 acres or 647m2, as it incorporates the site
of a former two storey cottage demolished years ago.
The proposed development involves demolition of outbuildings and 1¾ storey house extension broadly on
the site of the buildings to be cleared, though the footprint will extrude further. The development will be set
back just over seven metres from the public road behind an existing garage building which the applicants
wish to retain.
For town planning purposes, Gross external area (GEA) is the basis of measurement for planning
applications and approvals, to assess building footprint and site coverage. The gross external ground floor
area is used for the calculation of plot ratio.
Page 10

Page 11

3
At present, Rosebank has a gross external ground floor area of 88m2. The original compact dwelling
footprint measures only 70m2 and the old outbuildings extended the footprint further to the rear by 18m2,
excluding the detached garage. Upon implementation of the proposed development, the modified gross
external ground floor area or footprint would measure 143m2 excluding garage. The gross external area
of the building, which includes the upper floor accommodation, will increase from 158m2 as existing to
286m2 as proposed.
Although a large building extension that would nearly double the footprint of the original dwelling, the
proposed development will nonetheless occupy just 22% of the application site area. The footprint as
proposed is indicated by a broken line on the aerial image attached to this statement (Production 2).
This image is submitted to the Local Review Body as evidence that the applicant’s proposal is not an over
development of the site, as the curtilage remains generous, exceeding normal town planning standards
for private garden space.
The proposed dwelling extension is designed to follow the architectural character of the original building.
The extension is in line with the existing dwelling and the submitted design seeks to maintain ridge and
eaves height and floor level to retain the 1¾ storey character as the original building. This has proved
contentious with the appointed officer though the Council’s own design guidance at section 2.2
(Production 3) suggests that this approach is correct.
During the preapplication stage and following submission, planning officials have expressed a preference
for a small low-level extension, described as subservient to the donor building, but this approach would
deny the applicants their ambition to improve the dwelling layout and modernise the internal
accommodation to meet their needs.
The opinions of the local planning officials are subjective rather than based on analysis or design guidance.
The applicants have analysed the original building, site and setting and careful note has been taken of the
Council’s design guidance on building line, roof form and line, maintaining the proportionality and verticality
of the parent building. There is a further acknowledgement to the gable frontage design.
Because the design guidance endorses the use of rooflights as more appropriate than dormers, the
architect has specified the use of rooflights to maximise the daylight entering the living spaces of the
proposed extension and to help allay any concerns about overlooking. Wall and roof materials and window
specification also accord with the design guidance.
The appointed officer has sought to depict the proposed development as visually jarring, overly dominant,
and inappropriate in scale, massing, and height for a rear extension. This is contended by the applicant
because such a judgement is not supported by the Council’s own design guidance.
A fair and reasonable assessment of building extension requires consideration of curtilage dimensions, an
understanding of relationship to street, neighbouring buildings, respect for setbacks, local building typology
and proper acknowledgement of other examples of building extension, adaptation, and garden
development within the Conservation Area.
The Local Review Body is asked to consider the footprint, height, and massing of the adjacent building
Highland Cottage as a comparison.
The applicant further requests that the Members of the Local Review Body undertake a site
inspection so that the positive aspects of the proposed development can be exhibited and
explained by reference to local building typology, neighbouring development, and comparable
examples of building extension in the Tobermory Conservation Area.
Page 11

Page 12

4
4. Case for the Applicant
The applicant submits that the design proposals are well-conceived by a professional architect who is
briefed and knowledgeable about the application property and local building typology.
Prior to submitting the planning application, the site has been visited, photographed, and measured and
careful account taken of site levels, building height and setbacks to mitigate risk of neighbour impact. The
palette of building materials and finishes was selected to complement the original building and seem
appropriate to the setting of the Conservation Area. The Council’s design guidance has been followed.
Accordingly, the proposed development would not actually harm the amenity of neighbouring property nor
detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area.
The applicant considers that the policy grounds offered for refusal are overstated. More weight should be
attached to the applicants’ supporting written statement and their desire to improve their home to make it
better suited to modern family living. Greater weight should be attached to the published design guidance
which although dated has not yet been superseded by new guidance. No mention is made of the design
guidance in the appointed officer’s report on handling.
The applicants consider that the application accords with National Planning Policy 16 criterion (g) and that
the design and heritage objections cited in the report on handling are exaggerated.
There are no objections recorded by the community council, any heritage body, nor from any third party.
Two near neighbours have expressed their support for the planning application.
In the absence of any controversy, nor any objection from the nearest neighbours, the refusal decision has
been reached solely on the professional judgement of the appointed officer under influence of the
comments of the Conservation Officer as an internal consultee. Their determination that the proposed
extension is too large, dominant, or unsuited to the locality is entirely subjective, not analytical nor
referenced to the design guidance, yet this reasoning was employed to justify the decision to refuse
planning permission on grounds of Development Plan Policy.
Conversely, Mr McQuarrie has strong local connections. His family built and has owned and occupied
Rosebank for generations. He would not seek to do anything harmful to the character or appeal of his
home, erode the charm of Tobermory nor inconvenience his immediate neighbours and he engaged a
professional and experienced architect to advise and guide him.
The planning application was supported by a Design and Access Statement and full set of drawings and
sections that describe the proposed development.
The submitted Design Statement included a north-south cross section which is useful to understand the
relationship between the application site and proposed development relative to guest accommodation
(Highland Cottage) on Breadalbane Street and the private residence opposite at 11 West Street (south).
An architect was engaged to provide professional design advice on how to extend and improve the
applicants’ residence to provide a coherent, practical, and liveable home that integrates successfully.
The design submitted to Planning Authority maintains uniformity across finished ground and first floor
levels to maximise accessibility. The 1¾ storey design is conceived to create a practical accommodation
and realise the advantage of elevation and slope to optimise views over Tobermory harbour. While it is a
large extension, there is no policy restriction on 1¾ storey extension to match the original. The footprint is
not excessive relative to curtilage and the extended building is sustainably sited set well back from the
street and respectful of existing built development.
Page 12

Page 13

5
The appointed officer has acknowledged that the proposal poses no privacy concerns, issues with setback,
overlooking or overshadowing or residual garden size. The fundamental concern stated is building height
and massing simply because the extension is not considered ‘subservient’ to the original.
There is also no clear design or policy basis for insisting that the proposed building extension be
‘subservient’ to the original. This is an opinion incorrectly presented as policy which also jars with the
Council’s design guidance and the professional opinion of the Chartered architect employed to advise the
applicant. The Local Review Body is therefore asked to decide upon this matter.
To comply with the Development Management Policies, new development should integrate visually,
respect local building typology, avoid harm to the street scene and special characteristics of the
Conservation Area and to the amenity of neighbouring property and comply with environmental and
sustainability criteria.
Assessed objectively, the proposed development:
 Maintains an acceptable plot ratio.
 Maintains a consistent eaves and ridge height and original 1¾ storey typology.
 Maintains roof pitch.
 Respects the established building line to extend the habitable accommodation coherently along
the existing axis and parallel with West Street. The extended house will address both Breadalbane
Street and West Street correctly and the extended building will benefit from active frontage.
 Replicates the established ground floor and upper floor levels.
 Removes unsightly and dilapidated outbuildings.
 Adopts the same palette of materials, wall treatment and roof coverings as the original building.
 Building typology is sympathetic to original and neighbouring surrounding development and the
character of the Conservation Area.
 Siting and building setback from West Street behind a garage outbuilding, stone wall and mature
hedge relates well to the public domain and to surrounding built development.
 Adapts and enhances cramped and dated accommodation to create a comfortable and modern
family home.
The applicant contends that the proposed development is sustainably sited and will not be overly prominent
nor visually discordant. The extension as detailed on the submitted drawings and sections relates well to
the original building and to neighbouring development, poses no risk of overshadowing or overlooking and
compares positively with other examples of building extension in the Tobermory Conservation Area
(Production 4).
Contrary to the assessment of the appointed officer, the applicant contends that the submissions broadly
comply with the Development Plan. Where there is dissonance, this is minor and would not justify a refusal
decision.
5. Assessment
Scottish Planning Law and Procedure requires that assessment and determination of applications for
planning permission should be made in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. The appointed
officer reasons that the proposed house extension does not accord with the adopted Development Plan.
The applicant disputes this conclusion. In this section, we offer an alternative assessment against
Development Plan Policy.
The Development Plan is the National Planning Policy Framework adopted in February 2023 and the Argyll
and Bute Local Development Plan, adopted February 2024. Where there is inconsistency between
National Planning Policy and Local Development Plan Policy, the policy in the more up to date plan shall
be afforded precedence.
Page 13

Page 14

6
The policies material to the assessment and determination of the application are listed in the appointed
officer’s report on handling dated May 2024
The policy conflicts identified by the appointed officer in the reason for refusal are listed as National Policy
4,7,14 and 16; also, LDP2 Policies 1,4,5,8,9,10 and 15 and our response is therefore limited to these
policies and addressed in order, underneath.
National Planning Policy Framework 4
Policy 4
a) Development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on
the natural environment, will not be supported.
b) Development proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on an existing or proposed European
site (Special Area of Conservation or Special Protection Areas) and are not directly connected with or
necessary to their conservation management are required to be subject to an “appropriate assessment” of
the implications for the conservation objectives.
c) Development proposals that will affect a National Park, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific
Interest, or a National Nature Reserve will only be supported where:
i. The objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the areas will not be compromised; or
ii. Any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly
outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of national importance. All Ramsar sites are
also European sites and/ or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are extended protection under the
relevant statutory regimes.
d) Development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape
area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on
the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects
on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of at
least local importance.
e) The precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and Scottish
Government guidance.
f) Development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on species protected by legislation will
only be supported where the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests. If there is reasonable evidence
to suggest that a protected species is present on a site or may be affected by a proposed development,
steps must be taken to establish its presence. The level of protection required by legislation must be
factored into the planning and design of development, and potential impacts must be fully considered prior
to the determination of any application.
g) Development proposals in areas identified as wild land in the Nature Scot Wild Land Areas map will
only be supported where the proposal: i. will support meeting renewable energy targets; or, ii. is for small
scale development directly linked to a rural business or croft or is required to support a fragile community
in a rural area. All such proposals must be accompanied by a wild land impact assessment which sets out
how design, siting, or other mitigation measures have been and will be used to minimise significant impacts
on the qualities of the wild land, as well as any management and monitoring arrangements where
appropriate. Buffer zones around wild land will not be applied, and effects of development outwith wild land
areas will not be a significant consideration.
Response - NPP4, Policy 4 is not material to the assessment of an application for house extension
in a rear garden.
Page 14

Page 15

7
Policy 7
a) 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. The assessment should identify the likely visual or physical impact of any
proposals for change, including cumulative effects and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts
of change. Proposals should also be informed by national policy and guidance on managing change in
the historic environment, and information held within Historic Environment Records.
This planning application is householder development and does not involve a significant impact
on historic assets or place. National Planning Policy does not require the submission of a design
statements for householder development.
Regulation thirteen also does not require submission of a design and access statement, but the
applicants did so at the request of the Design and Conservation Officer (February 2024).
b) Development proposals for the demolition of listed buildings will not be supported unless it has been
demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances and that all reasonable efforts have been made to
retain, reuse and/or adapt the listed building. Considerations include whether the:
i. building is no longer of special interest.
ii. building is incapable of physical repair and re-use as verified through a detailed structural condition
survey report.
iii. repair of the building is not economically viable and there has been adequate marketing for existing
and/or new uses at a price reflecting its location and condition for a reasonable period to attract interest
from potential restoring purchasers; or
iv. demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider
community.
The proposal does not involve the demolition of a Listed building.
b) 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. Development
proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special
architectural or historic interest.
The proposal does not involve the demolition of a Listed building.
d) Development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character
and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Relevant
considerations include the:
i. architectural and historic character of the area.
ii. existing density, built form and layout; and
iii. context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials.
Page 15

Page 16

8
e) Development proposals in conservation areas will ensure that existing natural and built features which
contribute to the character of the conservation area and its setting, including structures, boundary walls,
railings, trees, and hedges, are retained.
The proposed extension does not detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area.
Unlike the builder’s yard sited on West Street, the fire station building sited opposite on
Breadalbane Street, or the brutal architecture of the telephone exchange also sited close by, the
siting, form and design of the proposed extension is respectful of the special qualities of the area,
local building typology and density. The boundary walls and hedge are unaffected by the proposed
development.
f) Demolition of buildings in a conservation area which make a positive contribution to its character will
only be supported where it has been demonstrated that: i. reasonable efforts have been made to retain,
repair, and reuse the building; ii. the building is of little townscape value; iii. the structural condition of the
building prevents its retention at a reasonable cost; or iv. the form or location of the building makes its
reuse extremely difficult.
g) Where demolition within a conservation area is to be followed by redevelopment, consent to demolish
will only be supported when an acceptable design, layout and materials are being used for the replacement
development.
Demolition and replacement development of the existing rear outbuildings is proposed. The
existing buildings offer little value to the streetscape and their condition is poor.
Accordingly, the demolition is supported by criterion f). The applicant considers the replacement
extension complementary to the main dwelling and the materials to be used appropriate to the
locality. There is no conflict with criterion g).
h) Development proposals affecting scheduled monuments will only be supported where:
i. direct impacts on the scheduled monument are avoided.
ii. significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument are avoided.
or
iii. exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the impact on a scheduled monument
and its setting and impacts on the monument or its setting have been minimised.
Not relevant to this application.
i)Development proposals affecting nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes will be
supported where they protect, preserve, or enhance their cultural significance, character, and integrity and
where proposals will not significantly impact on important views to, from and within the site, or its setting.
Not relevant to this application.
j) Development proposals affecting nationally important Historic Battlefields will only be supported where
they protect and, where appropriate, enhance their cultural significance, key landscape characteristics,
physical remains, and special qualities.
Not relevant to this application.
k) Development proposals at the coast edge or that extend offshore will only be supported where proposals
do not significantly hinder the preservation objectives of Historic Marine Protected Areas.
Page 16

Page 17

9
Not relevant to this application.
l) Development proposals affecting a World Heritage Site, or its setting will only be supported where their
Outstanding Universal Value is protected and preserved.
Not relevant to this application.
m) Development proposals which sensitively repair, enhance and bring historic buildings, as identified as
being at risk locally or on the national Buildings at Risk Register, back into beneficial use will be supported.
Not relevant to this application.
n) Enabling development for historic environment assets or places that would otherwise be unacceptable
in planning terms, will only be supported when it has been demonstrated that the enabling development
proposed is:
i. essential to secure the future of an historic environment asset or place which is at risk of serious
deterioration or loss; and
ii. the minimum necessary to secure the restoration, adaptation and long-term future of the historic
environment asset or place. The beneficial outcomes for the historic environment asset or place should be
secured early in the phasing of the development and will be ensured through the use of conditions and/or
legal agreements.
Not relevant to this application.
o) Non-designated historic environment assets, places and their setting should be protected and
preserved in situ wherever feasible. Where there is potential for non-designated buried archaeological
remains to exist below a site, developers will provide an evaluation of the archaeological resource at an
early stage so that planning authorities can assess impacts. Historic buildings may also have
archaeological significance which is not understood and may require assessment.
Where impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimised. Where it has been demonstrated that
avoidance or retention is not possible, excavation, recording, analysis, archiving, publication, and activities
to provide public benefit may be required through the use of conditions or legal/planning obligations.
When new archaeological discoveries are made during the course of development works, they must be
reported to the planning authority to enable agreement on appropriate inspection, recording and mitigation
measures.
Not relevant to this application.
The submitted design accords with the relevant criteria (d) and (e) under Policy 7.
Policy 16
a) Development proposals for new homes on land allocated for housing in LDPs will be supported.
Not relevant to this application.
b) Development proposals that include 50 or more homes, and smaller developments if required by local
policy or guidance, should be accompanied by a Statement of Community Benefit. The statement will
explain the contribution of the proposed development to:
i. meeting local housing requirements, including affordable homes.
Page 17

Page 18

10
ii. providing or enhancing local infrastructure, facilities, and services; and
iii. improving the residential amenity of the surrounding area.
c) Development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to
changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, will be supported. This
could include:
i. self-provided homes.
ii. accessible, adaptable and wheelchair accessible homes.
iii. build to rent.
iv. affordable homes.
v. a range of size of homes such as those for larger families; vi. homes for older people, including
supported accommodation, care homes and sheltered housing; vii. homes for people undertaking
further and higher education; and viii. homes for other specialist groups such as service
personnel.
d) Development proposals for public or private, permanent or temporary, Gypsy/Travellers sites and family
yards and Travelling Showpeople yards, including on land not specifically allocated for this use in the LDP,
should be supported where a need is identified and the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial
strategy and other relevant policies, including human rights and equality.
e) Development proposals for new homes will be supported where they make provision for affordable homes
to meet an identified need. Proposals for market homes will only be supported where the contribution to the
provision of affordable homes on a site will be at least 25% of the total number of homes, unless the LDP
sets out locations or circumstances where:
i. a higher contribution is justified by evidence of need, or
ii. a lower contribution is justified, for example, by evidence of impact on viability, where proposals
are small in scale, or to incentivise particular types of homes that are needed to diversify the
supply, such as self-build or wheelchair accessible homes. The contribution is to be provided in
accordance with local policy or guidance.
f) Development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be
supported in limited circumstances where:
i. the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and
ii. the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies
including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods.
iii. and either: delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land
pipeline. This will be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit
evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that general trend being
sustained; or the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or the proposal is for smaller
scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or the proposal is for the delivery of
less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan.
g) Householder development proposals will be supported where they:
i. do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the
surrounding area in terms of size, design, and materials; and
ii. do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact,
overshadowing or overlooking.
Page 18

Page 19

11
h) Householder development proposals that provide adaptations in response to risks from a changing
climate, or relating to people with health conditions that lead to particular accommodation needs will be
supported.
Only criteria g) appears material to consideration of the planning application.
National Policy supports householder development where this will not be detrimental to
the original dwelling or locality. The proposed development does not present any concerns
for overshadowing or loss of privacy.
The determination of this application therefore turns on the interpretation of criteria g) of
Policy 16. The applicant believes that the extension is beneficial to Rosebank. The design
is compatible with existing built development and respectful of the wider area which is
afforded greater consideration due to its Conservation Area status. Setback, footprint,
height, massing, and aesthetic are appropriate in this case.
There is no conflict with National Policy 16.
Argyll and Bute LDP2
Policy 01 – Settlement Areas
Within the Settlement Areas as defined on the proposals maps development will normally be acceptable
where:
It is located within an area of land allocated for the proposed use in this Local Development Plan 2 and it
complies with any development brief which has been approved by the Council; or
It is on a site which is the redevelopment of a brownfield site; or
Is on a non-brownfield site, and the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the overall land supply
for the proposed use, and
It is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively, providing access, service areas,
infrastructure for existing, proposed, or potential future development, and
It is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and
Respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing,
design, external finishes, and access arrangements; and
It complies with all relevant Local Development Plan 2 policies.
The application site is within the settlement boundary and the proposed development involves extension
and improvement of a dwelling. Siting, orientation and fenestration and arrangements for providing access
and servicing satisfy the standard of the condition.
There is no incompatibility with surrounding uses and the proposed development is of appropriate scale
and fit and further respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape.
Page 19

Page 20

12
Policy 04 – Sustainable Development
In preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable
development principles, which the planning authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant
planning permission:
a) Maximise the opportunity for local community benefit, including the creation of district (renewable)
heat networks, where viable.
b) Make efficient use of vacant and/or derelict land including appropriate buildings.
c) Support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services.
d) Maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design including minimising waste, reducing
our carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency, solar panels, ground, water and air source heat
pumps and other forms of renewable energy generation.
e) Avoid the use of locally important good quality agricultural land.
f) Utilise public transport corridors and active travel networks.
g) Avoid the loss of important recreational and amenity open space.
h) Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts
on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets.
i) Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements.
j) Avoid places with significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion, or ground instability;
and
k) Avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air, and water environment.
Building height, wall and roof finish and window materials specified match the original building.
The proposed development must employ low carbon technologies to comply with current building
standards. The proposed home extension does not breach any of the eleven criteria listed above.
There is no obvious dissonance with Policy 04.
Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking
To achieve good quality places proposals should endeavour to comply with all of the following placemaking
criteria:
 The proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses.
The proposal should, where practicable, be resource efficient by utilising existing
infrastructure and facilities.
 The design should respect site topography and any surrounding important landmarks or
views.
 The design should create and improve connectivity within, and where practical, beyond
the site.
 Green and blue infrastructure should be an integral part of the design process from the
outset.
 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.
 Where the site contains existing buildings, structures and/or natural features that
contribute to the character and identity of the wider area, these should be retained and
sensitively integrated into the design unless it has been clearly demonstrated to the
planning authority that it is not practicable.
 The siting and design should respond to the natural environment in a sustainable manner.
 The proposal should consider the design of active frontages, and create welcoming,
inclusive places with a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings which are easy
to move around, prioritising the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above motor vehicles.
Page 20

Page 21

13
 The access to and orientation of buildings should reinforce the street or open space to
create safe and pleasant places.
 The design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should
consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measure.
The building extension is compatible with the surrounding (residential) use of land. The building
extension will be constructed using insulated timber frame to achieve the environmental
requirements of the Scottish Building Standards. It shall employ low carbon technologies and the
heating system for the dwelling will be upgraded. The building extension does not involve
excessive excavation or build up. Floor level, eaves and ridge level will be maintained.
While it is a substantial extension, it will not obstruct views or interfere with local landmarks.
Building height and appearance, scale and the materials specified complement the original
dwelling and respect neighbouring built development.
The proposal does involve demolition of outbuildings, so there is tension with a policy which
attempts to treat all built development within the conservation Area as benefitting from a Listing,
this is not the practical effect of Conservation Area status. The existing extensions are unoriginal,
dated and now in a poor state of repair and contribute little to historic character.
Reinstatement and refurbishment would not be desirable nor a practical response to the brief. The
extension design, respectful of building line and the aspect towards West Street will offer active
frontage. The building return on the corner of Breadalbane Street and West Street would also
reinforce the historic grid street pattern.
The conflict with Policy 05 involving demolition of poor outbuildings is accordingly minor.
Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting
Each of the following will apply when assessing any proposal for development, including those for
outbuildings and extensions:
 The development should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise
detrimental effects on the environment. Particularly careful attention should be given to
hilltop, skyline or ridge locations, where development will only be acceptable if such a
location cannot be avoided and any significant adverse landscape and visual effects are
clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of community wide
importance arising from the development proposal and have been sufficiently mitigated
through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact
assessment.
 Development on a sloping site should be designed sensitively taking account of the
topography to prevent significant excavation or under-building.
 The siting of a development should consider the character of the area in terms of its
settlement pattern, layout, and density.
 All new residential developments are required to consider provision for Growing Spaces –
See Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure.
 Any development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself
or other properties.
 The development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar
gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements and minimise adverse
environmental effects – this need must be balanced with the restrictions and opportunities
the topography places on the siting.
 The development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and
services.
 Any ancillary development such as parking and service areas, should be sensitively
designed and sited.
A co-ordinated approach is required to development in that it must not compromise the
effective development of adjacent land, or the comprehensive development and
Page 21

Page 22

14
regeneration of a wider area as provided for in a masterplan, strategy or development brief
approved by the council.
The proposed development is a house extension and involves no significant landscape impact.
The built form is designed to match the style, siting, and height of the original. There is no
significant underbuilding or excavation involved. The chartered architect has taken proper account
the character of the locality, the grid street pattern and existing built form. The design outcome is
a product of these considerations.
The siting and height of the building does not create any overshadowing or overlooking problems.
The siting and orientation of the extension minimises glazing along the northern elevation and
maximises opportunities for solar gain and advantage of aspect southwards and eastwards.
The development can be serviced and shall have no adverse impact on existing services. As there
is no increase in bedroom accommodation, the proposed development has no consequences for
parking.
Again, there is no conflict with Policy 08.
Policy 09 – Sustainable Design
Development proposals should demonstrate consideration of and where possible utilisation of:
 Renewable sources of energy; and
 Sustainable design and construction methods in terms of embodied energy; conversion
and re-use; and adaptability.
There is no gas supply in Tobermory, and the heating system is currently electric. The proposed
development shall employ low carbon technologies to meet current building standards.
Construction and design will also meet or exceed current building standards.
There is no conflict with Policy 09
Policy 10 – Design: All Development
The design of any development must:
 Demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed
development site and wider context including consideration of character and, where
applicable, urban grain; and
 Acknowledge the scale, mass, and spirit of nearby buildings but steer clear of mimicry
and pastiche; and
 Incorporate existing and enhancing features where applicable; and
 Avoid falsification of period details; and
 Use appropriate proportions for building elements and details including, where
applicable, massing and fenestration; and
 Use materials that are harmonious with the context but embody honesty and legibility of
contemporary design; and
 Consider the embodied energy and durability of proposed materials; and
 Incorporate the use of flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods.
Page 22

Page 23

15 
The architect has demonstrated an understanding of the site, local building typology and the
character of the Conservation Area. 
The proposed extension is entirely consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in Tobermory
where there has been a significant amount of building extension and annex construction in rear
gardens to meet the needs of tourism. While precedent is not a material consideration,
assessment and determination of planning applications should be consistent and rational. 
The proposed extension is respectful of the original building and local building typology, so there
is no conflict with Policy 10. 
Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built
Environment 
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. 
The proposed extension does not detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area.
Unlike the builder’s yard sited on West Street, the fire station building sited opposite on
Breadalbane Street, or the brutal telephone exchange also sited close by, the siting form and
design of the extension is respectful of the special qualities of the area. 
The applicant does not consider his extension harmful individually or cumulatively, so there is no
conflict with Policy 15. 
Policy 17 – Conservation Areas 
A. Development: 
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. New development within these
areas and on sites affecting their settings must respect the architectural, historic and other special qualities
that give rise to their actual or proposed designation and conform to the following national policies and
guidance including, but not limited to, those detailed as ‘Related Documents’ under section 4.39 above
and the area’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (if in place). 
The developer is expected to satisfactorily demonstrate to the planning authority that the effect of a
proposed development on a conservation area and its wider setting has been assessed and that measures
will be taken to preserve or enhance the special interest of the area. The use of appropriate design
statements, character appraisals and conservation plans are expected to facilitate this assessment. 
Applications for planning permission in principle will not normally be considered appropriate for proposed
development in conservation areas. 
The contribution which trees make towards the character or appearance of a conservation area will be
taken into account when considering development proposals. 
Page 23

Page 24

16
B. Demolition:
Proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a building within or affecting the character or appearance
of a conservation area or its setting will be considered as if the structure was listed – as set out in Policy
16 – Listed Buildings.
The appointed officer reasons that the proposed development is contrary to Policy 17 because it
is a substantial 1¾ storey extension, over dominating the original dwelling.
The applicant response is that the original dwelling footprint is small for its curtilage and that a
large extension under review is reasonable initiative to adapt and modernise a dated home to suit
the future needs of their family.
The architect engaged to design the extension has tried to respect the original building and
surrounding development. The extended building will address West Street and reinforce this edge
as the principal frontage. The design statements submitted at the insistence of the Authority,
contrary to regulation thirteen, included a section drawing that detailed the relationship of
Rosebank and site level to the immediate neighbouring development. The submitted design
accords with the Council’s published sustainable design guidance.
Although the proposal involves limited downtakings of the outbuilding extension to the rear,
potentially contrary to Policy the existing outbuildings contribute little positive to the Conservation
Area or to the appearance of West Street. The proposed extension represents an improvement
upon what is there currently.
Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy 17.
Page 24

Page 25

17
6. Summary and Conclusion
The appointed officer reasons that the proposed extension is too large, overly dominant, and out of kilter
with its surroundings, therefore contrary to the Policies of the Development Plan.
The submitted drawings, sections and statements indicate otherwise. The proposed extension will improve
Rosebank and make the residence fit for the future. The enhancements are designed to make the
arrangement of internal accommodation better suited to long term residence and the comfort of the
occupying family.
The additional floorspace would not be necessary to rent out the home to holidaymakers or short-term
stays, but this is not the ambition of the applicant who wants to stay on and eventually hand the home
down to family members. The proposal before the Authority represents a significant financial investment
in the improvement of a home that has been under the custodianship of the same family for over a Century.
The care and attention devoted to conceiving a house extension intended to complement the existing
building and improve the setting and relationship to West Street has been unfairly described as
incongruous and contrary to policy. In this statement, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal
accords with the Council’s published guidance on sustainable design. This statement offers an alternative
professional perspective on Development Plan Policy and the practical effect of this Policy, which should
not be used to frustrate reasonable efforts of a property owner to invest in and improve his home.
A site inspection would be helpful to permit reference to other examples of building extension locally and
to inform a better understanding of the application site, relative to its neighbours, the public domain and
wider setting. The applicant requests that the Local Review Body inspect the site and locality prior to
reaching a decision on this matter.
To conclude, the proposed extension involves no harm to Rosebank, neighbouring properties, the
immediate street scene, or the character of the wider Conservation Area. There being no other material
planning considerations, planning permission should be granted.
7. Reasons for Approval
If the Local Review Body is minded to grant planning permission, the grounds for the decision should be
stated.
It is suggested that the following wording should be adopted:
It is the determination of this Authority that the proposal accords with LDP2 Policy 16. The house
extension detailed on the applicants’ drawings and written submissions satisfies the policy tests
of sustainable siting and design and accords with the Planning Design Guidance published by the
Authority. There being no other material considerations, which outweigh the presumption in favour
of sustainable development, planning permission should be granted.
Page 25

Page 26

18 
8. Proposed Conditions
1/ The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form
dated 15 January 2024 supporting documents and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless
the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details
under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 
Plan Title Plan Reference Version  Date Received
Location Plan 1:1250  ----------- 12 January 2024
Site Plan 1:200  ----------- 22 December 2023
Plans as Existing 1:50 KMcQ/01 ----------- 22 December 2023
Elevations as Existing
1:50
KMcQ/02 A 22 December 2023
Plans as Proposed KMcQ/03 A 22 December 2023
Elevations and
Sections as Proposed
1:50 and window
schedule
KMcQ/04 B 22 December 2023
Crittal Intervision
Screens- General
Arrangement 
IVC 07/22 Sheet 1 of 1 ----------- 22 December 2023
Veka Halo Rustique
Casement window
detail 
------------ 22 December 2023 
Reason: For clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the
approved details. 
2/ No development shall commence until details of the roof windows, have been submitted to the Planning
Authority and approved in writing.
Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity and to maintain a high quality of design within the
Tobermory Conservation Area. 
Page 26

Page 27

Page 27

Page 28

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 29

Getmapping plc 2017.
Map Centre : 150325,755220
Kilnview, Draffen Mount, Stewarton, East Ayrshire,
KA3 5LG
Client: McQuarrie
Project: Rosebank
Title: Footprint
Scale: 1:500 @A4 Date: 30 Jun 2024
Drawn By: MH Drawing No: P2
Page 29

Page 30

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 31

Working with Argyll and Bute’s built heritage
Argyll and Bute Council;  Sustainable Design Guidance 3      September 2006
Page 31

Page 32

PAGE
.EWDEVELOPMENTIN!RGYLLAND"UTEWILLPLAYANIMPORTANTPARTINITSFUTURE
SUCCESSASASUSTAINABLE

Page 33

ECONOMICALLYVIABLEANDHIGHQUALITYPLACETOLIVE
ANDWORK4HEAIMOFTHISDESIGNGUIDANCEISTOENSURETHATANYPROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTISAPPROPRIATEFORITSCONTEXTANDISSUSTAINABLEINTOTHEFUTURE
THATITDOESNOTSIMPLYMEETTHEAPPLICANTSIMMEDIATENEEDS
0LANNING !DVICE .OTE 0!.	  PUBLISHED BY THE 3COTTISH %XECUTIVE IN
!UGUSTSETSOUTTHEROLETHAT$ESIGN3TATEMENTSCANPLAYINENSURING
APPROPRIATE

Page 34

 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS )T OUTLINES THEIR VALUE AS A TOOL
FORAPPLICANTSANDPLANNINGOFlCERSTOEXAMINEDESIGNDECISIONSMADEIN
DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS)TALSOSTRESSESTHEIRIMPORTANCEASABASISFOR
CONSTRUCTIVEDISCUSSIONBETWEENAPPLICANTS

Page 35

DESIGNERSANDPLANNINGOFlCERS
)TRECOMMENDSTHAT,OCAL!UTHORITIESSHOULDPROVIDEDESIGNGUIDANCEFOR
SPECIlCTOPICSANDAREAS

Page 36

ASWELLASENCOURAGINGTHEWIDERPROVISIONOFDESIGN
STATEMENTSINTHEDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATIONPROCESS!LLOFTHISISTOENSURE
THATINTHEFUTURETHECOMMUNITYBENElTSFROMBETTER

Page 37

MORESUSTAINABLE
BUILDINGSANDSUCCESSFULPUBLICPLACES
&OLLOWINGTHE0!.RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 38

THISGUIDANCEINTENDSTOPROVIDE
INSIGHTINTOTHESPECIlCISSUESAPPLICANTSANDDESIGNERSSHOULDCONSIDERIN
PREPARINGDEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS)TOUTLINESSOMEPOTENTIALLYAPPROPRIATE
SOLUTIONS AND ILLUSTRATES GOOD PRACTICE ELSEWHERE  7HILST THE GUIDANCE
DOESILLUSTRATEWHYCERTAINPROPOSALSAREINAPPROPRIATE

Page 39

ITISNOTINTENDED
TORESTRICTAPPLICANTSOPTIONSFORDEVELOPINGINNOVATIVEANDSPECIlCDESIGN
SOLUTIONSFORSITESIN!RGYLLAND"UTE4HISGUIDANCEAIMSTOENCOURAGE
INDIVIDUAL

Page 40

HIGHQUALITYDESIGNSOLUTIONSFORTHEVERYSPECIALSITESANDPLACES
WITHINTHE0LANNING!UTHORITYSAREA
4HIS GUIDANCE AIMS TO IMPROVE THE DIALOGUES BETWEEN APPLICANTS AND
PLANNING OFlCERS TO REACH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE KEY ISSUES A
DEVELOPMENTMUSTADDRESS)TISHOPEDTHATITWILLPROVIDEAPPLICANTSWITHA
CONTEXTWITHINWHICHTODEVELOPTHEIRPROPOSALS

Page 41

ANDOUTLINETHOSEELEMENTS
THEY SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THEIR APPROACH IN APPLICATIONS AND SUPPORTING
DESIGNSTATEMENTS
Introduction
4HEDESIGNGUIDANCEISTHESTARTOFANONGOINGREFERENCEDOCUMENTTHATWILL
BEADDEDTOASAPPROPRIATECASESTUDIESBECOMEAVAILABLE)TISINTENDEDTHAT
APPLICANTSDEMONSTRATINGBESTPRACTICEINDESIGNSTATEMENTSANDCOMPLETED
DEVELOPMENTSWILLCONTRIBUTETOTHEM
4HIS lRST STAGE OF THE $ESIGN 'UIDANCE COVERS SEVERAL TOPICS WHICH ARE
CONSIDEREDIMPORTANTINCONTRIBUTINGTOTHEQUALITYOFTHEENVIRONMENTIN
!RGYLLAND"UTE%ACHTOPICISPUBLISHEDASSTANDALONEGUIDANCEINORDERTO
BESTMEETTHENEEDSOFAPPLICANTSANDTHEAUTHORITYINCONSIDERINGSPECIlC
DEVELOPMENTS
4OPIC 3MALLSCALE(OUSING$EVELOPMENTINDIVIDUALNEWHOUSESAND
DEVELOPMENTSUPTOHOMESINTHECOUNTRYSIDE
4OPIC ,ARGER(OUSING$EVELOPMENTSTHATEXTENDEXISTINGSETTLEMENTS
ORASSTANDALONEDEVELOPMENTS
4OPIC 7ORKING WITH !RGYLL AND "UTES BUILT HERITAGE  URBAN INlLL
DEVELOPMENTSEXTENDINGANDREUSINGEXISTINGBUILDINGS
4OPIC )LLUSTRATING/PPORTUNITIESCASESTUDIESSOURCEDFROMTHROUGHOUT
3COTLAND

Page 42

ASWELLASTHE!RGYLLAND"UTEAREA
7HILSTTHISGUIDANCEAIMSTOILLUSTRATEWHYCERTAINDESIGNSWILLNOTWORK
WELLINPARTICULARSITUATIONS

Page 43

ITISNOTINTENDEDTORESTRICTAPPLICANTS
OPTIONSFORDEVELOPINGINNOVATIVEANDINDIVIDUALDESIGNSOLUTIONSFOR
SITES IN !RGYLL AND "UTE )NSTEAD

Page 44

 THIS GUIDANCE AIMS TO ENCOURAGE
INDIVIDUAL

Page 45

HIGHQUALITYDESIGNSOLUTIONSFORTHEVERYSPECIALSITESAND
PLACESWITHINTHE0LANNING!UTHORITYSAREA
Page 32

Page 46

PAGE
Sustainable Development 
What is sustainable development?
vDEVELOPMENTTHATMEETSTHENEEDSOFTHEPRESENT

Page 47

WITHOUTCOMPROMISINGTHE
ABILITYOFFUTUREGENERATIONSTOMEETTHEIROWNNEEDSv
;-EETINGTHE.EEDS3COTTISH%XECUTIVE%NVIRONMENT'ROUP=
"OTHTHENEW,OCAL0LANANDTHIS$ESIGN'UIDANCEAREINTENDEDTOENCOURAGE
HIGHQUALITYSUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENTTHATREmECTSTHETECHNOLOGYAND
AESTHETICSOFTHESTCENTURY
-ORETHANHALFTHERESOURCESCONSUMEDGLOBALLYAREUSEDINCONSTRUCTION

Page 48

AND
PERCENTOFENERGYGENERATEDACROSSTHEWORLDISUSEDTOHEAT

Page 49

LIGHTAND
VENTILATEBUILDINGS

Page 50

WITHAFURTHERPERCENTARISINGFROMCONSTRUCTINGTHEM!
SUSTAINABLEAPPROACHTODEVELOPMENTAIMSTOMINIMISEANYADVERSEIMPACTON
THEENVIRONMENTBYREDUCINGTHERESOURCESTHATBUILDINGSUSE

Page 51

BOTHINTERMSOF
ENERGYANDMATERIALS4HE3COTTISH%XECUTIVES#LIMATE#HANGE0ROGRAMMESEEKS
TOHIGHLIGHTTHEIMPORTANTCONTRIBUTIONTHATENERGYEFlCIENCYCANMAKETOGOOD
DESIGNTHROUGHTHECORRECTSITINGANDORIENTATIONOFBUILDINGS

Page 52

ANDTHERIGHTCHOICE
OFMATERIALS
4HEOVERALLAIMOFTHE$ESIGN'UIDANCEISTHEREFORETOINCLUDEADVICEABOUTSUSTAINABLE
CHOICESFORMATERIALSANDRENEWABLETECHNOLOGIES
!RGYLLAND"UTEHASSUCHADIVERSERANGEOFLANDSCAPEANDSETTLEMENTSTHATSUSTAINABLE
SOLUTIONSSUITABLEFORONELOCATIONMAYNOTBEAPPROPRIATEFORANOTHER4HEAIMOF
THIS'UIDANCE

Page 53

THEREFORE

Page 54

ISTOEXPLAINTHEBROADPRINCIPLESWHICHUNDERLIESUSTAINABLE
DESIGN

Page 55

 RATHER THAN TO RECOMMEND SPECIlC PRODUCTS

Page 56

 SUPPLIERS

Page 57

 MANUFACTURERS OR
SYSTEMS4HIS'UIDANCETHEREFOREHIGHLIGHTS
s-AKINGTHEBESTUSEOFAVAILABLERESOURCESBYREDUCINGENERGYLOSS

Page 58

USINGLESS
ENERGYINCONSTRUCTIONANDUSINGRENEWABLEENERGYSOURCES
s-INIMISINGENVIRONMENTALDAMAGEBYMINIMISINGPOLLUTIONANDDESIGNINGHEALTHY
SPACESANDPLACES
s-INIMISINGTHEEFFECTOFCLIMATECHANGEBYCONSIDERINGTHEIMPACTOFHIGHER
RAINFALL

Page 59

STRONGERWINDSANDTHEINCREASEDRISKOFmOODING
-OREINFORMATIONABOUTSUSTAINABILITYANDSUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENTISAVAILABLEFROMTHE
3COTTISH%XECUTIVE7EB3ITEWWWSCOTLANDGOVUK
Page 33

Page 60

PAGE
Consultation
!SPARTOFTHEONGOINGLOCALPLANREVIEWPROCESS

Page 61

!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCILHAVEWORKEDWITH!NDERSON"ELL#HRISTIETOPROVIDEAPRACTICAL$ESIGN'UIDE
INTENDEDASACATALYSTFORGOODSUSTAINABLEDESIGN
!NINITIAL#ONSULTATION$OCUMENTWASPOSTEDONTHE!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCIL7EBSITEANDASERIESOF7ORKSHOPSWEREHELDWHICHWEREATTENDEDBY
STAKEHOLDERS

Page 62

BUILDINGPROFESSIONALSANDMEMBERSOFTHEPUBLICINORDERTOMAXIMISEOPPORTUNITIESFORCONSULTATION
#ONTRIBUTIONSANDSUGGESTIONSOFGOODANDBADDESIGNFROMATTENDEESHAVEBEENINCORPORATEDINTOTHISDOCUMENTLOCATIONSANDBUILDINGSSUGGESTEDAT
THEWORKSHOPSAREUSEDASEXAMPLESAND#ASE3TUDIESINTHE$ESIGN'UIDANCE
Key Aims
!SERIESOF#OMMUNITY#ONSULTATION%XERCISESWERECARRIEDOUTDURINGTHEINITIALSTAGESOFFORMULATINGTHISDESIGNGUIDANCE-EMBERSOFTHEPUBLICAND
KEYSTAKEHOLDERSIDENTIlEDCRITICALAIMSWHENWORKINGWITH

Page 63

ANDINPROXIMITY

Page 64

TOEXISTINGBUILDINGSWITHHISTORICANDORARCHITECTURALVALUE4HEIRVIEWS
ARENOTEDBELOW
s4HERELATIONSHIPOFHISTORICBUILDINGSANDADIVERSELANDSCAPESETTING
4HEREWASAGENERALCONSENSUSTHAT!RGYLLAND"UTESLANDSCAPEHERITAGEISHIGHLYIMPORTANTnOFTENMORESOTHANINDIVIDUALHISTORICBUILDINGSWITHINIT
)TWASVIEWEDTHATTHERESHOULDNOTBEA@$ESIGN#ODEAPPROACHTO$ESIGN'UIDANCE

Page 65

RATHERITSHOULDCONTAINADVICEONHOWTOANALYSEEACHINDIVIDUAL
SITEORBUILDINGINRELATIONTOITSHISTORICCONTEXT
s7ORKINGWITH

Page 66

ANDINPROXIMITYTO

Page 67

HISTORICBUILDINGS
-ANYPEOPLEFELTTHATTHEREAREPRAGMATICANDECONOMICPRESSURESWHICHREQUIRETHEALTERATIONOFLISTEDBUILDINGS4HESENEEDTOBECONSIDERED)TWAS
FELTTHATSOMEOLDBUILDINGSARETREATEDTOOPRECIOUSLYANDTHATHISTORICBUILDINGSCANBEDIFlCULTTOADAPTANDMAINTAINBECAUSEOFTHECOST

Page 68

ANDTHE
INmEXIBILITYANDRESTRICTIONSOFEXISTINGGUIDELINES
)TWASVIEWEDTHATTHERENEEDSTOBEAMOREmEXIBLEAPPROACHWHICHALLOWSHISTORICBUILDINGSTOBEKEPThALIVEvINORDERTOMAINTAINANAREASIDENTITY
ANDDIVERSITY
)TWASALSORECOGNISEDTHATASKILLEDLOCALWORKFORCEWASNEEDED

Page 69

TOPROVIDETHECRAFTSMENTOMAINTAINTHEFABRICOFHISTORICBUILDINGS!TPRESENTSUCH
SKILLSARELIMITEDANDCOSTLYONANATIONALBASIS
s,OCALDISTINCTIVENESS

Page 70

STREETSCAPEANDCONTEXTAREIMPORTANT
4HEREISARICHDIVERSITYOFBUILDINGSANDSETTLEMENTSWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTEnAREASCANBEVERYDIFFERENTTOONEANOTHER!LTHOUGHTHEREISNOSTRONG
OVERALLREGIONALIDENTITY

Page 71

MANYHISTORICTOWNSANDVILLAGESHAVEADISTINCTIVECHARACTERRESULTINGFROMACOHERENTCONSTRUCTIONANDDESIGNAPPROACHWITHIN
ANAREA)NSOMEPLANNEDSETTLEMENTS

Page 72

0ORT#HARLOTTEFOREXAMPLE

Page 73

INDIVIDUALBUILDINGSALLHAVEVERYSIMILARPROPORTIONSANDAREBUILTFROMTHESAME
MATERIALSTHEYHAVETHESAMERELATIONSHIPTOTHESTREETANDSIMILARFRONTANDBACKGARDENS$WELLINGSALSOHAVETHESAMEPROPORTIONSFORDOORS

Page 74

WINDOWS

Page 75


ROOFSANDWALLS)NALLAREASOFSUCHDISTINCTCHARACTER

Page 76

NEWDEVELOPMENTNEEDSTORESPECTANDTAKECOGNISCANCEOFTHISCONTEXT
Page 34

Page 77

PAGE
Designing in a Historic Context
4HEAIMOFTHIS$ESIGN'UIDANCEISTOENSURETHAT!RGYLLAND"UTESOWNDISTINCTIVEIDENTITYISMAINTAINEDANDTHATFUTUREDEVELOPMENTISINSYMPATHYWITH

Page 78


ANDENHANCES

Page 79

ITSSURROUNDINGS)TEMPHASISESTHENEEDFORTHECOMMUNITYWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTETOTAKERESPONSIBILITYFORSTEWARDSHIPOFITSCONSIDERABLE
BUILTHERITAGESOITREMAINSFORFUTUREGENERATIONSTOENJOY
.EWINlLLDEVELOPMENTANDTHEALTERATIONANDEXTENSIONOFEXISTINGPROPERTIESREPRESENTANOPPORTUNITYTOMAINTAINTHECHARACTERANDENHANCETHEQUALITY
OFNOTJUSTINDIVIDUALBUILDINGSBUTTHEBUILTENVIRONMENTOF!RGYLLAND"UTEASAWHOLE/FTENUNSYMPATHETICDESIGNCANHAVEADISPROPORTIONATEEFFECTON
ITSSURROUNDINGS%VENSMALLALTERATIONSANDEXTENSIONSCANHAVEASIGNIlCANTIMPACTONTHEIRSETTINGANDCANLOOKOUTOFPLACE
4HIS'UIDANCEADDRESSESTHOSEISSUESWHICHNEEDTOBECONSIDEREDWHENDESIGNINGPROPOSALSFOR
sDEVELOPMENTANDBUILDINGSWITHINDISTINCTURBANAREAS

Page 80

VILLAGESANDTOWNSURBANINlLL
sTHEREUSE

Page 81

ALTERATIONOREXTENSIONOFEXISTINGBUILDINGS
sALTERING,ISTED"UILDINGSAND$EVELOPMENTWITHIN#ONSERVATION!REAS
LTISSTRUCTUREDINTOTHREEPARTS7ORKINGWITHIN#ONSERVATION!REASANDWITH,ISTED"UILDINGS7ORKINGWITH%XISTING"UILDINGSAND$ESIGNING5RBAN
)NlLL
4HEREISHOWEVERAGREATDEALOFCROSSOVERBETWEENTHEGUIDANCE4HEBESTPRACTICEFORWORKINGWITHEXISTINGBUILDINGSISTHEBASELINEFORWORKINGWITH
,ISTED"UILDINGSAND

Page 82

SIMILARLY

Page 83

GUIDANCEFORDESIGNING5RBAN)NlLLINFORMSTHEAPPROACHTOBETAKENWHENWORKINGIN#ONSERVATION!REAS4HEREAREALSO
POINTSOFCROSSOVERWITHTHEGUIDANCEOF$ESIGN'UIDANCE@3MALLSCALE(OUSING$EVELOPMENTAND$ESIGN'UIDANCE@,ARGER(OUSING$EVELOPMENTS)TIS
ANTICIPATEDTHEREFORETHATACCORDINGTOTHENATUREOFTHEPROPOSALSBEINGDEVELOPED

Page 84

REFERENCESHOULDBEMADEACROSSTHERANGEOFGUIDANCEPROVIDED
Key Issues
7ORKINGWITH#ONSERVATION!REASANDWITH,ISTED"UILDINGS4HEREISCONSIDERABLEGUIDANCEALREADYINPLACEFORCARRYINGOUTWORKINTHISlELDSEEPAGE
	SOTHISSECTIONSEEKSTOADDRESSISSUESCOMPLEMENTARYTOTHEGUIDANCEALREADYISSUED

Page 85

ANDTODIRECTAPPLICANTSTOTHEAVAILABLEPUBLICATIONS)TTHEREFORE
CONSIDERS
s!NOVERVIEWOF#ONSERVATION!REASAND,ISTED"UILDINGS
s)NFORMED#ONSERVATIONAND3USTAINABLEDESIGN
7ORKINGWITH%XISTING"UILDINGSOUTLINESCONSIDERATIONSFOREXTENDINGANDALTERINGEXISTINGBUILDINGS
s3YMPATHETIC)NTEGRATIONOF0ROPOSALS4OWNSCAPEOR$EVELOPMENT#ONTEXTAND#HARACTER
s%LEVATIONS

Page 86

2OOFS

Page 87

#HIMNEYS

Page 88

$ORMERS

Page 89

7ALLING-ATERIALS
s#ONSTRUCTION$ETAILS$ORMERS

Page 90

0ORCHES

Page 91

#ONSERVATORIESAND'ARDEN!REAS
s3USTAINABLE$ESIGN
)NlLL$EVELOPMENTCONSIDERSSPECIlCISSUESASSOCIATEDWITHTHEDESIGNINGOFDEVELOPMENTSWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTES4OWNSAND6ILLAGES)TOUTLINESTHE
IMPORTANCEOF
s0LOTSIZEANDSETTLEMENTPATTERN"UILDING,INEAND3TREET&ACADES
s"UILDING(EIGHTAND0ROPORTION&A ADE$ETAILS
s/VERLOOKING

Page 92

3ECURITY

Page 93

#AR0ARKING
Page 35

Page 94

PAGE
Contents
Working in Conservation Areas and with Listed Buildings
 !RGYLLAND"UTE(ISTORIC#ONTEXT            
 )NFORMED#ONSERVATION             
 3OURCESOF)NFORMATION             
,EGISLATIONAFFECTINGHISTORICBUILDINGS           
 0UBLIC2EALM              
 3HOP&RONTS              
Working with existing buildings; maintenance, Extensions, Alterations and Conversions
 /VERVIEW              
 -ATERIALSAND#ONSTRUCTION-ETHODS            
 %XTENDINGANDALTERINGEXISTINGBUILDINGS           
 #ONVERTING%XISTING"UILDINGS            
 'ARDEN3PACES              
Designing Urban Inﬁll
 /VERVIEW              
 0LOTSIZEANDSETTLEMENTPATTERNS            
 "UILDINGLINEANDSTREETFACADES            
 (EIGHTANDPROPORTIONS             
 #ARPARKINGINTOWNSANDVILLAGES            
 %XAMPLESOF3UCCESSFUL5RBAN)NlLL           
Action checklists and Developing Proposals                                
Bibliography and Acknowledgements                     
Page 36

Page 95

PAGE
Action checklists  
Developing proposals
Page 37

Page 96

PAGE

Action Checklists working with Historic Buildings
%XTENSIONSAND#ONVERSIONS
#ONSIDERTHE()34/2)##/.4%84&/2$%6%,/0-%.4INVESTIGATEANDUNDERSTANDTHEHISTORICCONTEXTPRIORTOMAKINGANAPPLICATIONFOR0LANNING#ONSENT
)FTHEEXISTINGBUILDINGISLOCATEDWITHINA#ONSERVATION!REAOR,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENTISREQUIRED

Page 97

PREPAREA#ONSERVATION3TATEMENTOR#ONSERVATION0LANASAGREEDWITHTHE
#OUNCILS#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN/FlCER
#ONSIDERTHE"5),43%44).'
)TISIMPORTANTTOENSURETHATANYNEWEXTENSIONORCONVERSIONWHICHIMPACTSONTHE0UBLIC2EALMWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTESTOWNSANDVILLAGESPROVIDESWELLDESIGNEDANDATTRACTIVE
EXTERNALSPACESWHICHCOMPLEMENTTHEIRLOCATION#ONSIDERHOWNEWEXTENSIONSANDCONVERSIONSIMPACTVISUALLYBOTHONTHECHARACTEROFANAREAASAWHOLE

Page 98

ANDONVIEWSFROMKEY
VANTAGEPOINTSEGFROMADJACENTROADSANDPATHS	
#ONSIDERTHE,!.$3#!0%3%44).'!LLNEWDEVELOPMENTMUSTBECAREFULLYCONSIDEREDINTHECONTEXTOFITSLANDSCAPESETTING4HENATURALLANDSCAPEANDFEATURESOF!RGYLLAND"UTE
WILLOFTENBETHEMOSTDOMINANTVISUALFEATUREANDDEVELOPMENTMUSTAPPEARAPPROPRIATEFORITSSETTING4OACHIEVETHIS

Page 99

RETAINASMUCHASPOSSIBLEOFTHEEXISTINGLANDSCAPEAND
BOUNDARIESWITHINASITEANDCONSIDERRENEWINGORREPLACINGEXISTINGPLANTINGWITHAPPROPRIATESPECIES
7HENDESIGNINGPROPOSALSEITHER-).)-)3%)-0!#4/."5),4ANDOR,!.$3#!0%3%44).'BYINTEGRATINGSENSITIVE

Page 100

LOWKEY

Page 101

COHESIVEDEVELOPMENTWITHINITSSURROUNDINGSOR
).42/$5#%()'(15!,)49THROUGHTHEDESIGNOFEXEMPLARCONTEMPORARYNEWDESIGN
)NALLCASES

Page 102

).#/20/2!4%0!2+).'3%.3)4)6%,9
$ESIGNTO2%4!).#(!2!#4%2nUSEAPPROPRIATEMATERIALSANDCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSWHICHWILLENHANCETHESETTINGFORNEWDESIGNPROPOSALS
2%4!).4(%#(!2!#4%2/&%84%2.!,30!#%3SUCHASCOURTYARDS	WHICHARESHAPEDBYTHEBUILDINGSBEINGCONVERTEDOREXTENDED
2%4!).4(%#(!2!#4%2/&4(%"5),$).''2/50).'OFWHICHTHECONVERSIONOREXTENSIONFORMSAPARTSUCHASAFARMSTEAD

Page 103

TERRACEDCOTTAGESORTENEMENTALmATS	
7HEREPOSSIBLE2%4!)./2)').!,&%!452%3SUCHASSASHANDCASEWINDOWSANDEXISTINGORIGINALDOORS
&INDOUTABOUTTHE/2)').!,&).)3(%3WHICHWEREUSEDONBUILDINGSBEINGEXTENDEDORCONVERTEDSUCHASORIGINALHARLINGANDPAINTlNISHES)NMANYCASESTHESEARESTILL
AVAILABLE
!6/)$.%7

Page 104

!$$)4)/.!,&%!452%37()#($%42!#4&2/-4(%#(!2!#4%2/&4(%%8)34).'"5),$).'/&7()#(4(%9&/2-!0!24SUCHASINAPPROPRIATELYDESIGNEDPORCHESORDORMERWINDOWS
$ESIGNFORA3USTAINABLE&UTURE&OR%XISTING/LDER"UILDINGS
"EARINMINDTHATSOMEMODERNMATERIALSANDCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSMAYNOTBECOMPATIBLEWITHOLDERHISTORICBUILDINGS
!6/)$MAJORWORKSTOEXISTINGBUILDINGSBYPRIORITISINGREGULARMAINTENANCE
53%!002/02)!4%-!4%2)!,3!.$$%3)'.3WHENCONSIDERINGALTERATIONSANDREPAIRS
-!8)-)3%%.%2'9%&&)#)%.#9)MPROVEINSULATIONLEVELSANDDRAUGHTPROOlNG
2%6)%7%8)34).'-!4%2)!,3!.$$%4!),3).4(%,)'(4/&#,)-!4%#(!.'%4AKEACCOUNTOF&,//$2)3+7HERETHEDEVELOPMENTISFORMORETHANASINGLEHOUSE

Page 105

PROVIDEA3USTAINABLE5RBAN
$RAINAGE3YSTEM35$3		2ETAINEXISTINGPROVENANDROBUSTCONSTRUCTIONDETAILS
#/.3)$%24(%)-0,)#!4)/.3/&3%26)#).'4(%$%6%,/0-%.4INCLUDINGPARKING

Page 106

ROADSACCESS

Page 107

WATERSUPPLY

Page 108

PROVISIONFORRECYCLING

Page 109

SEWERAGEPROVISION

Page 110

ANDTHEUSEOFALTERNATIVESOURCESOFENERGY
#/.35,4%!2,97)4(3%26)#%02/6)$%23TOENSURETHEPROPOSALSMEETTHEIRREQUIREMENTS
$%3)'.4/4!+%!##/5.4/&3%#52)49ANDDIFFERENTIATEBETWEENPRIVATEANDPUBLICSPACES
Page 38

Page 111

PAGE
#ONSIDERTHE()34/2)##/.4%84&/2$%6%,/0-%.4INVESTIGATEANDUNDERSTANDTHEHISTORICCONTEXTPRIORTOMAKINGANAPPLICATIONFOR0LANNING#ONSENT)FTHEDEVELOPMENTSITEISLOCATED
WITHINA#ONSERVATION!REA

Page 112

PREPAREABRIEF#ONSERVATION3TATEMENTORA#ONSERVATION0LANREQUIREMENTSWILLBEASAGREEDWITHTHE#OUNCILS#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN/FlCER	
%NSURETHATNEWINlLL#/-0,%-%.43)433%44).'
#ONSIDERTHEDEVELOPMENTS"5),43%44).'%NSURETHATANYNEWINlLLWHICHIMPACTSONTHE0UBLIC2EALMWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTESTOWNSANDVILLAGESPROVIDESWELLDESIGNEDANDATTRACTIVE
EXTERNALSPACESWHICHCOMPLEMENTTHEIRLOCATION#ONSIDERHOWNEWINlLLIMPACTSVISUALLYBOTHONTHECHARACTEROFANAREAASAWHOLE

Page 113

ANDONKEYVIEWSEGFROMADJACENTROADS	
$%6%,/002/0/3!,37()#(4!+%!##/5.4/&4(%)22%,!4)/.3()04/%8)34).'"5),$).'3TAKECOGNISANCEOFADJACENTROOmINES

Page 114

mOORHEIGHTSWITHINEXISTINGBUILDINGSANDTHERHYTHMAND
FENESTRATIONPATTERNSOFFACADES
#ONSIDERTHE,!.$3#!0%3%44).'!LLNEWDEVELOPMENTMUSTBECAREFULLYCONSIDEREDINTHECONTEXTOFITSLANDSCAPESETTING4HENATURALLANDSCAPEANDFEATURESOF!RGYLLAND"UTEWILLOFTENBE
THEMOSTDOMINANTVISUALFEATUREANDDEVELOPMENTMUSTAPPEARAPPROPRIATEFORITSSETTING4OACHIEVETHIS

Page 115

RETAINASMUCHASPOSSIBLEOFTHEEXISTINGLANDSCAPEANDBOUNDARIESWITHINASITEOR
CONSIDERRENEWINGORREPLACINGEXISTINGPLANTINGWITHAPPROPRIATESPECIES
7HENDESIGNINGPROPOSALSEITHER
-).)-)3%)-0!#4/."5),4ANDOR,!.$3#!0%3%44).'BYINTEGRATINGSENSITIVE

Page 116

LOWKEY

Page 117

COHESIVEDEVELOPMENTWITHINITSSURROUNDINGSOR).42/$5#%()'(15!,)49THROUGHTHEDESIGNOF
EXEMPLARCONTEMPORARYNEWINlLL)NALLCASES).#/20/2!4%0!2+).'3%.3)4)6%,9
%STABLISHA@0!44%2.&/24(%$%6%,/0-%.4
4HESITELAYOUTFORTHEDEVELOPMENTSHOULDBEBASEDONACONSIDEREDRESPONSETODEVELOPMENTPATTERNOFSETTLEMENTSANDBUILDINGSINTHEIMMEDIATEAREA
%.352%4(!4.%7).&),,$%6%,/0-%.43/##5094(%)20,/43).!3)-),!27!94/4(%)27%,,3)4%$.%)'("/523AND!6/)$THEWORSTFEATURESOFSOMENEWDEVELOPMENTS
$/./4!,,/74(%#!2AND2/!$$%3)'.4/$/-).!4%AND$%4%2-).%4(%$%6%,/0-%.4,!9/54
$ESIGNALAYOUTWHICHGIVESTHEDEVELOPMENTITSOWNSPECIlCCHARACTERn!6/)$!.!./.9-/53@#/5,$"%!.97(%2%$%3)'.
$ESIGNTO#2%!4%#(!2!#4%2nUSETHESITESLOCATIONANDEXAMPLESOFLOCALSUCCESSFULBUILDINGSTODETERMINETHECHARACTEROFTHEDEVELOPMENT#ONSIDERTHEUSEOFLOCALLYAPPROPRIATE

Page 118


TRADITIONALCOLOURS!VOID@ARTIlCIALDECORATIVEFEATURESWHICHARENOTRELATEDTOTHECONTEXTANDLOCALLYAPPROPRIATETRADITION
s$ESIGNOUTOPPORTUNITIESFOROVERLOOKINGBYGOODPLANNINGNOTSIMPLYBYSETTINGBUILDINGSAPARTFORMEACHOTHER
s)NCORPORATEPARKINGSENSITIVELY
$ESIGNFOR!##%33)"),)49THINKABOUTACCESSISSUESATTHEEARLIESTPOSSIBLESTAGEOFSITEDEVELOPMENT2EFERTORELEVANTPUBLICATIONSTOENSURETHATPLANDIMENSIONSARESUITABLEFOR
ALLEG,IFETIME(OMES*OSEPH2OWNTREE&OUNDATION

Page 119

(OUSINGFOR6ARYING.EEDS'UIDELINES#OMMUNITIES3COTLAND2)"!'UIDANCE.OTESFORTHE$ISABILITY$ISCRIMINATION!CT	
)NlLL$EVELOPMENT
$ESIGNFORA3USTAINABLE$EVELOPMENTINlLL
s4AKEACCOUNTOFTHENEEDFORSHELTERNATURALANDBUILTFEATURESANDWINDDIRECTION	ANDUTILISESOLARGAINANDNATURALVENTILATION
s4AKEACCOUNTOF&LOOD2ISKANDPROVIDEA3USTAINABLE5RBAN$RAINAGE3YSTEM35$3	
s$%3)'.4(%,!9/544/4!+%!##/5.4/&3%#52)49ANDDIFFERENTIATEBETWEENPRIVATEANDPUBLICSPACES
s0ROVIDEASUITABLYSCREENEDLOCATIONFORSTORAGEOFFUELANDWASTEPROVIDEFACILITIESFORRECYCLING
s#ONSIDERTHEIMPLICATIONSOFSERVICINGTHEDEVELOPMENTANDTHEUSEOFALTERNATIVESOURCESOFENERGY
s#ONSULTEARLYWITHSERVICEPROVIDERSTOENSURETHEPROPOSALSMEETTHEIRREQUIREMENTS
s7HEREPOSSIBLESITEBUILDINGSTOALLOWFORFUTUREEXTENSIONSSUCHASGARAGESOROUTBUILDINGS

Page 39

Page 120

PAGE
Developing Proposals
4HISmOWCHARTISANILLUSTRATIONOFTHEWAYSINWHICHBOTHDEVELOPERSANDTHEIRPROFESSIONALCONSULTANTSCANMAKE
THEMOSTOFANYDIALOGUEWITH$EVELOPMENT#ONTROLANDWITHTHE#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN/FlCER

Page 121

DURINGTHE$ESIGN
$EVELOPMENT0ROCESS
"ELOWISTHEPROCESSTHATTHE#OUNCILRECOMMENDSINORDERTHATBOTH$EVELOPERSANDTHEIR!GENTSMIGHTMOSTEFlCIENTLYDEVELOP
ANDDISCUSSTHEIRPROPOSALSWITH$EVELOPMENT#ONTROL

Page 122

ANDTHEREFOREMOSTSWIFTLYOBTAINADECISIONONTHEIRDEVELOPMENT
./

4AKINGACCOUNTOFTHEDESIGNGUIDANCE

Page 123

ANDTHE
INFORMATIONFORMINGTHEBASISFORYOUR#ONSERVATION
0LANOR3TATEMENT

Page 124

DEVELOPINITIALIDEASIN@SKETCH
FORM
#ONSIDERHOWPROPOSALSWILLINTEGRATEWITHTHE
BUILDINGSANDLANDSCAPEAROUNDTHEM
+%9#/.35,4!4)/.3
3COTTISH7ATERIFNECESSARY

Page 125

CONlRMPOTENTIAL
FORAMAINSSUPPLYTOTHESITE
3%0!3COTTISH7ATERCONlRMREQUIREMENTSFOR
SEWERAGEANDLANDDRAINAGE)FTHEDEVELOPMENT
ISFORMORETHANASINGLEHOUSE

Page 126

35$SDRAINAGE
SYSTEMSWILLNEEDTOBECONSIDEREDFROMANEARLY
STAGE
!RGYLL AND "UTE #OUNCIL 2OADS $EPARTMENT

CHECKREQUIREMENTSFORTHELOCATIONOFNEW
ACCESSROADSANDTHEPOSSIBLEUPGRADINGOFOLDER
ACCESSWAYSANDENTRANCES

$%6%,/0).)4)!,)$%!3
#/.3%26!4)/.34!4%-%.4/20,!.
)FABUILDINGISLOCATEDINA#ONSERVATION!REAORISA,ISTED
"UILDING

Page 127

APPLICANTSSHOULDINVESTIGATEANDUNDERSTANDTHE
HISTORICCONTEXTWITHINWHICHTHEYAREWORKINGPRIORTOTHE
STARTOFTHEDESIGNPROCESS4HISWILLMEANTHEYHAVEACLEAR
IDEAOFTHEKEYISSUESWHICHMAYIMPACTONTHEPROGRESSOF
A0LANNING!PPLICATIONOR!PPLICATIONFOR,ISTED"UILDING
#ONSENT
&ORLESSCOMPLEXPROPOSALS

Page 128

AQUICKANALYSISCANBESUM
MARISEDINASHORTERh#ONSERVATION3TATEMENTv&ORMORE
COMPLEXPROPOSALSAMOREFORMALh#ONSERVATION0LANv
DOCUMENTWILLBENEEDED
DETERMINETHE
34!453
OFYOURSITE
#ONlRMTHE,OCAL0LAN$ESIGNATION
FORYOURSITE
!RETHEREANY,OCAL0LAN
0OLICIESWHICHCOULDIMPACTON
DEVELOPMENT
SEETHE!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCIL
WEBSITEFORDETAILS
HTTPWWWARGYLLBUTEGOVUK
LOCALPLANSINDEXHTM	
$OESTHEDEVELOPMENTSITEHAVEANYPARTICULAR
DESIGNATIONWHICHWILLAFFECTTHEWAYINWHICHITIS
DEVELOPED
s)SITINA#ONSERVATION!REA

Page 129

ORISITA,ISTED"UILDING
s)SITBESIDEA,ISTED"UILDINGOR3CHEDULED!NCIENT-ONUMENT
s)SITWITHINAN3.(0ROTECTEDAREASUCHASA333)

Page 130

.3!

Page 131

OR..2
s)SITWITHINANAREASUSCEPTIBLETOmOODING
s)SITWITHIN/PEN#OUNTRYSIDE
#ONTACTYOURLOCAL0LANNING$EPARTMENTFORGENERALADVICEABOUT
SITEDESIGNATIONS
4HEREMAYBEISSUESASSOCIATEDWITHTHEDEVELOPMENTSITEWHICHPRECLUDE
DEVELOPMENT)FTHISISNOTTHECASE

Page 132

CONlRMWHETHEREXTRACONSENTSARENEEDED
 #ONTACT !RGYLL AND "UTE #OUNCILS
#ONSERVATION AND $ESIGN /FlCER  FOR
SPECIlCADVICEABOUT#ONSERVATION!REAS
AND ,ISTED "UILDINGS  2EMEMBER TO
CONSULTWITHANYOTHERORGANISATIONSSUCH
AS3%0!mOODINGANDDRAINAGEISSUES

Page 133


3.(AND(ISTORIC3COTLAND
9%3
s 7ITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS

Page 134

 0LANNING
#ONSENTMAYBEREQUIREDFORWORKWHICH
IS NORMALLY CONSIDERED AS hPERMITTED
DEVELOPMENTvINOTHERAREAS
s,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENTWILLBEREQUIRED
IFANYWORKISCARRIEDOUTTOA,ISTED"UILDING
OTHERTHANhLIKEFORLIKEvREPLACEMENT
Page 40

Page 135

PAGE
/NCEYOUHAVEAGREEDTHEBROADAPPROACHTOTHEDEVELOPMENTYOUSHOULD
DEVELOPTHEPROPOSALSANDMAKEA&ULL0LANNING!PPLICATION

Page 136

AND,ISTED"UILDING
#ONSENTIFREQUIRED	4HEGUIDANCEFOR0LANNING!PPLICATIONSSTATESTHEMINIMUM
INFORMATIONWHICHSHOULDBEPROVIDED

Page 137

BUTINORDERTHATYOURPROPOSALSARECLEARLY
UNDERSTOOD

Page 138

YOUAREADVISEDTOPROVIDEADDITIONALINFORMATIONILLUSTRATINGTHEKEY
ISSUESABOUTTHEDEVELOPMENT
3UGGESTED!DDITIONAL)LLUSTRATIVE-ATERIALOF0ROPOSALSITISIMPORTANTTO
FOCUSONTHEDESIGNS+%9)335%3ANDPROVIDEADDITIONALINFORMATIONABOUTTHE
DEVELOPMENTTHATTHE@PRESCRIBEDDRAWINGSDONOTSHOW7HEREAPPROPRIATETHIS
MIGHTBEPHOTOSORDRAWINGSTHAT
s )LLUSTRATETHECONTEXTIETHESURROUNDINGBUILDINGSANDORSURROUNDING
LANDSCAPEANDHOWPROPOSALSRELATETOTHEIRLOCATION
s 3HOWSITESECTIONSILLUSTRATINGHOWTHEDEVELOPMENTADDRESSESTHESITES
CONTOURS
s 0ROVIDEDETAILSOFTHESITEBOUNDARIESANDHOWITWILLBESEENFROMMAIN
ROADANDIMPORTANTVIEWS
s )LLUSTRATIONSOFTHEMASSINGOFTHEPROPOSALSONTHESITEnSIMPLED
SKETCHESAREUSUALLYVERYUSEFULINTHISREGARD


vAN%XPLORATORY$IALOGUEh
!RRANGETOMEETANDDISCUSSYOURINITIALIDEASANDTHESITEWITHTHERELEVANT
$EVELOPMENT#ONTROL/FlCERANDTHE#OUNCILS#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN
/FlCER)TISIMPORTANTTOGETTHEMOSTOUTOFTHISMEETINGSOITISISSUE
SOMEINFORMATIONTOTHE0LANNING$EPARTMENTINADVANCE

Page 139

THISCOULD
INCLUDE
s#ONSERVATION3TATEMENTOR#ONSERVATION0LANSEEBELOW	
s!MAPORDRAWINGCLEARLYIDENTIFYINGTHESITELOCATIONANDBOUNDARIES
#LEARLYIDENTIFYALLTHEINFORMATIONTHATYOUHAVEATTHISSTAGE

Page 140

SUCHAS
ROADS

Page 141

PATHS

Page 142

lELDBOUNDARIES

Page 143

RIVERSORSTREAMS

Page 144

ADJACENTBUILDINGSAND
ANYOTHERFEATURES(ISTORICALMAPSWILLPROVIDEUSEFULCLUESFORFUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
s 3ITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND SKETCHES TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONTEXT IE THE
SURROUNDINGBUILDINGSANDLANDSCAPE)TISIMPORTANTTOBECLEARABOUT
WHATYOUWANTTODEVELOPONTHESITE)LLUSTRATEYOURINITIALIDEASWITH
SKETCHESORUSEPHOTOGRAPHSOFSIMILARDEVELOPMENTSELSEWHERE
!LLOFTHEMATERIALABOVEWILLHELP$EVELOPMENT#ONTROLANDTHE
#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN/FlCERTOFORMAVIEWABOUTTHESITE
ANDHOPEFULLYALLOWYOUTODISCUSSANDAGREEABROADAPPROACH
TOTHEDEVELOPMENT
).)4)!,@02%!00,)#!4)/.-%%4).'
)FITISSUCCESSFUL

Page 145

THE0REAPPLICATION
-EETING SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO TAKE
FORWARDYOURPROPOSALSTOAFULL0LANNING
!PPLICATIONAND,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENT
IFREQUIRED	nIFNOTYOUSHOULDBEINA
GOODPOSITIONTOSEEWHEREYOURIDEAS
MIGHT BE RETHOUGHT OR REVISED AND
DEVELOPED
)NTHELATTERCASEYOUSHOULDARRANGEA
FURTHERMEETINGTODISCUSSTHEREVISED
PROPOSALS
$%6%,/002/0/3!,3 0,!..).'!00,)#!4)/.
4YPICALLY

Page 146

 THE FOLLOWING POINTS WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN A
#ONSERVATION0LANOR#ONSERVATION3TATEMENT
s7HATISLOCATEDTHEREATPRESENTDEMONSTRATEDBYMEASURED
SURVEY

Page 147

CONDITIONSURVEYANDPHOTOGRAPHS
s7HYDOESITMATTERANASSESSMENTOFTHESITESHISTORICANDCULTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE
s7HATCHANGESAREPROPOSED(OWWILLCHANGEBEMANAGED
7HENDEALINGWITH(ISTORIC,OCATIONSSEEK%80%24!$6)#%
ONTHEBESTWAYTOCARRYOUTANYEXTENSIONS

Page 148

CONVERSIONS
ORINlLL#ONTACT!RGYLLAND"UTES#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN
/FlCERFORADVICEONTHELEVELOFEXPERTINPUTTHATWILLBE
NEEDED AS IT WILL DEPEND ON COMPLEXITY AND VARY FROM
PROJECTTOPROJECT	
$%3)'.34!4%-%.4
9OUAREENCOURAGEDTOCOMPILEA$ESIGN3TATEMENT
WHICHEXPLAINSHOW
PROPOSALSAREDESIGNEDTOlTINWITHTHEIRCONTEXT)NFORMATIONFROMTHE
#ONSERVATION0LANOR#ONSERVATION3TATEMENTWILLCLEARLYDESCRIBETHECONTEXT
FORNEWPROPOSALSANDSHOULDBEUSEDASABASISFORTHE$ESIGN3TATEMENT
4HISDOESNOTNEEDTOBEALENGTHYDOCUMENTANDSHOULDNOTDUPLICATETHE
CONTENTOFTHE0LANNING!PPLICATION
)LLUSTRATIONSSHOULDRELATECLEARLYTOTHETEXTANDCANINCLUDEPHOTOGRAPHS

Page 149


SKETCHES

Page 150

 DIAGRAMS

Page 151

 PHOTOMONTAGES

Page 152

 CONCEPT DIAGRAMS

Page 153

 COMPUTERBASED
IMAGESANDARTISTSIMPRESSIONS


THEREISGUIDANCEON$ESIGN3TATEMENTSININ3COTTISH%XECUTIVE
0LANNING!DVICE.OTE$ESIGN3TATEMENTS
Page 41

Page 154

PAGE
Working in Conservation Areas and
with Listed Buildings
 !RGYLLAND"UTE(ISTORIC#ONTEXT
 )NFORMED#ONSERVATION
 3OURCESOF)NFORMATION
 ,EGISLATIONAFFECTINGHISTORICBUILDINGS
 0UBLIC2EALM
 3HOP&RONTS
Page 42

Page 155

PAGE
4HEMAJORITYOF!RGYLLAND"UTESSETTLEMENTSHAVEA
DISTINCTINDIVIDUALCHARACTERCOMMUNITIESANDTHE
BUILDINGSTHATSERVETHEMHAVEEVOLVEDINDIFFERENT
WAYSANDEACHHASDEVELOPEDALOCALIDENTITY
4HISISDETERMINEDINPARTBYTHEARCHITECTURALAND
CONSTRUCTIONSTYLEOFINDIVIDUALBUILDINGS

Page 156

BUTAN
EQUALLY SIGNIlCANT FACTOR IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF
THESEBUILDINGSTOEACHOTHER
!PPROPRIATEDESIGNSFORHISTORICAREASAREMOSTLIKELY
TOBESUCCESSFULIFTHEYAREBASEDONHISTORICLOCAL
DEVELOPMENTTHEIRSETTLEMENTPATTERNS

Page 157

MATERIALS
ANDTRADITIONS
6IRTUALLYEVERYPARTOF!RGYLLAND"UTECONTAINSVISIBLEAND
OFTENDRAMATICEVIDENCEOFPREHISTORICOCCUPATIONCAIRNS

Page 158


STANDINGSTONESANDOTHERIMPRESSIVEREMAINS/THERIMPORTANT
MONUMENTSANDREMAINSAREREMINDERSOF!RGYLLSKEYROLEASA
CRADLEOFTHENEW3COTTISHNATIONANDOFITS#HRISTIANFAITH
"YTHELATETHCENTURY

Page 159

THEBUILDINGOFSTONECASTLESBEGAN
ON !RGYLLS SEABOARD 4HEIR APPEARANCE EMPHASISED THE
VIBRANCYOFTHELOCALECONOMYTHESEAANDSEALOCHSWERE
NOTBARRIERSBUTSEAWAYS"YTHELATETHCENTURY

Page 160

!RGYLL
WASOFMOREINTERESTTOEARLYTOURISTSTHANTOGENERALSAND
POLITICIANSTOWNSANDVILLAGESWEREOFTENREBUILTAShPLANNED
BURGHSvACONTRASTTOARURALLANDSCAPEINWHICHTHATCHED
COTTAGESWERETHERULE
4HELATERTH

Page 161

THETHANDTHEEARLYTHCENTURIESWERE
THEAGEOFTHECOUNTRYHOUSEIN!RGYLLOFTENBUILTFORRICH
INCOMERSWHOBOUGHTOUTLOCALFAMILIES4OROSAY

Page 162

'LENGORM

Page 163


+ILBERRYAND!RDKINGLASWEREBUILTIN3COTTISH"ARONIALSTYLE

Page 164


4ORRISDALE

Page 165

#ALGARYAND-INARDWEREINCASTELLATEDSTYLE

Page 166

AND
'LENBARRIMPERSONATEDANABBEYTURNEDMANSION
4HEEVOLUTIONOFTHECOUNTRYESTATEWASEASEDBYMONEYFROM
LANDREFORM

Page 167

WHICHINITSTURNLEDTOLARGESCALEPOPULATION
MOVEMENT.EWFARMINGPRACTICESFAVOUREDLARGEFARMSWITH
SHEEP STOCK WHEREVER FEASIBLE

Page 168

 RATHER THAN THE TRADITIONAL
SYSTEM WHICH SUPPORTED A LARGE RURAL POPULATION 3UCH
TH CENTURY ESTATE POLICIES

Page 169

 AND SHOOTING OR DEER FOREST
INTERESTS

Page 170

TOGETHERWITHMODERNFORESTRYPLANTINGS

Page 171

DOMINATE
THELANDSCAPEWESEETODAY4HETOWNSOFCENTRAL3COTLAND
ANDTHELARGERCOMMUNITIESOF!RGYLLABSORBEDSOMEOFTHE
1.0  Argyll and Bute’s Historic Context   working with Listed Buildings and within Conservation Areas
DIMINISHINGRURALPOPULACE

Page 172

OTHERSEMIGRATED&ISHING
VILLAGESWEREBOOSTEDBYLANDOWNERSWHOWISHEDTO
CLEARTHEIRLANDBUTRETAINRENTS
!SSISTEDBYSTEAMBOATCOMMUNICATIONS

Page 173

#AMPBELTOWN
DEVELOPED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LATE TH AND EARLY
THCENTURIES

Page 174

VERYLARGELYALONG'LASWEGIANLINES
TENEMENTS

Page 175

PUBLICBUILDINGS

Page 176

HOTELSANDMIDDLECLASS
VILLASALLAPPEARED)TSSECRETLAYINLINKSWITH'LASGOW
AND)RELAND

Page 177

INITSRICHAGRICULTURALHINTERLAND

Page 178

ANDIN
ITSMINING

Page 179

DISTILLINGANDlSHINGINDUSTRIES
4OWNS ON THE #LYDE %STUARY

Page 180

 SUCH AS $UNOON AND
2OTHESAY

Page 181

WERELESSDIVERSIlED

Page 182

SUPPORTEDBYTOURISM
ANDCOMMUTING!STRINGOFSMALLER

Page 183

SPACIOUSSUBURBS

Page 184


ALMOSTPURELYCOMPOSEDOFMIDDLECLASSVILLAS

Page 185

SPRANG
UPONTHE#OWALCOAST
!FTERTHEARRIVALOFTHERAILWAYIN

Page 186

(ELENSBURGH
BECAMEMORECLOSELYTIEDTO'LASGOW4HELATE6ICTORIAN
AND%DWARDIANVILLASOFUPPER(ELENSBURGHREmECTED
THEVERYWEALTHYLIFESTYLESANDDEVELOPEDARCHITECTURAL
TASTESOFTHEIROWNERS

Page 187

RESULTINGINPOSSIBLYTHElNEST
COLLECTIONOFBUILDINGSOFTHEIRTYPEINTHE7ESTOF
3COTLAND
SUMMARISEDFROM!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCILWEBSITEMORE
DETAILSAVAILABLEFROM
HTTPWWWARGYLLBUTEGOVUKCONTENTLEISURELOCALHISTORY
Page 43

Page 188

PAGE
TO)ONA

Page 189

3COTLANDSMOSTSIGNIlCANTEARLYCHRISTIANCENTRE
!RGYLLAND"UTEHASAWIDERANGEOFIMPORTANTHISTORICALBUILDINGS

Page 190

TOWNSANDVILLAGES
FORTIlCATIONSAT$UART#ASTLEWEREFOLLOWEDBY
FROMPREHISTORICMONUMENTSIN+ILMARTINFF TOTHATCHEDCOTTAGESON4IREE
.EWPUBLICBUILDINGS#AMPBELTOWN
!RDKINGLASACOUNTRYRESIDENCEDESIGNEDBY2OBERT,ORIMER
6ILLA$UNOONTHE'LASGWEGIAN2IVIERA
WEDDBY PLANNEDBURGHSUCHAS)NVERARAY
(ELENSBURGHLARGERVILLAWITHINNEWTOWNAREA
Page 44

Page 191

PAGE
hBALANCINGPRIORITIESFORBUILDINGSANDSITESWHICHHAVETOEARNTHEIRKEEPv
1.1  Informed Conservation working with Listed Buildings and within Conservation Areas
!RGYLL AND "UTE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF BUILT
DEVELOPMENTWITHARANGEOFBUILDINGANDLANDUSES

Page 192


ARCHITECTURALSTYLESANDTRADITIONSWHICHUNDERPIN
THEAREASSENSEOFCULTURALIDENTITY
)NORDERTORETAINANDPROMOTE!RGYLLAND"UTES
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER

Page 193

 WORK TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS
NEEDS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH CONTEMPORARY
LIFESTYLES

Page 194

WHILEENSURINGTHATFUTUREGENERATIONS
WILLBEABLETOUNDERSTAND

Page 195

APPRECIATEANDENJOY
THEIRBUILTHERITAGE
%VEN SMALL SCALE DELETERIOUS CHANGES CAN HAVE
A CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF HISTORIC
BUILDINGSANDTHEIRSETTINGS

Page 196

SOITISIMPORTANTTHAT
CHANGEISACTIVELYMANAGED4HISSHOULDENSURETHAT
WHATISSPECIALANDIRREPLACEABLEISNOTDESTROYEDOR
COMPROMISED
)NADDITIONTOTHEIRHISTORICANDAESTHETICVALUE

Page 197


BUILDINGS WITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS AND ,ISTED
"UILDINGSHAVEASIGNIlCANTAMOUNTOFEMBODIED
ENERGYINVESTEDINTHEMDURINGTHEIRCONSTRUCTION
4HEIR CAREFUL AND APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION WILL
ENSURE THAT THE RETURN ON THIS EMBODIED ENERGY
IS MAXIMISED  &OR ALL THESE REASONS

Page 198

 IMPORTANT
HISTORICBUILDINGSANDLOCATIONSAREGIVENPROTECTION
THROUGHLEGISLATIVEPROCESSESTHROUGH,ISTINGAND
#ONSERVATION!REAS
)NFORMED#ONSERVATIONhUNDERSTANDINGWHATYOU
HAVEBEFOREYOUCANWORKOUTHOWTOCONSERVEOR
ALTERITv
%VERYHISTORICSITEORBUILDINGWILLBENElTFROMSOMEKIND
OFCHARACTERAPPRAISALPRIORTOTHESTARTOFANYALTERATION

Page 199


CONVERSION OR EXTENSION ! CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF A
BUILDINGS FABRIC WILL REVEAL WHAT CONSTRUCTION METHODS
ANDMATERIALSHAVEBEENUSEDANDHOWTHESEHAVECHANGED
THROUGHTIME)TISALSOHELPFULTOPUTABUILDINGORSITE
INTOCONTEXTnTOCONSIDERITSSIGNIlCANCECOMPAREDTO
OTHER BUILDINGS IN ITS IMMEDIATE LOCALE AND TO SIMILAR
BUILDINGSTHROUGHOUT3COTLAND
)NCONSIDERINGNEWDEVELOPMENTSINAHISTORICLOCATION

Page 200

OR
CHANGESTOAHISTORICBUILDING

Page 201

APPLICANTSSHOULDINVESTIGATE
ANDUNDERSTANDTHEHISTORICCONTEXTWITHIN WHICHTHEYARE
WORKING

Page 202

 PRIORTOTHESTARTOFTHEDESIGNPROCESS$ESIGNERS
WILLTHENBEAWAREOFTHEKEYISSUESWHICHWILLIMPACTON
THEPROGRESSOFAN!PPLICATIONFOR0LANNING#ONSENTATAN
EARLYSTAGE4HEYWILLBEBETTERABLETOINTEGRATEPRIORITIES
FORTHEBUILDINGORSITEITSELFINTOTHEIRINITIALPROPOSALS
ANDWILLBEWELLPLACEDTOBASETHEIRDESIGNONAPPROPRIATE
PRECEDENT
)NFORMED #ONSERVATION #ONSERVATION 0LANS AND
3TATEMENTS
!MOREFORMALhGATHERINGTOGETHERvOFINFORMATIONRELATED
TOASPECIlCDEVELOPMENTCANASSISTDIALOGUEBETWEENTHE
APPLICANT AND THE #OUNCIL $EVELOPMENT $EPARTMENT

Page 203

 ITS
#ONSERVATIONAND$ESIGN/FlCER

Page 204

(ISTORIC3COTLAND

Page 205

ANDANY
POTENTIALFUNDERS
.OTEVERYBUILDINGORLOCATIONWILLNECESSARILYNEEDTHE
SAMELEVELOFINVESTIGATIONANDANALYSIS)NSOMECASES

Page 206


FORLESSCOMPLEXSCHEMES

Page 207

AQUICKANALYSISOFASITEANDITS
RELATIONSHIPTOITSSURROUNDINGSCANBESUMMARISEDINA
SHORT #ONSERVATION3TATEMENT)FLARGESCALEINTERVENTION
ISNEEDED

Page 208

Ah#ONSERVATION0LANvWILLBEREQUIRED
)N ALL CASES

Page 209

 #ONSERVATION 0LANS

Page 210

 -ANAGEMENT 0LANS
OR 3TATEMENTS ARE BEST CARRIED OUT BEFORE A DESIGN IS
DEVELOPEDASTHEYCANTHENASSISTDESIGNERSTOACHIEVE
SYMPATHETIC PROPOSALS 4HIS SHOULD BE UNDERPINNED
BYANUNDERSTANDINGOFTHESITE

Page 211

ANASSESSMENTOFITS
SIGNIlCANCEANDASTRATEGYFORBALANCINGSIGNIlCANCEAND
ASSESSINGVULNERABILITY
4YPICALLY

Page 212

THEFOLLOWINGSTRATEGICISSUESNEEDTOBE
CONSIDEREDINA#ONSERVATION0LANOR3TATEMENT
s7HATISTHEREATPRESENTDEMONSTRATEDBYMEASURED
SURVEY

Page 213

CONDITIONSURVEYANDPHOTOGRAPHS
s 7HYDOESITMATTERANASSESSMENTOFTHESITES
HISTORICALANDCULTURALSIGNIlCANCE
s 7HATCHANGESAREPROPOSEDHOWCANTHESECANBE
MINIMISEDWHENITCOMESTOABUILDINGSPARTICULARAND
DISTINCTIVEFEATURES
s (OWWILLCHANGEBEMANAGEDSOTHATTHEESSENTIAL
CHARACTEROFBUILDINGSORLOCATIONSISRETAINED
4HEHISTORYOFSOMESITESORBUILDINGSCANBEVERYCOMPLEX
INDEEDANDINORDERTOFULLYUNDERSTANDANDCOMMUNICATE
THEIRSIGNIlCANCETHEINPUTOFANUMBEROFPROFESSIONALS
MAY BE NEEDED 4HESE COULD INCLUDE ARCHAEOLOGISTS

Page 214


ARCHITECTS

Page 215

 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND CONSERVATORS !
WIDEVARIETYOFTECHNIQUESMAYNEEDTOBEUSEDSUCHAS
ARCHITECTURAL PAINT RESEARCH

Page 216

 OR KEYHOLE INVESTIGATION
4HEREMAYBEARANGEOFSTAKEHOLDERORGANISATIONSWHO
AREINTERESTEDINTHEBUILDINGSFUTUREWHOWILLNEEDTOBE
CONSULTED)NTHISCASEA#ONSERVATION0LANISLIKELYTOBE
ALONGERDOCUMENTWHICHWILLREQUIRETOBECOMPILEDBYA
PROFESSIONALWITHRELEVANTRECENTEXPERIENCE
Page 45

Page 217

PAGE
#ONSERVATIONPROFESSIONALSSHOULDHAVEABROADKNOWLEDGEOFHISTORIC
BUILDINGS

Page 218

 BUILDING TYPES AND THEIR SETTINGS BUT SOMETIMES THIS WILL
NEEDTOBEAUGMENTEDBYSPECIlCRESEARCHINTOAPARTICULARLOCATION
BEFOREDECISIONSCANBETAKENABOUTITSFUTURE4HEREAREMANYSOURCESOF
INFORMATIONABOUTHISTORICBUILDINGSGENERALLYANDABOUT!RGYLLAND"UTES
ARCHITECTUREANDTOWNSCAPEINPARTICULAR3OMESOURCESOFINFORMATIONARE
NOTEDBELOW
1.2  Sources of Information  working with Listed Buildings and within Conservation Areas
!2'9,,!.$"54%#/5.#),
,IBRARYAND)NFORMATION3ERVICES,OCAL#OLLECTION
(IGHLAND!VENUE

Page 219

3ANDBANK$UNOON0!0"4EL
&AX#ONTACT%LEANOR(ARRIS

Page 220

,OCAL3TUDIES,IBRARIAN

Page 221

FORMORE
DETAILSELEANORHARRIS ARGYLLBUTEGOVUK	
%ACHBRANCHLIBRARYHOLDSASMALL,OCAL#OLLECTIONSPECIFICTOITSAREA

Page 222

BUTTHEBULKOFTHE
MATERIAL

Page 223

INCLUDINGBOOKS

Page 224

PAMPHLETS

Page 225

MAPSANDPOSTCARDSISHELDAT,IBRARY(EADQUARTERS
"//+3
4HE"UILDINGSOF3COTLAND

Page 226

!RGYLLAND"UTE
&RANK!RNEIL7ALKER)3".
!GUIDETOHISTORICBUILDINGSINTHE!RGYLLAND"UTE!REA
!RGYLLANDTHE)SLANDS!N)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDE
&RANK!RNEIL7ALKER)3".
2)!33ERIESOF)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDESTO3COTLAND
4HE.ORTH#LYDE%STUARY!N)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDE
&RANK7ALKER

Page 227

&IONA3INCLAIR)3".
2)!33ERIESOF)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDESTO3COTLAND
"UILDINGSOFTHE3COTTISH#OUNTRYSIDE
2OBERT*.AISMITH)3".
AGUIDETOTHEGENERALPRINCIPLESANDHISTORYOF3COTTISHRURALBUILDINGS
%XPLORING3COTLANDS(ERITAGE!RGYLLANDTHE7ESTERN)SLES
'RAHAM2ITCHIEAND-ARY(ARMAN)3".
-EMORANDUMOF'UIDANCEON,ISTED"UILDINGSAND#ONSERVATION!REAS(ISTORIC
3COTLAND
#OMPREHENSIVEGUIDANCEFORWORKINGWITHINCONSERVATIONAREASANDWORKINGWITH
,ISTED"UILDINGSCANBEDOWNLOADEDFROMTHE(ISTORIC3COTLANDDATABASESEERIGHT	
4RADITIONALFARMARCHITECTUREIN3COTLAND
2OBERT3COTT-ORTON)3".
#ONVERSIONOF&ARMSTEADSTOOTHER5SES
3COTTISH%XECUTIVE
0(/4/'2!0()#
WWWSTENLAKECOUK4HE3TENLAKE0UBLISHING3ERIES@/LD)SLAYETC
7%"3)4%3
(ISTORIC3COTLAND
WWWHISTORICSCOTLANDGOVUKINDEXPOLICYANDGUIDANCEG  P Y G
HTTPWWWHISTORICSCOTLANDGOVUKINDEXPUBLICATIONSPUBSFOROWNERSHTMP G  P P
)NFORMATIONABOUT(ISTORIC3COTLANDSPOLICYANDGUIDANCEAVAILABLEINCLUDES
s -AINTAINING9OUR(OME!3HORT'UIDEFOR(OMEOWNERS
s 3COTLANDS,ISTED"UILDINGSAGUIDEFOROWNERSANDOCCUPIERS
s 0ASSEDTOTHE&UTURE(ISTORIC3COTLANDS0OLICYFORTHE3USTAINABLE-ANAGEMENTOF
THEHISTORICENVIRONMENT
s ,OOKINGAFTERYOURSASHANDCASEWINDOWSASHORTGUIDEFORHOMEOWNERS
HTTPWWWHISTORICSCOTLANDGOVUKINDEXGRANTSHTMP G  G
DETAILSOFGRANTSTOHELPTOWARDSTHECOSTOFREPAIRINGHISTORICBUILDINGS
2OYAL#OMMISSIONFOR!NCIENTAND(ISTORIC-ONUMENTSIN3COTLAND
WWWRCAHMSGOVUKG
4HE#!.-/2%DATABASECONTAINSDETAILSOFARCHAEOLOGICALSITES

Page 228

ANCIENTMONUMENTSAND
BUILDINGSIN3COTLAND)TALSOPROVIDESANINDEXTOTHECATALOGUEDCOLLECTIONSOF2#!(-3
ANDIMAGESOFSOMEOFTHEPHOTOGRAPHSORDRAWINGSINTHECOLLECTION
"UILDINGSAT2ISK2EGISTERFOR3COTLAND
HTTPWWWBUILDINGSATRISKORGUKP G G
REDUNDANTBUILDINGSOFARCHITECTURALINTERESTWHICHHAVETHEPOTENTIALTOBEREDEVELOPED
3COTTISH#IVIC4RUST3OURCESOF&INANCIAL(ELPFOR3COTLANDS(ISTORIC"UILDINGS
HTTPWWWBUILDINGSATRISKORGUKPUBLICATIONSHTMSOURCESP G G P 
SOURCESOFlNANCIALHELPFORTHECONSERVATIONOFHISTORICBUILDINGS
!RCHITECTURAL(ERITAGE&UND
WWWAHFUNDORGUKG
GIVESADVICEONSETTINGUP"UILDING0RESERVATION4RUSTSANDPROVIDESGRANTSFORTHE
REPAIRANDREGENERATIONOFHISTORICBUILDINGS
#/.3%26!4)/.0,!.3
#ONSERVATION0LANSAGUIDETOTHEPREPARATIONOF#ONSERVATION0LANS
(ISTORIC3COTLAND
(ERITAGE,OTTERY&UND
WWWHLFORGUKG
INFORMATIONABOUTCONSERVATIONPLANSANDCONSERVATIONSTATEMENTS
**&$)"!/ -
4*0-..#)
. 2$)*2.
ARCHAEOLOGY
ON FARM
AND CROFT
People have been living in Scotland
for almost 10,000 years. 
Traces of these earlier inhabitants
from both the distant and more recent
past may still be found on your land.
Your help in protecting these remains
will make a valuable contribution to
Scotland’s future.

Page 229

Page 230

Page 231

Page 232

Page 233

Page 234

  
-
0




($
!8'12@>
)&''"'&

')%$!.
(%"'( '%'
#' "&
!8BC43D8;38=6B

(#%*"%&"($%&
0
&


Page 46

Page 235

PAGE
4HEREISCONSIDERABLEDETAILEDGUIDANCEALREADY
AVAILABLEFORTHOSECONSIDERINGCARRYINGOUTWORK
TO,ISTED"UILDINGSANDWITHIN#ONSERVATION!REAS
SEE PREVIOUS PAGES	 SO SPECIALIST INFORMATION
AND ADVICE AVAILABLE FROM (ISTORIC 3COTLAND
ANDOTHERSISNOTDUPLICATEDHERE)NSTEAD

Page 236

THIS
GUIDANCEAIMSTOPROVIDEABRIEFOVERVIEWOFTHE
LEGISLATION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES ENCOUNTERED
WHENWORKINGWITHA,ISTED"UILDINGSORWITHINA
#ONSERVATION!REA
)SSUESENCOUNTEREDWHENDEVELOPINGASITEWHICH
REQUIRES,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENT

Page 237

ORISLOCATEDIN
A#ONSERVATION!REA

Page 238

ARELIKELYTOBEMORECOMPLEX
THANUSUALSOAPPLICANTSARESTRONGLYADVISEDTO
EMPLOY THE SERVICES OF A SUITABLY EXPERIENCED
#ONSERVATION!RCHITECTOR3PECIALIST#ONSERVATION
0ROFESSIONAL
1.3   Legislation affecting historic buildings 
MAYALSOBEREQUIREDFORSOMECHANGES,ISTINGBUILDINGS
AIMSTOPRESERVETHEHISTORICCHARACTEROFABUILDING

Page 239

SOIT
ISRAREFORPERMISSIONFORTHEDEMOLITIONOFALISTEDBUILDING
TOBEGIVEN
3OMECHANGESWHICHAREAPPARENTLYMINOR

Page 240

SUCHASCLEANING
STONEWORK

Page 241

POINTINGORREPLACEMENTOFTIMBERWINDOWS	MAY
HAVEAMAJORIMPACTONTHEBUILDINGSCHARACTERANDTHUS
ITSHISTORICANDORARCHITECTURALSIGNIlCANCEAND,ISTED
"UILDING#ONSENTWILLTHEREFOREBENEEDED
)NADDITION

Page 242

MODERNMATERIALSNEEDTOBEINTRODUCEDINTO
TRADITIONALHOUSESVERYCAREFULLYBECAUSEOLDERBUILDINGS
HAVEAhPERMEABLEvCONSTRUCTIONWHEREWATERANDWATER
VAPOUR CAN BE ABSORBED INTO AND EXPELLED FROM THE
STRUCTURE !NY CHANGES TO A ,ISTED "UILDING SHOULD BE
CARRIEDOUTUSINGAPPROPRIATETRADITIONALANDHIGHQUALITY
MATERIALS
)TISTHEREFOREPRUDENTTOSEEKADVICEBEFOREPROCEEDING
WITHANYREPAIRORALTERATION

Page 243

ANDTOBECOMEACQUAINTED
WITHTHEREASONSWHYABUILDINGHASBEENLISTED
5NLIKEAPPLICATIONSFOR0LANNING#ONSENTS

Page 244

THEREISNOFEE
FOR,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENTS)NSOMECIRCUMSTANCES6!4
DOES NOTE NEED TO BE PAYABLE ON WORKS COVERED UNDER
,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENT
,ISTED"UILDINGS
4HE3COTTISH%XECUTIVEHASCOMPILEDA,ISTOF"UILDINGSOF
3PECIAL!RCHITECTURALOR(ISTORIC)NTERESTnBUILDINGSWHICH
ARE DISTINCTIVE REGIONAL EXAMPLES OF AN ARCHITECTURAL OR
VERNACULARSTYLEORWHICHHAVEANASSOCIATIONWITHFAMOUS
PEOPLEOREVENTS!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCILHOLDSCOPIESOF
THE,ISTS
"UILDINGSONTHE,ISTRANGEFROMLARGEHISTORICMANSIONSTO
SMALLDOMESTICCOTTAGESANDAREDIVIDEDINTOCATEGORIES

Page 245

Page 246

 NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Page 247

 " REGIONAL
IMPORTANCE	AND#LOCALIMPORTANCE	.OTETHAT,ISTING
COVERSTHEINTERIORSANDEXTERIORSOFBUILDINGSREGARDLESSOF
CATEGORY
!LLPLANNINGAUTHORITIESAREDIRECTEDTOTHE-EMORANDUM
OF'UIDANCEON,ISTED"UILDINGSAND#ONSERVATION!REAS
INTHEIRCONSIDERATIONOF#ONSERVATIONAND,ISTED"UILDING
#ONSENTMATTERS)TISRECOGNISEDBYPLANNINGAUTHORITIES

Page 248


AGENTS

Page 249

ARCHITECTS

Page 250

CONSERVATIONBODIES

Page 251

ANDOWNERSAS
THEAUTHORITATIVETEXTONLISTEDBUILDINGANDCONSERVATION
AREAPOLICIESANDPRACTICE
,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENT,"#	ISNEEDEDFORANYWORK
WHICHWILLMATERIALLYAFFECTTHEHISTORICORARCHITECTURAL
SIGNIlCANCE OF A BUILDINGS STRUCTURE AND PROCEEDS
SEPARATELYFROMAPPLICATIONSFORPLANNINGCONSENT

Page 252

WHICH
4HEEFFECTOFCUMULATIVEDEVELOPMENTBEFOREEXTRADORMERSHAVEBEENADDEDANDAFTERPIECEMEALDEVELOPMENT
Page 47

Page 253

PAGE
3CHEDULED!NCIENT-ONUMENTS
3CHEDULED !NCIENT -ONUMENTS RANGE FROM
STRUCTURESSUCHASLIMEKILNSWHICHMAYALSOBE
LISTED	THROUGHSTANDINGSTONESANDHILLFORTSTO
FARMSTEADSANDlELD3OMESCHEDULEDMONUMENTS
MAYNOTEVENBEVISIBLEATGROUNDLEVEL!LLOF
THESESTRUCTURESHAVEBEENGIVENLEGALPROTECTION
ANDARECONSIDEREDTOBEOFNATIONALIMPORTANCE
3CHEDULED -ONUMENT #ONSENT IS NEEDED FROM
(ISTORIC3COTLANDBEFORECARRYINGOUTANYWORKTO
A3CHEDULED!NCIENT-ONUMENTINCLUDINGLIKEFOR
LIKEREPAIRS	0LANNING#ONSENTSFORDEVELOPMENTS
LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 3CHEDULED !NCIENT
-ONUMENTSTYPICALLYWITHINMETRES	WILLBETHE
SUBJECTOFMOREEXTENSIVECONSULTATIONDURINGTHE
PLANNINGPROCESS
#ONSERVATION!REAS
7IDERGROUPSOFBUILDINGSOFSPECIALARCHITECTURAL
ORHISTORICINTERESTTOGETHERWITHTHEIRSETTINGS

Page 254


SUCHASSOMETOWNCENTRES

Page 255

CANBEDESIGNATED
AS #ONSERVATION !REAS AND ARE GIVEN PROTECTION
TO ENSURE THAT THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER AND
APPEARANCEARENOTUNSYMPATHETICALLYALTERED
!RGYLL AND "UTE #OUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DETERMININGWHICHPLACESSHOULDBE#ONSERVATION
!REAS

Page 256

ANDFORENSURINGTHATTHEYAREPRESERVED
ANDENHANCED7HENTHE#OUNCILCONSIDERSWHICH
PLACESSHOULDBECOME#ONSERVATION!REAS

Page 257

ITLOOKS
ATANAREAASAWHOLEANDTAKESMANYFACTORSINTO
ACCOUNT

Page 258

 INCLUDING STREET LAYOUTS AND PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES

Page 259

 BUILDING STYLES AND LOCAL MATERIALS

Page 260


OPENSPACES

Page 261

VIEWSANDTHEHISTORYOFTHEAREA
-ANYCOMMUNITIESIN!RGYLLAND"UTEWHOLIVEIN
ANDAROUND#ONSERVATION!REASWILLBEASKEDTOGET
INVOLVEDINASSESSINGTHEHISTORICANDARCHITECTURAL
SIGNIlCANCEOFTHEPLACESINWHICHTHEYLIVEOVER
THENEXTTENYEARSORSO
)FA#ONSERVATION!REAISTOBESAFEGUARDED

Page 262

ITIS
IMPORTANTTHATTHOSEWHOLIVEORWORKINITGIVE
THOUGHTTOANYCHANGESTHEYPROPOSE

Page 263

ANDCONSIDER
WHETHERTHOSECHANGESRESPECTTHESPECIALQUALITIES
OFTHEAREA$EVELOPMENTWITHIN#ONSERVATION!REAS
MUSTTHEREFOREPRESERVEORENHANCETHECHARACTEROR
APPEARANCEOFTHEAREAANDBEOFASIZEANDDESIGN
SUITABLEFORITSLOCATIONANDSURROUNDINGS
3PECIAL"UILT%NVIRONMENT!REAS
4HESEAREAREASOFSPECIALTOWNSCAPEVALUE

Page 264

IDENTIlED
IN THE LOCAL PLAN

Page 265

 THAT ARE NOT YET #ONSERVATION
!REAS BUT REQUIRE SAFEGUARDING AND PROMOTING AS
PARTOFTHEDEVELOPMENTCONTROLPROCESS4HE,OCAL
0LAN CONSIDERS THEM IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS
#ONSERVATION!REAS
-ANY BUILDINGS ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY EXCEPTIONAL
BUTAREANIMPORTANTPARTOFANAREAASAWHOLESO
THEIRDEMOLITIONNEEDSTOBECAREFULLYCONSIDERED
#ONSERVATION !REA #ONSENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF ANY UNLISTED BUILDING ALTHOUGH
CERTAINVERYSMALLBUILDINGSAREEXEMPT	
%XTRAPLANNINGREGULATIONSHELPTHE#OUNCILTOCONTROL
CHANGEIN#ONSERVATION!REASANDSAFEGUARDTHEIR
QUALITIES )N SOME #ONSERVATION !REAS @PERMITTED
DEVELOPMENT MINOR DEVELOPMENT NOT NORMALLY
REQUIRINGAPLANNINGAPPLICATION	MAYBERESTRICTED
UNDERAN!RTICLE$IRECTION
5SINGALIMITEDPALETTEOFLOCAL

Page 266

SUSTAINABLE

Page 267

HIGH
QUALITYMATERIALSFORNEWBUILDINGSANDEXTENSIONS
WITHIN#ONSERVATION!REASWILLHELPTOMAINTAINTHEIR
CHARACTER
-OSTBUILDINGSANDSTREETSWITHIN#ONSERVATION!REAS
ARECONSTRUCTEDOFTRADITIONALBUILDINGMATERIALSWITH
LONG LIFE EXPECTANCIES SUCH AS STONE

Page 268

 RENDER AND
SLATE!DDITIONSANDALTERATIONSTOTHEPUBLICREALM
SHOULDREmECTTHISPRIORITISINGOFQUALITY
2OTHESAY
#ONSERVATION!REASTATUSSHOULDENSURETHATVIEWS

Page 269

STREETPATTERNSAND
HISTORICBUILDINGSAREPROTECTEDANDENHANCED
1.3    Legislation affecting historic buildings 
Page 48

Page 270

PAGE
1.4  Public Realm                          
)N ADDITION TO THEIR HISTORIC AND AESTHETIC VALUE

Page 271


BUILDINGS WITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS AND ,ISTED
"UILDINGS HAVE A SIGNIlCANT AMOUNT OF EMBODIED
ENERGY INVESTED IN THEM DURING THEIR CONSTRUCTION
4HEIR CAREFUL AND APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION WILL
ENSURETHATTHERETURNONTHISEMBODIEDENERGYIS
MAXIMISED
5SING A LIMITED PALETTE OF LOCAL

Page 272

 SUSTAINABLE

Page 273

 HIGH
QUALITY MATERIALS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND EXTENSIONS
WITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS WILL HELP TO MAINTAIN
THEIR CHARACTER -OST BUILDINGS AND STREETS WITHIN
CONSERVATION AREAS ARE CONSTRUCTED OF TRADITIONAL
BUILDINGMATERIALSWITHLONGLIFEEXPECTANCIESSUCH
ASSTONE

Page 274

RENDERANDSLATE!DDITIONSANDALTERATIONS
TOTHEPUBLICREALMSHOULDREmECTTHISPRIORITISINGOF
QUALITYANDLONGEVITY
/VERVIEW
4HEBESTOUTSIDESPACESTENDTOBELIKEWELCOMINGOUTDOORROOMS
WHETHERTHEYARESTREETS

Page 275

COURTYARDSORPARKS3TREETSANDOTHER
PUBLICSPACESSHOULDCOMPLEMENTANDENHANCE!RGYLLAND"UTES
HISTORICBUILDINGS9ETTHEYAREATRISKOFBECOMINGINCREASINGLY
CLUTTERED WITH A PROLIFERATION OF TRAFlC SIGNS

Page 276

 BINS

Page 277

 BOLLARDS

Page 278


GUARDRAILSANDSTREETFURNITURE4HISRESULTSINSTREETSCAPESTHAT
AREBOTHUNSIGHTLYANDLACKCHARACTER
4HEDESIGNOFSPACESBETWEENBUILDINGSREQUIRESASMUCHCARE
ANDTHOUGHTASTHATOFTHEBUILDINGSTHEMSELVES
4OENHANCE!RGYLLAND"UTESSTREETSANDPUBLICSPACES

Page 279

DESIGNERS
SHOULDCONSIDERTHEFOLLOWINGPRINCIPLESOFGOODPRACTICE
#HARACTER
4HE DESIGN OF NEW PROPOSALS FOR THE 0UBLIC 2EALM IN
#ONSERVATION !REAS STREETS

Page 280

 SQUARES ETC	 SHOULD BE
APPROPRIATETOTHEOVERALLCHARACTEROFTHEAREAWITHIN
WHICHITISLOCATED4HEDESIGNOFSPACESSHOULDFOLLOW
THEIRFUNCTIONWITHANAPPROPRIATEEMPHASISONINFORMAL
ANDVERNACULARSPACE

Page 281

ANDFORMALSPACESANDDESIGNWHERE
REQUIRED
)TISIMPORTANTTHATTHEELEMENTSOFTHEPUBLICREALM
ADOPTANAPPROPRIATESTYLEANDAPPROACHTOOVERALLDESIGN

Page 282


lNISHES AND STREET FURNITURE 0ROPOSALS SHOULD REDUCE
CLUTTERANDPROVIDEACOORDINATEDDESIGNWHICHREINFORCES
THECHARACTEROFTHEAREA
$ESIGNSHOULDAVOIDhLEFTOVERvSPACESWHICHAREAMBIGUOUS
INTERMSOFOWNERSHIP4HEBOUNDARIESOFEXTERNALSPACES
SHOULDBECAREFULLYCONSIDEREDANDINTEGRATEDWITHTHE
TOPOGRAPHYANDTHEBUILDINGSTHEMSELVES7ALLS

Page 283

FENCES

Page 284


TREESANDHEDGESSHOULDBEDESIGNEDANDSPECIlEDIN
CHARACTERWITHTHEOVERALLQUALITYOFTHESPACE
   
GRASSLANE%ASDALE)SLAND
PUBLICSQUARE(ELENSBURGH
PARK2OTHESAY
STREET/BAN
Page 49

Page 285

PAGE
'ROUND3URFACES
 ROAD EDGE 3EIL )SLAND  HIGH QUALITY STREET SURFACING 2OTHESAY 
STREETSCAPING$UNOON AVENUE(ELENSBURGHGATES(ELENSBUGHHIGH
QUALITYSTREETSURFACING2OTHESAY PATH(YNISH

Page 286

4IREE STEPS)NVERERARAY
4RAFlCAND2OUTES
4HERELATIONSHIPBETWEENTRAFlCANDPEDESTRIANSREQUIRES
TOBECAREFULLYCONSIDEREDINPROPOSALSTOMINIMISETHE
NEEDFORSIGNAGEANDENSURESAFEPEDESTRIANFRIENDLY
PUBLICSPACE4HEDETAILEDDESIGNANDLAYOUTOFPUBLIC
SPACES SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHERE PEOPLE CAN AND
CANNOTBUTADDEDFEATURESSHOULDNOTBEOBTRUSIVE
4RAFlCCALMINGMEASURESSHOULDBElTTEDSENSITIVELY
INTOTHESTREETSANDSHOULDAVOIDTHEUSEOFEXTENSIVE
SIGNAGE"OLLARDSSHOULDBEOFAPPROPRIATEDESIGN
FORTHEAREA-ATERIALSSHOULDBEHIGHQUALITYAND
SYMPATHETICALLYCHOSEN)NMOST#ONSERVATION!REAS
SIMPLEASPHALTANDGRANITESETTSGENERALLYLOOKMORE
APPROPRIATETHANCOLOUREDCONCRETEBLOCKSURFACES
0LANTING
0LANTING CAN BE USED TO REINFORCE THE OVERALL
#ONSERVATION !REA CHARACTER AND PROVIDE PLEASANT
SPACES ! CONSIDERED

Page 287

 WELLINTEGRATED RELATIONSHIP
BETWEENBUILDINGSANDGREENSPACESHASTHEPOTENTIAL
TOADDTOAMENITYTOASETTLEMENTBUTTHISSHOULDBE
VIEWEDINTHECONTEXTOFTHE#ONSERVATION!REASTATUS
7HEREPLANTINGANDTREESARECONSIDEREDAPPROPRIATETHE
TYPEOFSPECIESSHOULDBECONSIDEREDCAREFULLY
0UBLIC!RT
4HEINCORPORATIONOF0UBLICARTIN#ONSERVATION!REAS
SHOULDALSOBECONSIDERED7ELLCHOSENANDAPPROPRIATE
PUBLICARTCANHELPMAKEAPLACESPECIALBUTINSOME
#ONSERVATION !REAS IT MAY NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE
ADDITIONTOTHEPUBLICREALM
'ROUND3URFACES
7ELLDESIGNED

Page 288

GOODQUALITYPAVEMENTANDSTREETSURFACES
AREVITALTOTHECHARACTEROFANAREA)N#ONSERVATION
!REASWHEREPOSSIBLEORIGINALPAVINGANDDETAILSSUCHAS
KERBINGSHOULDBERETAINEDORREUSED!GAINIFFEASIBLE
LOCALMATERIALSOFSIMPLEDESIGNANDAPPROPRIATECOLOURS
ANDTEXTURESCANBEINCORPORATED
3TREET&URNITURE
4HEMOSTATTRACTIVEURBANSPACESOFTENHAVEAMINIMUM
AMOUNT OF STREET FURNITURE AND SIGNAGE )N SOME
#ONSERVATION!REASTRADITIONALDESIGNSFORSTREETFURNITURE
MIGHTBEUSED

Page 289

INOTHERSITMAYBEMOREAPPROPRIATETO
INCORPORATEHIGHQUALITYCONTEMPORARYNEWDESIGNS)N
EITHERAPPROACHITISIMPORTANTTHATTHEDESIGNOFALL
ELEMENTS FROM RUBBISH BINS TO SEATING IS CONSISTENT
4OOOFTENTHELATERADDITIONOFINAPPROPRIATELYDESIGNED
ELEMENTSSUCHASPLANTERSCANDETRACTFROMTHEOVERALL
QUALITYOFASTREETORSQUARE/NCEADESIGNSUITEFOR
FURNITUREISESTABLISHEDITSHOULDBEADOPTEDFORFUTURE
ADDITIONSINTHEAREA
4HEDESIGNANDLOCATIONOFLIGHTINGISIMPORTANTAND
DESIGNERSSHOULDAVOIDTHEUSEOF@STANDARDLIGHTINGAND
CHOOSETHEDESIGNANDLIGHTSOURCEMOSTAPPROPRIATEFOR
THEAREA
3IGNSSHOULDBECAREFULLYLOCATEDOFTENTHISISBESTON
LAMPPOSTSORBUILDINGSTOAVOIDUNNECESSARYCLUTTER
4HEUSEOFGUARDRAILSSHOULDBEREDUCEDTOAMINIMUMFOR
SAFETYPURPOSESANDASWITHOTHERELEMENTSTHEYSHOULD
BEDESIGNEDINKEEPINGWITHTHEOVERALLCHARACTEROFTHE
SPACEANDAREA
-AINTENANCE
!S WITH ,ISTED "UILDINGS IT IS VITAL IN #ONSERVATION
!REASTHATTHE0UBLIC2EALMISMAINTAINEDREGULARLYAND
CAREFULLY
4HERE IS A NEED FOR A COORDINATED STRATEGY FOR THE
REPLACEMENT

Page 290

 MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF STREET
FURNITUREWHICHCOVERSALLELEMENTSFROMSIGNAGE

Page 291

FENCING

Page 292


BOLLARDSANDSEATINGTOPHONEBOXES

 
 
 

1.4  Public Realm                             
Page 50

Page 293

PAGE
"ETTERSHOPFRONT
sFASCIASSITONTHEORIGINALENTABLATURE
sSTALLRISERSARERETAINED
sNOPROJECTINGMETALROLLERSHUTTERHOUSINGS
sTRADITIONALLYPROPORTIONEDDOORSANDSHOPWINDOWS
sLEVELACCESSFORTHOSEWITHDISABILITIES
sVERYLARGEFASCIASANDSIGNSOBSCURETHEORIGINALENTABLATURE
ANDREPLACEITSORIGINALELEMENTSWITHASIMPLEFLATBOARDORBOX
sSHOPFRONTSHAVENOSTALLRISER
sPROJECTINGMETALROLLERSHUTTERHOUSINGS
sBADLYDESIGNEDANDPROPORTIONEDSIGNAGE
sPOORACCESSFORTHOSEWITHDISABILITIES
(OTELENTRANCE4ARBERT3HOPFRONT(ELENSBURGH
1.5       Shop Fronts                             
-ANY#ONSERVATION!REASINCORPORATESHOPS
!TTRACTIVE SHOP FRONTS CAN CREATE A PLEASANT
SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT THAT CAN POTENTIALLY
ENHANCETHESHOPPINGEXPERIENCEANDTHEREFORE
THEECONOMICVIABILITYOFACOMMUNITY3HOPFRONTS
SHOULDBEDESIGNEDTOCOMPLEMENTANDENHANCE
THEBUILDINGWITHINWHICHTHEYARELOCATEDANDTHE
LOCALENVIRONMENT&OREXAMPLE

Page 294

)NVERARAYHASAN
INFORMALARRANGEMENTWHICHENCOURAGESTHEUSEOF
BLACKANDWHITESIGNAGEONLY
7ITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
DESIGNISOFHIGHQUALITYTHATRELATESWELLTOTHE
SURROUNDING TOWNSCAPE

Page 295

 WHETHER TRADITIONAL OR
CONTEMPORARYDESIGNSOLUTIONSAREADOPTED
-ANY ORIGINALSHOPFRONTSHAVEBEENREPLACEDBY
UNSYMPATHETICFACADESWITHINAPPROPRIATEFASCIA
AND STALL RISER DEPTHS 4HE REMAINING WINDOWS
ARE OFTEN POORLY PROPORTIONED

Page 296

 OF UNATTRACTIVE
DESIGNANDCONTRUCTEDOFCHEAPMATERIALS4HISIS
DETRIMENTALTOTHECHARACTEROFTHEBUILDINGAND
THESTREETASAWHOLE
7HEREPOSSIBLEOLDERTRADITIONALSHOPFRONTSSHOULD
BE REPAIRED AND CAREFULLY MAINTAINED AS THEY
ADDTOANAREASCHARACTER.EWDESIGNSSHOULD
RESPECTTHECHARACTEROFTHEOVERALLSTREETANDTHE
PROPORTIONSOFTHEORIGINALWINDOWDESIGNASWELL
ASTHEBUILDINGOFWHICHTHEYFORMAPART
)NDESIGNINGPROPOSALSFORSHOPS

Page 297

REMEMBERTHAT
SHOP OWNERS HAVE A STATUTORY DUTY UNDER THE
$ISABILITY $ISCRIMINATION !CT  TO PROVIDE
REASONABLE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
4YPICALLYTHESEWOULDINCLUDELEVELTHRESHOLDSAND
POTENTIALLY WIDENING DOORWAYS .OTE THAT THE
REQUIREMENTFORWIDENINGDOORWAYSCANBEWAIVED
FOR,ISTED"UILDINGS	
3HOPFRONT4ARBERT
0ROBLEM SHOPFRONT
Page 51

Page 298

PAGE
Working with existing buildings
Maintenance, Extensions, Alterations and Conversions
 /VERVIEW
 -ATERIALSAND#ONSTRUCTION-ETHODS
 %XTENDINGANDALTERINGEXISTINGBUILDINGS
 #ONVERTING%XISTING"UILDINGS
 'ARDEN3PACES
Page 52

Page 299

PAGE
!LLBUILDINGSHAVEASIGNIlCANTAMOUNTOF%MBODIED%NERGY
INVESTEDINTHEM
h%MBODIED%NERGYv ISAWAYOFDESCRIBINGTHETOTALAMOUNTv
OFENERGYUSEDINABUILDINGSCONSTRUCTIONANDSUBSEQUENT
USE)TINCLUDESTHEENERGYITTAKESTOEXTRACTMINERALSAND
RAWMATERIALSFROMTHE%ARTHANDTHEFUELITTAKESTOTRANSPORT
MATERIALS4HELONGERABUILDINGSLIFETHEBETTERTHERETURNON
THEEMBODIEDENERGYINVESTEDINITANDTHELESSHARMDONETO
THEENVIRONMENT
4HEEFFECTIVEMAINTENANCE

Page 300

REHABILITATION

Page 301

EXTENSIONANDREUSE
OF!RGYLLAND"UTESEXISTINGBUILDINGSWILLENSURETHATTHEY
HAVEASLONGALIFEASPOSSIBLE/LDER(ISTORICBUILDINGSOFTEN
REQUIREADDITIONALCARETOBETAKENOFTHEMBYTHEIROCCUPIERS
ANDREGULARCAREFULMAINTENANCEISONEOFTHEMOSTEFFECTIVE
STRATEGIESTOENSURETHEIRSUSTAINABLEFUTURE/CCUPANTSOFALL
OLDERPROPERTIESCANHELPTOPROTECTANDENHANCETHEIROWN
SPECIALCHARACTERBYFOLLOWINGTHREEBASICPRINCIPLES
s 2EGULAR -AINTENANCE  REGULAR MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
TOPROTECTORIGINALFEATURESSUCHASEXISTINGWINDOWS

Page 302

EAVES
CHIMNEYSANDPORCHES)FMOREEXTENSIVEWORKISFOUNDTOBE
NECESSARY

Page 303

REPAIRRATHERTHANREPLACEMENTSHOULDBETHElRST
OPTIONANDWILLOFTENBEBETTERVALUE
s!PPROPRIATE-ATERIALSAND$ESIGNSWHENCONSIDERING
ALTERATIONSORREPAIRSTOTHEPROPERTY

Page 304

THECHARACTEROFTHE
ORIGINAL MATERIALS AND DESIGNS SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND
COMPLEMENTED
s/PPORTUNITIESFOR%NHANCEMENTALTERATIONSTOEXISTING
BUILDINGSCANPROVIDEANOPPORTUNITYTOENHANCETHEPROPERTY

BYRESTORINGANYMISSINGFEATURESANDIMPROVINGPOORLY
DESIGNEDALTERATIONSOFTHEPAST
2.0       Overview       
&ORMER3T#OLUMBASPARISHCHURCH

Page 305


BY * &RASER 3IM NOW CONVERTED
INTOTHE/BAN4OURIST)NFORMATION
#ENTRE!RGYLL3QUARE

Page 306

/BAN
!NEFFECTIVEMAINTENANCEREGIMEPREVENTSABUILDINGBECOMINGATRISKOFDELAPIDATIONINTHElRSTPLACEAND
REDUCESTHENEEDFORMOREMAJOR

Page 307

COSTLYANDPOTENTIALLYINAPPROPRIATEINTERVENTION
2EFERTOh!3TITCHIN4IMEMAINTAININGYOURPROPERTYvBY$AVID7RIGHTSON

Page 308

THE)("#TECHNICALSUB
COMMITTEEAND30!"AVAILABLEFROMHTTPWWWSPABORGUK
working with existing buildings
Page 53

Page 309

PAGE
!NECOLOGICALAPPROACH
(ISTORICALLYTHECONSTRUCTIONOFBUILDINGSALLOWEDTHEMTOBREATHEASTHE
WEATHERCHANGEDINTHECOURSEOFAYEARTHEIRTEMPERATUREANDMOISTURECONTENT
CHANGEDALONGWITHIT.EWCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSDONOTNECESSARILYALLOW
THISTOHAPPENSOITISIMPORTANTTHATABUILDINGSSYSTEMOFCONSTRUCTIONIS
UNDERSTOODANDTHATANYALTERATIONSORREPAIRSAREAPPROPRIATEFORTHEOVERALL
WELLBEINGOFITSSTRUCTURE
)NPARTICULAR

Page 310

REPAIRSANDALTERATIONSTOHISTORICBUILDINGSIE,ISTED"UILDINGS
ANDBUILDINGSIN#ONSERVATION!REAS	AREGENERALLYREQUIREDTOUSETRADITIONAL
BUILDINGMATERIALSRATHERTHANTHEIRMODERNALTERNATIVES/FTENDEVELOPERSOF
OLDERBUILDINGSWILLlNDTHATTHEIRSITESCANPROVEAUSEFULSOURCEOFhFREEv
SUSTAINABLEMATERIALSSUCHASSTONE

Page 311

BRICKORPAVINGSLABS
!LTHOUGHREQUIREMENTSFORTRADITIONALMATERIALSRESULTSFROMAWISHFORHISTORICAL
AUTHENTICITY

Page 312

 MANY NEW hSUSTAINABLEv BUILDINGS NOW ALSO USE A RANGE OF
TRADITIONALBUILDINGMATERIALS4HEIRREDISCOVERYCOMESWITHANUNDERSTANDING
THATTRADITIONALMATERIALSARELESSTOXICANDPROMOTEMORECOMFORTABLELIVING
CONDITIONS -ANY MODERN BUILDING MATERIALS  INCLUDING PAINT

Page 313

 STAINS AND
WOOD PRESERVATIVES  CONTAIN SOLVENTS

Page 314

 BIOCIDES AND OTHER VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
4HESEHAVETHECAPACITYTOhOFFGASvORTOLEACHINTOTHEATMOSPHERE4HEREIS
CURRENTLYCONCERNOVERTHEEFFECTOFTHISONHUMANHEALTHPARTICULARLYWITHINTHE
CONlNESOFOUREVERMOREAIRTIGHTBUILDINGS4HEUSEOF@HEALTHYMATERIALSWHICH
ARELOWINTOXINSISNOWSOMETHINGDEVELOPERSSHOULDCONSIDERANDPRIORITISE
%COLOGICALBUILDINGMATERIALSANDPRODUCTSARENONTOXICANDACTIVELYPROMOTE
HEALTHYANDCOMFORTABLELIVINGCONDITIONS4YPICALLY

Page 315

THEYINCLUDEINSULATION
MADEOUTOFmAX

Page 316

CELLULOSEORSHEEPWOOLBOARDSMADEFROMACOMPOSITEOF
CLAY

Page 317

REEDANDHESSIANlREDCLAYBLOCKSCLAYANDLIMEBASEDPLASTERSAND
WOODlBREBOARDS
4HESEBASICTECHNOLOGIESHAVEBEENEXTENSIVELYTESTEDBYCENTURIESOFWEATHER
AND HABITATION -ANY OF THEM HELP WITH MOISTURE CONTROL AND REGULATION
BECAUSEOFTHEIRVAPOURPERMEABILITYANDWATERABSORBINGPROPERTIES

Page 318

LEADING
TOAREDUCEDRISKOFCONDENSATION
3OLAR7ATER(EATINGAND6ENTILATION3YSTEMS
4HE)SLEOF'IGHAWASTHESUBJECTOFACOMMUNITYBUYOUTPROPERTIESONTHEISLANDWEREINA
STATEOFPOORREPAIRANDURGENTLYNEEDEDREFURBISHMENT)NADDITIONTOTHEUSUALREPAIRS

Page 319

SUCH
ASREROOlNGANDREWIRING

Page 320

ANDADDITIONALINSULATION

Page 321

VARIOUSOTHERENERGYSAVINGMEASURESHAVE
BEENINCORPORATEDINTOTHEHOUSES4HESEINCLUDEINSTALLATIONOFSOLARWATERHEATINGANDASOLAR
VENTILATIONSYSTEM
)TISINTENDEDTHATTHESOLARWATERHEATERWILLPROVIDEMOSTOFTHEHOTWATERREQUIREMENTSWITHOUT
COSTATOTHERTIMESTHEWATERWILLBEPREHEATEDBYTHESOLARCOLLECTORBEFOREENTERINGTHEHOT
WATERCYLINDER
4HESOLARVENTILATIONDRAWSAIRFROMBETWEENTHEROOFSLATESBYWAYOFASMALLSOLARPOWEREDFAN
ANDINTRODUCESAIRINTOTHEHOUSE3INCESLATESWARMQUICKLYWHENTHESUNISOUT

Page 322

THEAIRDRAWN
THROUGHTHEMISPREHEATEDBYTHESUN"YMILDLYVENTILATINGTHEHOUSE

Page 323

THESYSTEMHELPSPREVENT
CONDENSATIONWHICHMIGHTOTHERWISEBEAPROBLEM
2.0       Overview working with existing buildings
Page 54

Page 324

PAGE
2EVIEWEXISTINGMATERIALSANDDETAILSINTHELIGHT
OFCLIMATECHANGE
#LIMATE CHANGE IS LEADING TO  INCREASING RAINFALL

Page 325


HIGHERSTORMFREQUENCYANDRISINGSEALEVELS3COTTISH
%XECUTIVElGURESPOINTTOASEALEVELRISEOFMM
AFFECTING!RGYLLAND"UTEINTHENEXTYEARS	4HE
THREAT OF mOODING IS INCREASING FROM A VARIETY OF
SOURCESWINDDRIVENTIDALINCURSIONINADEQUATECULVERTS
THATAREVULNERABLETOBLOCKAGEANDPROPERTIESLOCATEDON
TIGHTLYCONlNEDmOODPLAINAREASBORDERINGRIVERCOURSES
)FANEXISTINGBUILDINGISLOCATEDINANAREAWHICHISAT
RISKFROMmOODING

Page 326

THENMEASURESCANTAKENTOREDUCETHE
EXTENTOFmOODDAMAGE2EFERTO0,!..).'!$6)#%./4%
0LANNINGAND"UILDING3TANDARDS!DVICEON&LOODING	
)TISWORTHCONSIDERINGHOWBUILDINGSCANBEDESIGNED
FORHIGHERRAINFALL4YPICALMEASURESCANINCLUDE
sPROVIDINGRAINWATERGUTTERINGANDPIPEWORKWHICH
ARELARGEENOUGHTOCOPEWITHAINCREASEIN
RAINFALL
sUSINGSTURDY

Page 327

DURABLEROOlNGSYSTEMSSARKING
BOARDSAREABETTERALTERNATIVETOONLYUSINGBATTENS
ANDROOlNGFELT
s ENSURING ALL BUILDING COMPONENTS SUCH AS
ROOF

Page 328

EAVESANDVERGES

Page 329

ANDDOORTHRESHOLDS	ARE
DESIGNED TO COPE WITH INCREASED EXPOSURE TO
STORMSANDHEAVYRAINFALL
-AXIMISE%NERGY%FlCIENCY
2EDUCINGTHEAMOUNTOFENERGYTHATISUSEDONA
DAYTODAYBASISWITHINBUILDINGSFORHEATINGAND
LIGHT	LEADSTOINCREASEDENERGYEFlCIENCYANDHELPS
TOREDUCEGLOBALWARMING(OWEVER

Page 330

ENERGYSAVING
PROPOSALSFOROLDERBUILDINGS

Page 331

ANDHISTORICBUILDINGSIN
PARTICULAR

Page 332

NEEDTOENSURETHATENERGYSAVINGMEASURES
DONOTHARMTHECHARACTEROFTHEBUILDINGORINCREASE
THERISKOFLONGTERMDETERIORATIONOFITSFABRIC
%NERGY EFlCIENT IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE
WITHOUTNEEDINGTOREMOVEORSUBSTANTIALLYALTERTHE
FABRICOFHISTORICPROPERTIESSHOULDBECONSIDEREDIN
CONJUNCTION WITH ADVICE FROM A SUITABLY QUALIlED
SPECIALISTBUILDINGPROFESSIONAL
)NGENERAL

Page 333

ITISWORTHCONSIDERINGTHEFOLLOWINGBASIC
IMPROVEMENTS
s REPAIRING AND DRAUGHT PROOlNG EXISTING TIMBER
WINDOWS AND DOORS OR REPLACING THEM WITH HIGH
PERFORMANCETIMBERDOORSETS
sINSTALLINGSECONDARYDOUBLEGLAZINGASANALTERNATIVE
TOINSERTING506#DOUBLEGLAZING
sUSINGENERGYEFlCIENTHEATINGANDLIGHTINGSYSTEMS
(ISTORICBUILDINGSVARYINTHEIRABILITYTOACCOMMODATE
ALTERATIONS3OMECANBEDETRIMENTALLYALTEREDBYTHE
SMALLESTCHANGEBUTOTHERSAREMOREACCOMMODATING
)TISIMPORTANTTOTAKETHISINTOACCOUNT

Page 334

TOBEAWARE
OF THE RELATIVE PRIORITIES

Page 335

 AND TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF
THEM
2.0       Overview    
2EVIEWOPPORTUNITIESFORRENEWABLEENERGYUSE
-ANYBUILDINGSWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTEHAVENOCONNECTION
TOMAINSGASANDTHECOSTOFOTHERFUELSISEXPENSIVE4HE
USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH INCREASED INSULATION LEVELS !VAILABLE
TECHNOLOGIESINCLUDE
s SOLAR WATER HEATING OR PHOTOVOLTAICS  GENERALLY THESE
PANELSAREROOFMOUNTEDANDTHEIRLOCATIONWILLNEEDCAREFUL
CONSIDERATIONINHISTORICLOCATIONSSUCHAS,ISTED"UILDINGSOR
WITHIN#ONSERVATION!REAS	
s WIND TURBINES  AGAIN

Page 336

 THEIR LOCATION WILL NEED CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION
sWOODFUELEITHERASSTOVESORWOODCHIPBOILERS
2EFERTO$ESIGN'UIDANCEWHICHDETAILSEXAMPLESOFRENEWABLE
ENERGYUSERSIN!RGYLL
working with existing buildings
Page 55

Page 337

PAGE
h4RADITIONAL"UILDINGSvPOINTSTOCONSIDER
2.1 Materials and Construction Methods
2OOlNG
7HEREVERPOSSIBLE

Page 338

MATCHEXISTINGROOlNGMATERIALSWHENCARRYINGOUTMAINTENANCE
ORREPAIRS&ORMANYHOUSESIN!RGYLLAND"UTETHISHASTENDEDTOBESLATE!VOID
CLUMSYMODERNFASCIAS
3LATE ISANATURAL

Page 339

SUSTAINABLEMATERIALWHICHWEATHERSWELLTOPRODUCEATTRACTIVE
ROOFSURFACES)TISVERSATILEINHOWITCANBEDETAILEDBUTCANBECOSTLYANDDIFlCULT
TOSOURCE)TMAYBEPOSSIBLETOREUSEEXISTINGSLATESTOHELPKEEPCOSTSDOWNORTO
USESLATEINSELECTEDIMPORTANTVISIBLEROOFAREAS)NSOMEINSTANCES

Page 340

GOODQUALITY
ARTIlCIALSLATEMAYBEANACCEPTABLEALTERNATIVE
#ONCRETEINTERLOCKINGTILESHAVEBEENUSEDMOREPREDOMINANTLYINPOSTS
NEWHOUSING4HEYARELARGE

Page 341

HEAVYANDDONOTLENDTHEMSELVESTOTHEELEGANTAND
LIGHTDETAILINGASSOCIATEDWITHTHECHARACTERFULSLATEROOFSIN!RGYLL)FTHEYARETO
BEUSEDTHEIRCONSTRUCTIONALQUALITIESMUSTBETAKENINTOACCOUNTINTHEDETAILAND
AESTHETICSOFPROPOSALS/FTENTHISISNOTTHECASEANDTHERESULTINGGABLETTESAND
DORMERDETAILSAREHEAVYANDUGLYASWELLASDIFlCULTTODESIGNFORWEATHERING
,EAD WASUSEDHISTORICALLYIN!RGYLLANDELSEWHERETOCREATECHARACTERFULROOFS)TIS
STILLUSEDINCONSTRUCTION

Page 342

BUTFOR(EALTHAND3AFETYREASONITSUSEMUSTBECAREFULLY
CONSIDERED,IKESLATE

Page 343

ITISVERSATILEBUTCOSTLY5SEDCORRECTLYITADDSCHARACTERAND
APPROPRIATEDETAILTOROOFSASWELLASPROVIDINGLONGTERMWEATHERING
/THERSHEETMATERIALSSUCHASCORRUGATEDSTEELORZINC

Page 344

COPPERANDALUMINIUM
$ESIGNDETAILSFORMETALROOlNGMATERIALSSHOULDTAKEACCOUNTOFTHEIRINHERENT
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CAN ENSURE CRISP AND
ELEGANTROOlNGSOLUTIONS&ELTROOlNGORALTERNATIVEHIGHPERFORMANCEMEMBRANE
ROOlNGISGENERALLYBESTNOTSEENANDTHEDESIGNOFROOFSSHOULDENSURETHATTHIS
ISSO
working with existing buildings
Page 56

Page 345

PAGE
0OOR CHOICE OF ROOlNG MATERIAL

 THESE TILES ARE UNLIKE TRADITIONAL
ALTERNATIVES

Page 346

 THIS
ROOFSTARTSTOLOOK
hHEAVYv

Page 347

 WITH
CLUMSYEAVESAND
VERGEDETAILS
lBRECEMENTSLATERECLAIMEDSCOTTISHSLATE INTERLOCKINGCONCRETEhSLATESv
 
 
-ETAL2OOlNGAND#LADDING
,EAD

Page 348

GLASSANDRECLAIMEDSLATEROOF%ASDALE)SLAND,EADROOF(ELENSBURGH#ORRUGATEDSTEELROOlNG
ANDCLADDING)SLEOF4IREE#ORRUGATEDIRONROOlNGANDCLADDING,OCHFYNESIDE#HURCH

Page 349

-INARD
BETTER
4HATCH
%XAMPLEFROM4IREEADVICEISAVAILABLEFROM(ISTORIC
3COTLAND ON APPROPRIATE THATCHING METHODS AND
MATERIALS
2.1 Materials and Construction Methods
0OORREPLACEMENTSFORSLATEANDBETTERALTERNATIVES
working with existing buildings
PAGE
Page 57

Page 350

PAGE
#HIMNEYS
(ISTORICALLYCHIMNEYSWEREESSENTIALFORMOSTBUILDINGS
AND THEIR INCORPORATION WAS A KEY PART OF DOMESTIC
ARCHITECTURE #HIMNEY STACKS AND POTS EMPHASISE THE
ROOmINESANDSOMETIMESTHEMASSINGOFDWELLINGSAND
INMOSTCASESSHOULDNOTBEREMOVED3OMESTACKSHAVE
INTRICATEDETAILINGWHICHADDSTOTHECHARACTEROFTHE
PROPERTYANDSOMEHOMESINCORPORATEFEATURECHIMNEY
POTS4HESESHOULDBERETAINED
.EW EXTENSIONS AND DWELLINGS INCORPORATING CHIMNEYS OR
STACKSFORPASSIVEVENTILATIONSHOULDTAKEACCOUNTOFTHE
POSITIVEAESTHETICCONTRIBUTIONTHEYCANMAKETOADESIGNAND
SHOULDNOTSIMPLYBEACCOMMODATEDASANAFTERTHOUGHT
7ALLS
3TONEWORK4RADITIONALBUILDINGSWITHIN!RGYLLAND
"UTEDEMONSTRATEARANGEOFTYPESOFSTONEWALLS

Page 351


FROM RANDOM RUBBLE TO ASHLAR MASONRY

Page 352

 WITH A
NUMBEROFREGIONALVARIATIONS
/LDSTONEWALLSWOULDHAVEORIGINALLYBEENPOINTED
WITHSOFTLIMEMORTAR

Page 353

ANDMANYATTRACTIVEBUILDINGS
HAVEBEENVISUALLYCOMPROMISED-OREIMPORTANTLY

Page 354


THEIRCONSTRUCTIONHASBEENDETRIMENTALLYAFFECTED
BYINAPPROPRIATEREPOINTING
)NNEWMASONRYEXTENSIONSTHECHOICEOFPOINTING
REQUIRESTOBECONSIDEREDANDWHEREITISINTENDED
THATPROPOSALS@MATCHTHEEXISTINGBUILDING

Page 355

POINTING
SHOULDMATCHTHECOLOURANDSTYLEOFTHEORIGINAL
ANDHAVEAPPROPRIATEJOINTSIZESANDPROlLE
(ARLING 2UBBLEWALLSAREOFTENHARLEDRENDERED	
ANDTHEREAREARANGEOFMATERIALSAVAILABLE
s 4RADITIONALLIMEHARLING CONSISTSOFLIMEPUTTY
ANDANAGGREGATEUSUALLYSAND	DOESNOTINCLUDE
CEMENT	
4RADITIONALHARLINGISNORMALLYAPPLIEDQUITETHINLYIN
ONEORTWOCOATS4HISMEANSTHATTHESURFACEOFTHE
HARLFOLLOWSTHEPROlLEOFTHEWALLBELOWnALLOWING
ANYUNDULATIONSTOREADTHROUGH7HILETHISISA
SUBTLEEFFECT

Page 356

ITCREATESAVERYDIFFERENTAPPEARANCETO
$ECORATIVEhFEATUREhCHIMNEYSIN!RGYLLAND"UTE
THEMOREREGULARlNISHOFAGENERALLYTHICKER

Page 357

CEMENT
HARL/FTENBUILDINGSWERELIMEWASHED

Page 358

WITHNATURAL
PIGMENTSADDEDTOTHELIMEWASHTHESETRADITIONAL
MATERIALSREDUCETHEEFFECTSOFCONDENSATIONAND
ALLOWTHEMOISTUREINTHEWALLSTOEVAPORATETOTHE
OUTSIDE
s 7ETDASHHARLING CEMENT

Page 359

SANDANDHYDRATED
LIME	
4HE PROPORTION OF CEMENT TO HYDRATED LIME WILL
AFFECTHOWIMPERVIOUSTHEHARLISWHICHINTURNWILL
AFFECTITSABILITYTOADHERETOITSBACKGROUND
s $RYDASH HARLING USESAVERYHIGHPROPORTIONOF
CEMENT	
!COATINGISAPPLIEDTOTHEWALLANDTHEAGGREGATE
USUALLYPEBBLESORCRUSHEDPEBBLES	ISTHENTHROWN
ONTOPOFTHECOATING7HILEREPAINTINGORADDING
ANOTHERRENDERCOATWILLADDRESSTHECOLOUROFTHE
HARL

Page 360

NEITHERTYPEOFCEMENTHARLINGISASAPPROPRIATE
FORTRADITIONALBUILDINGSASLIMEHARLING
)TISAGOODIDEATODETERMINETHEEXISTINGTYPEOF
HARLINGUSEDBEFOREPROCEEDINGWITHANYNEWWORK
7ETDASHORTRADITIONALLIMEHARLINGCANBEANALYSED
TODETERMINETHEEXACThMIXvWHICHHASBEENUSED
SOTHATNEWREPAIRSAREAGOODMATCH
 &ERRY)NN,UTYENS	 2OSNEATH (YNISH4IREE

Page 361

!RGYLL-ANSIONS/BAN 6ILLAS(ELENSBURGH
 
 
 RANDOMRUBBLE%ASDALE)SLAND
FEATUREPOINTING4IREE
DECORATIVEDRESSEDSTONEWORK2OTHESAY
ASHLARMASONRY(ELENSBURGH
2.1 Materials and Construction Methods working with existing buildings
Page 58

Page 362

PAGE
$0//!-
*+.$

/*)*
.$./!)!-

*//*(.$
.$%"/
%) *2.!
0''!4
.$
*-
.$
!%#$/
/*)!
%''
))!-
%)%)# 0/!-
%)%)#

/*)
*
!!/%)#
%'.
/%'!

*//*(
%'
'5%)#

-.
7INDOWS
2EPLACINGWINDOWSONNON,ISTEDBUILDINGSGENERALLYFALLSINTO
THECATEGORYOFhPERMITTEDDEVELOPMENTv
(OWEVER

Page 363

 WITHIN #ONSERVATION !REAS COVERED BY AN !RTICLE
 $IRECTION hPERMITTED DEVELOPMENTv RIGHTS ARE REMOVED SO
0LANNING#ONSENTWILLBENEEDED&LATTEDPROPERTIESDONOT
ENJOY hPERMITTED DEVELOPMENTv RIGHTS EITHER SO ALL WINDOW
REPLACEMENTMUSTALSOBETHESUBJECTOF0LANNING#ONSENT
,ISTED"UILDINGSWILLNEEDREPLACEMENTWINDOWSWHICHMATCH
THEORIGINALSINEVERYRESPECTAND,ISTED"UILDING#ONSENTWILL
BENEEDED
/RIGINALWINDOWSCANBEGIVENANEWLEASEOFLIFEBYOVERHAULING
THEMBUTIFREPLACEMENTORREINSTATEMENTISNECESSARY

Page 364

PURPOSE
MADEWINDOWSTOMATCHTHEORIGINALMATERIALSANDEXTERNAL
APPEARANCEARETHEMOSTSUSTAINABLEOPTION
)NGENERAL

Page 365

AVOIDMIXINGDIFFERENT@TYPESOPENINGPATTERNSAND
MATERIALS	OFWINDOWSONTHESAMEPROPERTY4RADITIONALWINDOWS

Page 366


ESPECIALLYTIMBERSLIDINGSASHES

Page 367

GENERALLYHELPTOMAINTAINTHE
CHARACTEROFOLDERBUILDINGS.ONTRADITIONALMATERIALS

Page 368

ESPECIALLY
506#

Page 369

CANNOTEASILYMATCHTRADITIONALTIMBERWINDOWS
5SELOWENERGYGLAZINGSYSTEMS
-OSTTRADITIONALSINGLEGLAZEDWINDOWSOFFERLITTLERESISTANCETO
THEPASSAGEOFHEATANDANYBENElTSFROMSOLARGAINARELOST
VERYQUICKLY
4HE LATEST 3COTTISH "UILDING 3TANDARDS NOW ASK FOR A GOOD
STANDARD OF THERMAL PERFORMANCE FOR GLAZING SYSTEMS )N
GENERAL

Page 370

DOUBLEORTRIPLEGLAZEDUNITS

Page 371

WITHARGONUSEDTOlLL
THESPACEBETWEENTHEPANESANDA LOWECOATING
 WILLGIVEA
GOODLEVELOFTHERMALPERFORMANCE)NADDITION

Page 372

DOUBLEGLAZING
PROVIDES IMPROVED SECURITY

Page 373

 SOUND INSULATION AND MINIMISES
CONDENSATION
2.1 Materials and Construction Methods 
4HECHARACTERISTICAPPEARANCEOF3ASHAND#ASE
WINDOWSFORMSANIMPORTANTPARTOFTHECHARACTER
OF!RGYLLAND"UTESRURALHOMES

Page 374

VILLAGESAND
TOWNSWHICHISWORTHRETAINING
3ASHAND#ASEWINDOWSARESTILLAPRACTICALSOLUTION
TOTHE3COTTISHCLIMATEANDAREGENERALLYEXTREMELY
DURABLE/LDERWINDOWSCANBEUPGRADEDANDALL
THECOMMONMAINTENANCEANDREPAIRTASKSFOR
TRADITIONALSASHANDCASEWINDOWSAREDESCRIBEDIN
AUSEFULLEAmETFROM(ISTORIC3COTLANDCALLED
h,OOKINGAFTERYOURSASHANDCASEWINDOWS!
SHORTGUIDEFORHOMEOWNERSv
7HERESASHANDCASEWINDOWSNEEDTOBEREPLACED

Page 375


THEREAREANUMBEROF3COTTISHMANUFACTURERSWHO
CANPROVIDENEWWINDOWSSIZEDTOlTEXISTING
OPENINGSANDWHOCANALSOPROVIDEEXACTMATCHES
FORORIGINALWINDOWSFORMINGPARTOFHISTORIC
BUILDINGS.EWSASHANDCASEWINDOWSINCLUDE
DOUBLEGLAZINGANDDRAUGHTSTRIPPINGANDCAN
INCLUDEhSIMPLEXvlTTINGSFOREASEOFCLEANING

3ASHAND#ASE7INDOWS
#ONSTITUENTPARTSOFASASHANDCASEWINDOW
FROM(ISTORIC3COTLAND'UIDANCE3IMPSONAND"ROWN!RCHITECTS	


,OWE'LAZING,OWEGLASSHASASPECIALINVISIBLECOATING
THATREmECTSHEATBACKINTOTHEROOM	
working with existing buildings
Page 59

Page 376

PAGE
$OORS
)N OLDER BUILDINGS ORIGINAL FRONT DOORS ARE GENERALLY WELL
PROPORTIONEDANDDETAILED

Page 377

ANDSHOULDBERETAINEDANDREPAIRED
IFATALLPOSSIBLE)FRETAINED

Page 378

ORIGINALDECORATIVEDETAILSAND
SURROUNDSALSOENHANCETHECHARACTEROFTHEBUILDING
0AINTlNISHES
2URAL JOINERY WAS OFTEN lNISHED WITH PAINT NOT STAIN SO
CONSIDERTHEUSEOFTRADITIONALPAINTCOLOURS3OMETRADITIONAL
ESTATECOLOURSWEREEVENQUITEBRIGHT
#ONVENTIONALSYNTHETICPAINTCONSISTOFNUMEROUSINGREDIENTS
TOGIVEITTHEPROPERTIESREQUIREDFORITSPURPOSE

Page 379

INCLUDING
RESINS

Page 380

PIGMENTS

Page 381

DRYINGAGENTS

Page 382

ANDSOLVENTS-ANYOFTHESE
COMPONENTSMAYBETOXIC

Page 383

BUTTHEPRIMARYCONCERNRELATES
TOTHEUSEOFVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDS6/#S	USEDAS
ASOLVENT

Page 384

ASTHINNERSANDINCLEANINGMATERIALS!FTERTHE
PAINTISAPPLIED

Page 385

THETOXICINGREDIENTSCANBEGIVENOFF@OFF
GASSING	FORSOMETIMEAFTERWARDS

Page 386

ANDTHEREISCONCERNABOUT
THENEUROLOGICALEFFECTSOFSOLVENTS-INERALANDPLANTBASED
PAINTS

Page 387

SUCHASTHOSEBASEDONLINSEEDOIL

Page 388

CANBECONSIDERED
TOBEGENERALLYENVIRONMENTALLYBENIGNALTHOUGHMINERALSARE
NOTRENEWABLE

Page 389

BUTINSOMECASESTHERECANBEDISADVANTAGES

Page 390


SUCHASDURABILITY

Page 391

DRYINGTIME

Page 392

EASEOFAPPLICATIONANDCOST
&LOORS
3OLID&LOORS TRADITIONALLYSOLIDmOORSWEREFORMEDFROM
CLAY

Page 393

COBBLES

Page 394

SETTSORmAGSTONESPLUSDRAINAGECHANNELSAND
GULLIES

Page 395

ANDDIDNOTUSUALLYINCORPORATEA$0-OR$0#5NLESS
ANOLDERSOLIDmOORISHISTORICALLYIMPORTANT

Page 396

THEBESTSOLUTION
ISOFTENTOPROVIDEANEWCONCRETESCREED7HEREPOSSIBLE

Page 397


TAKEUPANDRETAINORIGINALlNISHESFORREUSE
3USPENDED4IMBER&LOORS WHEREPOSSIBLERETAINANDREPAIR
EXISTINGOLDERSUSPENDEDTIMBERmOORSASANALTERNATIVETO
REPLACINGTHEMWITHSOLIDmOORS
  
  !RANGEOF!RGYLLAND"UTEDOORSANDWINDOWS
LOCATIONSAREASNOTEDBELOW
)NVERARAY#AMPBELTOWN2OTHESAY#AMPBELTOWN (ELENSBURGH#OLL
2.1 Materials and Construction Methods working with existing buildings
Page 60

Page 398

PAGE
)FCONSIDERINGCARRYINGOUTWORKONAPROPERTY

Page 399

BUILDINGOWNERSSHOULDCHECKWITH!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCILWHETHERTHEY
REQUIRE
sPLANNINGCONSENT
sLISTEDBUILDINGCONSENT
sCONSERVATIONAREACONSENT
sADVERTISEMENTCONSENT
sABUILDINGWARRANT
4HEYSHOULDALSOESTABLISHIF
sPLANNINGGUIDANCEEXISTSONTHEWORKBEINGCONSIDEREDEGREPLACEMENTDOORSANDWINDOWSORSATELLITEANTENNAE
slNANCIALASSISTANCEISAVAILABLE
sACONSERVATIONAREAAPPRAISALEXISTSTHATCANGUIDECHANGE
2.2  Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
2EQUIRED#ONSENTSAND'UIDANCE
4HE EXTENSION AND ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING
PROPERTYISANOPPORTUNITYTOIMPROVETHEQUALITY
OFTHEEXISTINGBUILDINGANDITSSITE

Page 400

ANDPROPOSALS
SHOULDBEDESIGNEDWITHTHISINMIND
)N MANY CASES AN ORIGINAL BUILDING MAY NEED
ENHANCEMENT FOR EXAMPLE IT MAY HAVE BEEN
UNATTRACTIVEINITSORIGINALDESIGNORMAYHAVE
BEEN BADLY ALTERED IN THE PAST 0ARTICULARLY IN
THESEINSTANCES

Page 401

EXTENSIONSANDALTERATIONSOFFER
AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE CHARACTER AND
POTENTIALLYVALUE	OFTHEORIGINALBUILDINGINA
POSITIVEWAY
4HERANGEOFPOSSIBLEINTERVENTIONSEXTENDSFROM
NEWSUNPORCHESANDENTRANCES

Page 402

TOSMALLERTYPICAL
!RGYLLAND"UTE	hLEANTOvEXTENSIONS

Page 403

THROUGHTO
SIGNIlCANTREMODELLING!LTHOUGHALLOFTHESECAN
BEVIEWEDAS@SMALLWORKSTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHEIR
QUALITYOFDESIGNSHOULDNOTBEUNDERESTIMATED

Page 404

AS
SUCHINTERVENTIONSAFFECTTHECHARACTEROFEXISTING
BUILDINGSANDOFTHEIRLOCALE
0RIORTOTHESTARTOFANYALTERATIONOREXTENSION
ACAREFULEXAMINATIONOFABUILDINGSFABRICWILL
REVEALWHATCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSANDMATERIALS
HAVE BEEN USED AND HOW THESE HAVE CHANGED
THROUGHTIME)TISALSOHELPFULTOPUTABUILDING
ORSITEINTOCONTEXTnTOCONSIDERTHEIMPACTOFA
POTENTIALDEVELOPMENTONOTHERBUILDINGSINITS
IMMEDIATELOCALE
%XTENSIONS THATARENEARTOTHEBOUNDARYOFA
PROPERTYREQUIRETOTAKEACCOUNTOFTHENEEDTO
MAINTAINACCESSFORREFUSEBINS

Page 405

GARDENWASTEAND
FORMAINTENANCE4HEIMPACTOFSUCHEXTENSIONS
ONNEIGHBOURINGPROPERTIESSHOULDBECONSIDERED
)NSOMECASESITWILLBEACCEPTABLETOBREAKWITH
EXISTINGROOFANDBUILDINGLINESINOTHERSITWILL
NOT
$ESIGNERS SHOULD THEN BE ABLE TO INTEGRATE
PRIORITIESFORTHEBUILDINGORSITEITSELFINTOTHEIR
INITIALPROPOSALS

Page 406

ANDWILLBEWELLPLACEDTOTAKE
ACCOUNTOFABUILDINGSCONTEXT
4HISGUIDANCEBROADLYCONSIDERSTWOBASICWAYS
TOAPPROACHTHEEXTENSIONANDALTERATIONOFAN
EXISTINGHOUSE
/PTION%XTENSIONSAREANADDITIONOFDIFFERENT
ARCHITECTURALCHARACTER
4HISAPPROACHISOFTENMOSTSUCCESSFULWHENADDINGSMALLER
EXTENSIONSEGCONSERVATORIES

Page 407

GARDENROOMSORSUNSPACES

Page 408


PORCHESORDORMERWINDOWS4OBESUCCESSFULPROPOSALSREQUIRE
A SENSITIVE DESIGNER AND CAN OFTEN IMPROVE AN EXISTING
BUILDING RATHER THAN DETRACT FROM ITS CHARACTER ! SKILLED
DESIGNERCANEMPLOYTHISAPPROACHTOLARGEREXTENSIONSTO
EXISTINGBUILDINGS
!CHIEVING THIS REQUIRES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF THE PLOT
CHARACTERISTICS

Page 409

 ORIENTATION AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
BUILDING)TISIMPORTANTTOHAVEACLEARIDEAOFTHEMASSING
OFTHEPROPOSALSASANOVERALLCOMPOSITIONWITHTHEEXISTING
BUILDING!PPLICANTSARESTRONGLYENCOURAGEDTOEXPLOREAND
PRESENTTHISUSINGDMODELSORSKETCHES)TISWORTHNOTING
THATINTHECASEOF,ISTED"UILDINGS

Page 410

OFTEN(ISTORIC3COTLAND
ARESUPPORTIVEOFTHISAPPROACHPROVIDEDTHEDESIGNISOFHIGH
QUALITY
/PTION%XTENSIONSFOLLOWTHEARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTEROFTHEEXISTINGBUILDING
!LTERNATIVELY EXISTING BUILDINGS MIGHT BE EXTENDED
BY INTEGRATING STYLE

Page 411

 MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS 4HE DESIGN PERHAPS BE BASED ON ATTRACTIVE
ANDUNDERSTOODPRECEDENTSFOREXTENSIONSOFTHESAME
TYPE7HILSTTHISMIGHTBECONSTRUEDAS@LESSRISKTHAN
AN EXTENSION OF DIFFERENT CHARACTER

Page 412

 IT IS NONE THE
LESSIMPORTANTTHATTHEEXTENSIONISSENSITIVEINITS
DESIGNANDCONSTRUCTIONANDTHATTHETRADITIONOFLOCAL
CONSTRUCTIONISUNDERSTOOD
4HISAPPROACHISPARTICULARLYAPPROPRIATEIFTHEORIGINAL
BUILDINGISINAPROMINENTPARTOFA#ONSERVATION!REA
WHERE THE COLLECTIVE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDINGS IS
IMPORTANTINCREATINGASENSEOFASPECIALPLACE
Page 61

Page 413

PAGE
RESPECTWINDOWCILL
ANDHEADHEIGHTS

Page 414

AND
HEIGHTSOFBUILDING
CORNICESETC
%XTENSIONSWITHINSETTLEMENTS RETAININGEXISTINGCHARACTER
EAVESHEIGHT
TIONSANDVERTICALITY
OFhPARENTvBUILDING
CONSERVATORYOREXTENSIONISCLEARLYASMALLADDITIONTOTHEPROPERTY
ANDDOESNOTDETRACTFROMITSCHARACTER
4HESECONTEMPORARYEXTENSIONSHAVEAVERYDIFFERENTCHARACTERTO
THEEXISTINGBUILDINGSTOWHICHTHEYARECONNECTED

Page 415

BUTTHEYARE
WELLDESIGNEDANDSITEDANDUSEGOODQUALITYMATERIALSWHICHARE
SYMPATHETICTOTHEIRCONTEXT

Page 416

"ECAUSEOFTHISTHEYAREWELLINTEGRATED
ANDAPPROPRIATEFORTHEIRSURROUNDINGS
%XTENSIONS WITHIN SETTLEMENTS TOWNS
ANDVILLAGES	POINTSTOCONSIDER
7HERE EXTENSIONS OR ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED
WITHIN AN EXISTING SETTLEMENT IT IS IMPORTANT
TO CONSIDER THEIR IMPACT ON THE SETTLEMENTS
TOWNSCAPETHECHARACTEROFITSBUILTDEVELOPMENT

Page 417


USUALLY DETERMINED BY THE LAYOUT AND SPACE
BETWEENBUILDINGSTHEIRARCHITECTURALSTYLEAND
THEMATERIALSTHEYINCORPORATE
#HANGESTOTHEBUILDINGSANDENVIRONMENTSUCH
AS THE INlLLING OF GAPS BETWEEN BUILDINGS

Page 418

 THE
ADDITIONOFEXTENSIONS

Page 419

THEALTERATIONOFBUILDING
LINESOROFTENTHEPROVISIONOFNEWWINDOWS

Page 420

AFFECT
THATCHARACTER)FSUCHCHANGESAREUNSYMPATHETIC
TOTHEOVERALLCONTEXTANDPROMINENTFROMSTREETS

Page 421


VIEWPOINTSORPEDESTRIANROUTESTHEYWILLHAVEA
DETRIMENTALEFFECTONTHEWIDERENVIRONMENTAS
WELLASTHEORIGINALPROPERTY
)TISWORTHCONSIDERINGHOWATOWNORVILLAGEHAS
DEVELOPEDANDWHETHERANEXTENSIONORALTERATION
lTS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN

Page 422

 TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THE INCREMENTAL EFFECT OF PREVIOUS
EXTENSIONSINTHEAREA
/FTEN WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR

Page 423

 CONSISTENT ROOF
FORMANDLINEINAGROUPOFHOUSES

Page 424

ITMAYBE
UNACCEPTABLE FOR AN EXTENSION TO INTERRUPT THE
ROOF PROlLE 3IMILARLY IF THE FRONTS OF A ROW OF
HOUSESAREINACONSISTENTLINE

Page 425

EXTENSIONSFORWARD
OFTHISLINEWILLMOSTLIKELYBEINAPPROPRIATEAS
THEYWILLBECOMEOVERLYPROMINENT)NTHECASEOF
TERRACEDANDSOMETIMESSEMIDETACHEDHOUSES	
IN A HOMOGENOUS AND COHERENT STREET

Page 426

 SQUARE
ORCRESCENT

Page 427

ITMAYBEHIGHLYDETRIMENTALTOTHE
OVERALLTOWNSCAPEIFTHEORIGINALMATERIALSOFTHE
DEVELOPMENTAREINCONSISTENTLYPAINTED

Page 428

RENDERED
OROVERCLAD
'ARDEN2OOMS%DINBURGH
2.2  Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
Page 62

Page 429

PAGE
2URALEXTENSIONSPOINTSTOCONSIDER
7HEREEXTENSIONSORALTERATIONSAREPROPOSEDIN
ARURALLOCATIONITISIMPORTANTTOCONSIDERTHEIR
IMPACTONTHEIRLANDSCAPESETTING3OMETIMES
EXTENSIONSANDALTERATIONSCANLOOKCOMPLETELY
OUTOFPLACEEVENTHOUGHTHEYHAVEUSEDSIMILAR
BUILDING MATERIALS AND DETAILS TO THE OLDER
SETTLEMENTSAROUNDTHEM%VENSMALLEXTENSIONS
AND ALTERATIONS CAN HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE
EFFECTONTHEIRSURROUNDINGS
-OST SMALLER RURAL BUILDINGS HAVE SIMPLE
MASSING AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WHICH ARE
DERIVEDFROMTHEIRLOCALEANDTHETIMEATWHICH
THEYWEREBUILT
-ANY RURAL ROOFS ARE VERY SIMPLE THEY FORM
SIMPLE PLANES AND THEIR EAVES

Page 430

 DORMERS AND
VERGE DETAILS ARE UNCOMPLICATED "UILDING
FACADESAREMADEUPOFMOREWALLTHANWINDOW
-ANYSIMPLERBUILDINGSANDSMALLERGROUPSOF
BUILDINGSSUCHASFARMSTEADINGS	HAVEEVOLVED
TO FORM CHARACTERISTIC

Page 431

 VERNACULAR  GROUPINGS
ANDTHISSIMPLEMASSINGANDGROUPINGHASA
MAJORIMPACTONTHEIRCHARACTER.EWEXTENSIONS
ANDALTERATIONSNEEDBEDESIGNEDTOMAINTAIN
THIS SO CONmICTING ADDONS

Page 432

 MIXTURES OF
MATERIALSANDFUSSYARCHITECTURALDETAILSSHOULD
BEAVOIDEDASFARASPOSSIBLE
2.2 Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
3YMPATHETIC%XTENSIONSEVENTHOUGHTHISEXTENSION IS
CLEARLYDIFFERENTTOTHEORIGINALPROPERTYOFWHICHITFORMS
APARTITLOOKSAPPROPRIATEFORITSLOCATIONBECAUSEITHAS
SIMILARPROPORTIONSANDSIMPLEDETAILS
ACCEPTABLE
sSCALEANDPROPORTIONSOFTHEORIGINALARERESPECTED
sSIMPLEFORMSCOMPLEMENTORIGINALPROPERTY
sTHESAMEROOFSHAPEANDTHESAMESIMPLEDETAILS
ALESSACCEPTABLESOLUTION
sOVERCOMPLICATED

Page 433

OUTOFSCALEANDINAPPROPRIATEDETAILS
ORIGINALBUILDING
Page 63

Page 434

PAGE
2OOF$ETAILS
2OOlNGANDmASHINGMATERIALS

Page 435

RIDGE

Page 436

VERGEANDEAVESDETAILSPLAYA
KEYPARTINDElNINGTHECHARACTEROFABUILDING&INIALSANDDECORATIVE
RIDGETILESAREALSOIMPORTANTFEATURESOFSOMEOLDERBUILDINGS)F
THESEAREPROPOSEDINNEWEXTENSIONSTHEYSHOULDBEOFAPPROPRIATE
QUALITYANDPREFERABLYHANDCRAFTED-ANYMODERNMASSPRODUCED
DECORATIVEDETAILSAREOFPOORDESIGNQUALITY
7HEN IT IS INTENDED THAT ALTERATIONS OR EXTENSIONS MAINTAIN
THE CHARACTER OF AN EXISTING BUILDING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE
CONSTRUCTIONALDETAILSANDMATERIALSOFPROPOSALSARECONSISTENTWITH
THIS
7HEREITISINTENDEDTHATNEWWORKSHAVEADIFFERENTCHARACTER
FROMTHEORIGINALBUILDINGTHEIMPORTANCEOFTHEEFFECTOFTHESE
DETAILSSHOULDBETAKENINTOACCOUNTINDEMONSTRATINGTHEQUALITY
OFPROPOSALS
#ARESHOULDALWAYSBETAKENTORETAINCHARACTERISTICFEATURESOFTHE
EXISTINGROOF

Page 437

SUCHASCHIMNEYS

Page 438

PITCH

Page 439

RIDGETILESETC
%ILEAN%ISDEAL(ALL%ASDALE)SLAND
!LTERATIONANDEXTENSIONOFANEXISTINGBUILDINGMAKINGTHE
MOSTOFTHESUNSENERGY
4HECENTRALCOLUMNSUPPORTINGTHEPYRAMIDALROOFISFORMEDFROMASHIPS
MAST

Page 440

FROMTHESAILINGSHIP.ORVALWHICHSANKNEARBYIN4IMBERFROM
THESHIPSCARGOWASUSEDTOFORMTHE(ALLSRAFTERS4HE(ALLWASRENOVATED
ANDREOPENEDIN-AYANDRETAINSTHEORIGINALTIMBERSANDORIGINAL
SLATEWALLS
4HEROOFHASBEENREPLACEDWITHRECLAIMEDWESTHIGHLANDSLATE.EW
ROOmIGHTSMEANSTHATTHEINTERIORISLIGHTERANDBRIGHTERANEWEXTENSION
HASALEADROOFWHICHCOMPLEMENTSTHEEXISTINGPYRAMIDALROOF

Page 441

RATHERTHAN
COMPETINGWITHIT
!SOLARPANELPROVIDESHOTWATERDURINGTHESUMMERMONTHSITPRODUCES
INEXCESSOFREQUIREMENTSANDTHECOMMUNITYISKEENTOEXTENDITSUSETO
PROVIDEHOTWATERFORTHEADJACENT4EA2OOM
2OOFS
4HEPITCHOFTHEROOF

Page 442

ITSFORMANDTHEPROPORTION
OFROOFTOWALLINGAREKEYTOTHEAESTHETICSOF
EVERYBUILDING0ROPOSALS

Page 443

ANDTHOSEREQUIRING
DORMERSINPARTICULAR

Page 444

SHOULDENSURETHATTHE
FORMOFTHEEXTENSIONISDESIGNEDTOBEROOFED
IN A WAY THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING!6ICTORIANVILLAHOUSEWITHDORMERS

Page 445


GABLETTESANDSMALLHIPROOFEDPROTRUSIONSIS
UNLIKELYTOBESUCCESSFULLYEXTENDEDWITHALARGE
PLAINHIPPEDROOF
-ATERIALS

Page 446

DETAILSANDCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSPOINTSTOCONSIDER
/PENINGS
4HEDESIGNOFANEXTENSIONSSHOULDALWAYSBEBASEDONTHE
MASSING

Page 447

SCALEANDMATERIALSOFTHEEXISTINGBUILDINGOFWHICH
ITFORMSAPART.EWOPENINGSSHOULDBEPOSITIONEDANDSIZED
TOACHIEVEASENSEOFBALANCEANDPROPORTIONWITHTHEEXISTING
FACADES
4HEOPENINGTYPE

Page 448

PROPORTION

Page 449

SUBDIVISIONWITHASTRAGALS	AND
MATERIALSOFNEWWINDOWSANDDOORWAYSHAVEAVERYSIGNIlCANT
IMPACTONTHECHARACTEROFABUILDING7HERETHEORIGINALSARE
OFGOODARCHITECTURALQUALITY

Page 450

NEWERINSERTIONSSHOULDGENERALLY
MATCH7HERETHEORIGINALISLESSACCEPTABLE

Page 451

NEWERINSERTIONS
SHOULDBEOFBETTERQUALITYINORDERTOENHANCETHEPROPERTY
-ANYTRADITIONALBUILDINGSHAVEVERYSMALLWINDOWOPENINGS

Page 452


SIZEDTOREDUCETHEIMPACTOF!RGYLLAND"UTESSEVEREWEATHER
4HISMEANSTHATTHEYMISSOUTONTHECHANCETOMAKETHEMOST
OFTHESUNSENERGY#ONSIDERSUPPLEMENTINGEXISTINGWINDOWS
WITHROOFLIGHTS

Page 453

ADDINGASUNSPACEORINCREASINGTHESIZEOF
SOUTHFACINGOPENINGS
2.2 Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
Page 64

Page 454

PAGE
$ORMERWINDOWSSITUATIONSTOAVOID
$ORMERWINDOWSLOOKhHEAVYvBECAUSEOFCRUDEDETAILING
BECAUSETHEYARESOCLOSETOGETHERTHEYDOMINATETHEROOF
LARGEAREASOFLEADmASHINGMEANSTHATORIGINALSLATEDROOF
ISHIDDEN
0OORQUALITYDORMERSADDEDTOEXISTINGBUNGALOW
$ORMERWINDOWSBETTERDESIGNS
DORMERASCONTINUATIONOFWALLHEAD'IGHATIMBERDORMER4IGHMOR$EVELOPMENTS!UCHNAGUIE TRADITIONALLYPROPORTIONEDDORMERS2OTHESAY
$ORMERS
0ROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE
ROOFSPACE OF EXISTING PROPERTIES SHOULD RESPECT THE
STYLE

Page 455

SCALEANDFORMOFTHEEXISTINGROOFANDHOUSE
DESIGNANDTHECHARACTEROFTHEWIDERRURALORTOWN
SETTING
4HEREAREMANYTYPESOFDORMERSANDITISIMPORTANT
TOCHOOSETHEMOSTAPPROPRIATEONEFORTHECHARACTER
OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY -ATERIALS FOR NEW DORMERS
SHOULDBESYMPATHETICTOTHEEXISTINGPROPERTY4HE
ROOlNGMATERIALOFTHEDORMERWILLHAVEAKEYIMPACT
ONITSDETAILING,ARGEBOXSTYLEDORMERSSHOULDBEAVOIDED

Page 456


ASTHEYAPPEARBULKYANDUNSIGHTLY

Page 457

SIMILARLYLARGENUMBERSOF
SMALLERINDIVIDUALDORMERSSHOULDALSOBEAVOIDED$ORMERSTO
THESIDESOFPROPERTIESCANDOMINATETHEFRONTELEVATIONAND
AREONLYBEACCEPTABLEWHERETHEYARESMALLINSCALE

Page 458

SETBACK
FROMTHEFRONTBUILDINGLINEANDHAVELIMITEDVISUALIMPACT
%NSURETHATDORMERWINDOWSRELATETOTHESHAPE

Page 459

POSITION

Page 460


DESIGNANDSIZEOFTHEEXISTINGWINDOWS
2OOmIGHTS ARE A LESS OBTRUSIVE

Page 461

 CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO
DORMER WINDOWS AND MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN
CERTAINCIRCUMSTANCES&LUSHlTTED@CONSERVATIONSTYLE
ROOlGHTSARELESSCONSPICUOUS
!LLDORMERSANDROOmIGHTSSHOULDBEDESIGNEDTOTAKE
ACCOUNTOFOTHERFORMSWITHINTHEROOFANDTHEVICINITY
OFCHIMNEYSANDGABLEFEATURES
@-ANSARDROOFSTYLEEXTENSIONSAREINAPPROPRIATEFOR
THE MAJORITY OF BUILDINGS

Page 462

 PARTICULARLY SMALLER ONES
'ENERALLYTHEYTENDTOBEUNSIGHTLYANDDETRIMENTALLY
INCREASETHESCALEOFTHEPROPERTY
2.2  Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
Page 65

Page 463

PAGE
THESE MATERIALS
AND CONSTRUCTION
DETAILSARE UNLIKELY
TO BE COMPATIBLE
WITH PROPERTY IN
!RGYLLAND"UTE
7ALLING-ATERIALS
!S WITH ROOlNG MATERIALS

Page 464

 THE CHOICE OF MATERIALS
FORWALLINGSHOULDBEDETERMINEDBYTHEAPPROACHTO
THEEXTENSIONASOUTLINEDIN'ENERALLYDESIGNERS
SHOULD AVOID MATERIALS WHICH ARE AESTHETICALLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND @LOOK
ALIKEMATERIALSSUCHASlBREGLASSMOULDINGSMADE
TOLOOKLIKEMASONRYORSLATE506#BOARDINGISNOT
CONSIDEREDSUITABLEFORENVIRONMENTALREASONS
#ONSTRUCTION$ETAILS
!SHASBEENSTATED

Page 465

INTHECASEOFEXTENSIONSTHE
DETAILINGOFTHENEWPARTOFABUILDINGISANIMPORTANT
PART OF ITS CHARACTER 3OME EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL
PROVIDE A RICH SOURCE OF INSPIRATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS FOR THE DESIGNER n IN OTHERS THE APPROACH
MIGHT BE SIMPLER BUT ROBUST $ESIGNERS SHOULD
CAREFULLY CONSIDER HOW DIFFERENT ELEMENTS SUCH AS
ROOFSANDWALLS	ANDDIFFERENTMATERIALSSUCHASSTONE
ANDRENDER	RELATETOONEANOTHER
)N ANY EVENT CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO CONSIDER
THE POSITION OF RAINWATER PIPES AND GUTTERS

Page 466

 THE
CONTINUATION OF FASCIAS

Page 467

 JUNCTIONS WITH THE EXISTING
BUILDINGSANDWINDOWHEADANDSILLDETAILS
0ORCHES
.EW PORCHES

Page 468

 WHETHER AS SUNSPACES OR DRAUGHT
LOBBIES

Page 469

 GENERALLY REPRESENT AN IMPROVEMENT TO AN
EXISTINGBUILDINGINTERMSOFENERGYEFlCIENCY)TIS
IMPORTANT

Page 470

HOWEVER

Page 471

THATTHEDESIGNOFTHEPORCHIS
OFANAPPROPRIATESCALEANDCHARACTERFORTHEEXISTING
BUILDING0ROPOSALSSHOULDNOTOBSCUREORCONmICTWITH
EXISTING FEATURES SUCH AS BAY WINDOWS (ISTORICALLY
MOSTPORCHESWERENOTARCHITECTDESIGNEDBUTMANY
WERE@CRAFTSMANBUILTANDITISFORTHATREASONMANY
WEREATTRACTIVEANDCHARACTERFUL
!LTHOUGHASMALLPARTOFANYDWELLINGTHEDETAILINGOF
THECONSTRUCTIONOFTHEPROPOSEDPORCHISIMPORTANTAS
ITISGENERALLYONTHEFRONTELEVATIONANDATTHEMAIN
ENTRYTOTHEBUILDING4HEDESIGNANDCONSTRUCTIONOF
PROPOSEDPORCHESSHOULDTAKETHISINTOACCOUNT
!SDRAUGHTLOBBIESANDSUNSPACESAREAVALUABLEASSET
INEXPOSEDLOCATIONSANDAREAGOODWAYTOIMPROVEENERGY
EFlCIENCY

Page 472

 THEY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED 4HEIR DESIGN AND
DETAILINGREQUIRESTOBECAREFULLYCONSIDERED506#ISGENERALLY
VIEWEDASVISUALLYANDENVIRONMENTALLYINAPPROPRIATEFORTHIS
PURPOSE%XISTINGRECESSEDPORCHAREASGIVEMODELLINGAND
INTERESTTOTHEFA ADEOFMANYBUILDINGSANDTHISCANBELOST
WITHUNSYMPATHETICENCLOSUREBYDOORSORNEWPORCHES
#ONSERVATORIES
4HEREISAGROWINGDESIREFORDWELLINGSTOENJOYTHEBENElTS
OF A CONSERVATORY 4HIS BRINGS INTO THE FORE KEY ISSUES OF
ARCHITECTURALSTYLETHATDESIGNERSSHOULDTAKEINTOACCOUNTWHEN
PREPARINGPROPOSALS
3IMPLE FORMS OF CONSERVATORY GENERALLY COMPLEMENT THE
AESTHETICSOFSIMPLE!RGYLLCROFTSANDRURALHOUSES

Page 473

WHILSTMORE
ELABORATESHAPESCANWORKWELLWITH6ICTORIANVILLAS!SWITH
OTHEREXTENSIONSAKEYDETERMINANTINCONSIDERINGPROPOSALS
SHOULDBETHEPROMINENCEOFTHEPROPOSEDCONSERVATORYWHEN
VIEWEDFROMPUBLICSPACES

Page 474

ROADANDPATHS)NTHESECASESITIS
IMPORTANTTHATPROPOSALSAREAPPROPRIATETOTHEBUILDINGTYPE
2.2  Extending and altering in the context of existing buildings
Page 66

Page 475

PAGE
2.3 Converting existing buildings
!RGYLLAND"UTEHASASIGNIlCANTNUMBEROFREDUNDANTBUILDINGSINDISUSEORDISREPAIR)FTHEYCANBESYMPATHETICALLYRESTORED

Page 476


THEIRCONVERSIONTOANEWUSEWILLENSURETHEIRCONSERVATIONANDONGOINGUSE.EWDESIGNSSHOULDCOMPLEMENTANDENHANCETHE
FEATURESOFTHEEXISTINGBUILDINGANDBEANOPPORTUNITYFORQUALITYMODERNDESIGN
4HEh"UILDINGSAT2ISK2EGISTERvFOR3COTLANDHIGHLIGHTSPROPERTIESOFARCHITECTURALORHISTORICMERITTHROUGHOUTWITHIN!RGYLL
AND"UTETHATARECONSIDEREDTOBEATRISKORUNDERTHREAT#ONCISEADVICEONPREPARINGCONSERVATIONPLANS

Page 477

BUSINESSPLANS

Page 478

AND
FEASIBILITYSTUDIES

Page 479

ISGIVENINTHE3COTTISH#IVIC4RUSTPUBLICATIONh3OURCESOF&INANCIAL(ELPFOR3COTLANDS(ISTORIC"UILDINGSv
0OINTSWORTHCONSIDERINGATAFEASIBILITYSTAGEARENOTEDBELOW
s(ISTORIC#ONTEXT!CAREFULEXAMINATIONOFABUILDINGSFABRICT
WILLREVEALWHATCONSTRUCTIONMETHODSANDMATERIALSHAVEBEENUSED
ANDHOWTHESEHAVECHANGEDTHROUGHTIME)TISALSOHELPFULTOPUT
ABUILDINGORSITEINTOCONTEXTBOTHTOCONSIDERTHEIMPACTOFA
POTENTIALDEVELOPMENTONOTHERBUILDINGSINITSIMMEDIATELOCALE
ANDTOCONSIDERITSCULTURALANDHISTORICSIGNIlCANCE
$ESIGNERSSHOULDTHENBEINAGOODPOSITIONTOINTEGRATEKEY
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR THE BUILDING OR SITE ITSELF INTO THEIR
INITIALPROPOSALS

Page 480

ANDWILLBEWELLPLACEDTOBASETHEIRDESIGNONAN
APPROPRIATEPRECEDENT
7HEREABUILDINGHASASPECIlCHISTORICIMPORTANCESUCHASA
,ISTED"UILDINGORABUILDINGINA#ONSERVATION!REA

Page 481

AMOREFORMAL
GATHERINGTOGETHEROFINFORMATIONCANEXPEDITEDIALOGUEBETWEEN
THE#OUNCIL$EVELOPMENT$EPARTMENT

Page 482

#ONSERVATION/FlCER

Page 483

(ISTORIC
3COTLAND

Page 484

POTENTIALFUNDERSANDTHE!PPLICANT)NSOMECASES

Page 485

FOR
SMALLERSCHEMES

Page 486

AQUICKANALYSISOFASITEANDITSRELATIONSHIP
TOITSSURROUNDINGSCANBESUMMARISEDINASHORT#ONSERVATION
3TATEMENT )NOTHERMORECOMPLEXCASES

Page 487

Ah#ONSERVATION0LANv
MAYBEREQUIRED
s)NFRASTRUCTURE0RIORTOPROCEEDINGWITHTHECONVERSIONITIS
PRUDENTTOCONSIDERTHEFOLLOWING
!##%33 WHEREAPROPOSEDCONVERSIONISLOCATEDAWAYFROMAPUBLIC
ADOPTEDROAD

Page 488

ACCESSARRANGEMENTSWILLNEEDTOBEDISCUSSEDAND
CONlRMEDWITHLANDOWNERS
3%26)#%3REMOTERURALLOCATIONSWILLOFTENHAVENOCONNECTION
TOMAINSWATERSUPPLYANDAPRIVATEWATERSOURCEMAYNEEDTO
BE LOCATED EXISTING SEWERAGE PROVISION MAY BE INADEQUATE OR
NONEXISTENT
0RIORTOPURCHASINGAPROPERTYWHICHISINNEEDOFEXTENSIVE
RENOVATION

Page 489

ITISWELLWORTHWHILECARRYINGOUTA hFEASIBILITY
STUDYv INORDERTODETERMINETHELIKELYEXTENT

Page 490

COSTANDTIMESCALE
FORBUILDINGWORK

Page 491

NOMATTERHOWLARGEORSMALLTHEUNDERTAKING
)TSHOULDBEBASEDONADVICEFROMEXPERIENCEDBUILDERSAND
SUITABLYQUALIlEDARCHITECTS

Page 492

QUANTITYSURVEYORSANDSTRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS!DVICESHOULDALSOBESOUGHTFROM!RGYLLAND"UTE
#OUNCIL 0LANNING $EPARTMENT AND (ISTORIC 3COTLAND IN ORDER
TOASCERTAINTHELEGALREQUIREMENTSANDCONSTRAINTSINPLACE

Page 493


PARTICULARLYIFABUILDINGIS,ISTEDORISINA#ONSERVATION!REA
2OTHESAY
NEWUSESAREBEINGCONSIDEREDFORTHIS,ISTEDBUILDING
0OINTSTOCONSIDERAT&EASIBILITY3TUDY3TAGE
Page 67

Page 494

PAGE
3YMPATHETICCONVERSIONAND
REFURBISHMENT #OLGRAIN3TEADING
4HECONVERSIONANDRECONSTRUCTIONOFADERELICT
GROUPOFFORMERFARMSTEADINGBUILDINGSTO
PROVIDESEVENNEWHOUSES
s,ARGEWINDOWSOPENINGSSYMPATHETICALLY
INTEGRATEDINTOEXISTINGBUILDING
s2OOmIGHTSMINIMISEUSEOFDORMERS
s$ORMERSAREOFAPPROPRIATESCALE
s'OODQUALITYBOUNDARYWALLTREATMENTANDHARD
LANDSCAPING
s,OWLEVELEXTERNALLIGHTING
s'ARAGINGFORCARSASFARMBUILDINGTYPE
COTTAGEHASMETALCLADROOF
s2EUSEOFEXISTINGFARMBUILDINGS
s"ARNRETAINSEXISTINGOPENINGSITSSETTINGISAPPROPRIATEFORITS
RURALLOCATIONANDITHASAMETALCLADROOF
#AREFULLYCONVERTEDANDEXTENDEDBUILDINGSIN!RGYLLAND"UTE
3YMPATHETICCONVERSIONANDREFURBISHMENT!RDCHATTAN
2.3 Converting existing buildings
Page 68

Page 495

PAGE
)F PROPOSALS ARE TO INCLUDE ANCILLARY BUILDINGS SUCH AS
GARAGES

Page 496

 CONSIDER EITHER LOCATING THEM WITHIN EXISTING
BUILDINGSIFPOSSIBLE

Page 497

ORCONSIDERLOCATINGGARAGINGAWAY
FROM HOUSES IN A PURPOSE DESIGNED hRANGEv 'ARAGING
CANBEUSEDTOSHAPEATTRACTIVEANDSYMPATHETICPARKING
COURTYARDS #OORDINATE DESIGNS FOR BOUNDARY TREATMENTS

Page 498


CARPARKINGACCESSANDSERVICES
s$ETAILDESIGN
7HEREVER POSSIBLE

Page 499

 TRY TO INCORPORATE LOCAL BUILDINGS
MATERIALSANDTECHNIQUESINTOPROPOSALS
#ONSIDER REUSING EXISTING OPENINGS TO FORM NEW DOORS
ANDWINDOWS7HERETHISISNOTPOSSIBLE

Page 500

TRYTOLIMITTHE
NUMBEROFNEWOPENINGSANDMAINTAINTHESAMERATIOOF
SOLIDWALLTOOPENINGAREAS)NSOMECASESITMAYBEBETTER
TOMAKEONERADICALINTERVENTIONASANALTERNATIVETOA
CONGLOMERATIONOFSMALLERONES
7HERESOMEBUILDINGSWITHINANEXISTINGBUILDINGGROUP
AREINPOORCONDITIONTHEYMAYGETTOAPOINTWHERETHEY
CANNOTBESAVEDANDTHEREISNOALTERNATIVETODEMOLITION
ANDREBUILDING)NTHISCASEITISOFTENBETTERTOPROVIDE
A ROBUST

Page 501

 SYMPATHETIC CONTEMPORARY ALTERNATIVE RATHER
THANPROVIDINGAPOORCOPYOFWHATMAYHAVEBEENTHERE
BEFORE
0OINTSTOCONSIDERAT$ESIGN3TAGE
s2ETAININGTHECHARACTEROFTHEORIGINALBUILDING
#ONSIDER ADAPTING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PROPOSED
CONVERSIONTOSUITTHEEXISTINGBUILDINGSTRUCTUREASFARAS
POSSIBLE4HINKABOUTUSINGMORECONTEMPORARYINTERNAL
LAYOUTSINORDERTOhMATCHvINTERNALUSESTOTHEEXISTING
FACADEANDINTERNALSTRUCTURALWALLS
&OREXAMPLE

Page 502

LIVINGROOMSCANBELOCATEDONTHElRSTmOOR
TOMAKETHEMOSTOFVIEWS

Page 503

WITHBEDROOMSANDBATHROOMS
ONTHEGROUNDmOORDOUBLEHEIGHTSPACESCANMAKETHE
MOST OF LOW mOOR TO CEILING HEIGHTS AND INCREASE THE
AMOUNTOFLIGHTINSIDEABUILDING
!SFARASPOSSIBLE

Page 504

RETAINEXISTINGBUILDINGFEATURESANDAIM
TOACCOMMODATECHANGEONFACADESAWAYFROMPUBLICVIEW
!VOID

Page 505

WHEREVERPOSSIBLE

Page 506

RAISINGRIDGESANDEAVES
s2ETAININGTHECHARACTEROFEXISTINGBUILDINGGROUPINGS
7HERE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER IT IS
WORTHWHILEREMEMBERINGTHATTHESPACESBETWEENTHEM
AREAShDESIGNEDvASTHEBUILDINGSWHICHSHAPETHEM
&OREXAMPLE

Page 507

COURTYARDSWITHINFARMSTEADSWEREORIGINALLY
INTENDEDASCOMMUNALSPACESWITHACHARACTERDERIVED
FROMTHElNISHESUSEDFORTHEIRSURFACINGANDENCLOSURE
$IVIDING THESE COURTYARD SPACES UP INTO GARDENS

Page 508


REMOVINGEXISTINGCOBBLEDSETSANDREPLACINGTHEMWITH
GRASSORPARKING

Page 509

WILLBEASINCONGRUOUSANADDITIONAS
THEWRONGKINDOFMATERIALSANDDETAILSAPPLIEDTOTHE
BUILDINGSTHEMSELVES
7HEREVERPOSSIBLETHECHARACTEROFEXTERNALSPACES
SUCHASCOURTYARDSORSTREETS	SHAPEDBYTHEBUILDINGS
BEINGCONVERTEDSHOULDBERETAINED
2.3 Converting existing buildings
Page 69

Page 510

PAGE
(YNISH)SLEOF4IREERESTOREDBYTHE(EBRIDEAN4RUST
sTHEOLDPIERHEADSTOREHASBEENRENOVATEDAND
HAS NOW BECOME THE (YNISH #ENTRE

Page 511

 PROVIDING
FACILITIESFORCHILDRENSHOLIDAYS

Page 512

BUSINESSCOURSES

Page 513


UNIVERSITYTEACHINGCOURSESANDLOCALFUNCTIONS
sRESTORATIONOFADERELICTCOTTAGEHASCREATED
ACCOMMODATIONFORTHE7ARDENANDALSOTHE4IREE
)NFORMATION/FlCE
sVARIOUSBUILDINGS

Page 514

INCLUDINGTHE/LD"ARRACKS

Page 515


HAVENOWBEENCONVERTEDINTOACCOMMODATIONFOR
LOCALRESIDENTS
s THE /LD 3MITHY AND 7ORKSHOPS HAVE BEEN
RESTORED TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION FOR THE
DISABLED

Page 516

ALARGESTUDIOEXHIBITIONSPACE

Page 517

ALONG
WITHSHOWERAND7#FACILITIESFORSURFBOARDERSAND
SAILORS
sOTHERBUILDINGSHAVEALSOBEENCONVERTEDINTO
GENERALSTORAGEFACILITIESFORTHE(YNISH#ENTRE
ANDFORTHELOCALRESIDENTS
4HISISBOTHACULTURALANDARCHITECTURALLY
SIGNIlCANT  COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS

Page 518

  BUILT
OVERYEARSAGOTOSERVICETHE3KERRYVORE
,IGHTHOUSE4HEIRHISTORICALIMPORTANCEAND
THEIRPOTENTIALCOMMUNITYUSEMADETHEM
GOODCANDIDATESFORRESTORATION
s THE OLD 3IGNAL 4OWER WAS RESTORED BY
THE 4RUST AND TURNED INTO THE 3KERRYVORE
,IGHTHOUSE-USEUM
s THE RECONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF
THE ,IGHTHOUSE +EEPERS #OTTAGES LISTED
CATEGORY!	AT5PPER3QUAREPROVIDESHOMES
FORFOURISLANDFAMILIESATAFFORDABLERENTS
s THE HARBOUR

Page 519

 ORIGINALLY BUILT TO SERVICE
THE 3KERRYVORE ,IGHTHOUSE

Page 520

 HAS ALSO BEEN
RESTOREDANDISNOWUSEDBYBOTHLOCALAND
VISITINGlSHINGANDPLEASUREBOATS
+ILMARTIN(OUSECONVERTEDTOMUSEUM
%XISTINGMANSEANDOUTBUILDINGSHAVEBEENCONVERTEDINTOAMUSEUMWITHNEWSUNSPACESAND
CONSERVATORIESADDED4HECHARACTEROFEXISTINGEXTERNALSPACESHASBEENCAREFULLYRETAINED
Carefully converted buildings in Argyll and Bute 2.3 Converting existing buildings
Page 70

Page 521

PAGE
2.4  Garden spaces
4HEIMPACTOFAPROPOSEDEXTENSION

Page 522

ALTERATIONORCONVERSION
ON GARDEN GROUND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY .OT
ALLHOUSESREQUIRELARGEGARDENAREASBUTIFPLOTSARETOO
HIGHLYDEVELOPEDANDTHISISVIEWEDFROMTHEPUBLICREALM
THE CHARACTER OF AN AREA CAN BE DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED
3IMILARLYTHEAMENITYOFNEIGHBOURSMAYBECOMPROMISED
4HE,OCAL0LANSETSGUIDANCEINTHISREGARDBUTDESIGNERS
SHOULDCONSIDERTHESITESDEVELOPMENTINTHECONTEXTOFTHE
LAYOUTOFNEIGHBOURINGPLOTS7HEREPOSSIBLE

Page 523

SINGLESTOREY
EXTENSIONSSHOULDBEDESIGNEDANDLOCATEDTOCREATEUSEABLE
SHELTEREDPRIVATEOUTDOORAREAS
5RBAN)NTERVENTIONS
4HEIMPACTONGARDENGROUNDOFPARKINGANDGARAGESNEEDS
TOBECAREFULLYCONSIDEREDBYDESIGNERS)NAREASOFTWOSTOREY
SUBURBANHOUSINGTHEREISGENERALLYAGOODBALANCEBETWEENTHE
VISUALhHARDNESSvOFBUILDINGSANDSTREETSANDTHEhSOFTNESSvOF
GARDENSANDPLANTEDOPENAREAS(ARDSTANDINGSINFRONTGARDENS
HARMTHEAPPEARANCEOFINDIVIDUALPROPERTIESANDFRONTGARDENS

Page 524


INPARTICULAR

Page 525

SHOULDBEMAINTAINEDASPLANTEDAREASWHEREVER
POSSIBLE'ARAGESSHOULDBEDESIGNEDINCHARACTERWITHDWELLINGS
ANDLOCATEDSENSITIVELY
2URAL)NTERVENTIONS
)FACCESSROADSNEEDTOBEUPGRADEDITISIMPORTANTTODOTHISIN
AWAYWHICHISINKEEPINGWITHTHEIRSURROUNDINGS
#ONSIDERLOCATINGPARKINGSOTHATITDOESNOTHAVEANEGATIVE
IMPACTONEXISTINGCOMMUNALSPACESORCONSIDERSIMPLEGARAGE
RANGESASANALTERNATIVETOCARPARKING&INISHESFORPARKINGAREAS
NEEDTOBEINKEEPINGWITHEXISTINGBUILDINGSANDTHEIRGROUNDS
)TISWORTHRETAININGEXISTINGCOBBLESORmAGSTONESANDWHERETHIS
ISNOTPOSSIBLECONSIDERlNISHESWHICHCOMPLEMENTTHEIRSETTING
#OLOUREDPAVIOURS

Page 526

COLOUREDDECORATIVEAGGREGATESANDANGULAR
CHIPSWILLLOOKOUTOFPLACE#ONSIDERTHEUSEOFMORENATURAL
COLOURED PAVIOURS

Page 527

 SETTS OR GRAVEL INSTEAD #OLUMN MOUNTED
EXTERNALLIGHTSFORPARKINGAREASCANALSOLOOKOUTOFPLACEIN
MORERURALLOCATIONSINSTEAD

Page 528

CONSIDERMORESYMPATHETICLIGHTING

SUCHASWALLMOUNTEDLIGHTSORSOLARSTUDSSETINTOACCESSWAYS
#ONIFERHEDGINGANDURBANORSUBURBANFENCINGWILLALSOAPPEAR
OUTOFPLACE
-ANSE"RAE,OCHGILPHEAD
4HISSTREETIN,OCHGILPHEADISTHELOCATIONFORARANGE
OFDIFFERENTHOUSES

Page 529

EACHOFWHICHISARCHITECTURALLY
QUITE DIFFERENT 4HEY SIT TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY
BECAUSETHEYARESETBACKFROMTHEROADAUNIFORM
DISTANCE

Page 530

ANDBECAUSETHEYHAVEFRONTBOUNDARYWALLS
WHICHTIETOGETHERARANGEOFDISPARATEBUILDINGTYPES
ANDSTYLES
4HEQUALITYOFMANYOLDERPROPERTIESIN!RGYLLAND
"UTEHASBEENERODEDBYTHELOSSOFTRADITIONALFRONT
BOUNDARYWALLS4HISHASIMPACTEDADVERSELYONTHE
QUALITYOFTOWNSANDVILLAGES)TISTHEREFOREWORTH
CONSIDERINGTHERESTORATIONOFMASONRYBOUNDARYWALLS
WHENCARRYINGOUTEXTENSIONSANDALTERATIONS
Page 71

Page 531

PAGE
Designing Sustainable Urban Inﬁll
 /VERVIEW
 0LOTSIZEANDSETTLEMENTPATTERNS
 "UILDINGLINEANDSTREETFACADES
 (EIGHTANDPROPORTIONS
 #ARPARKINGINTOWNSANDVILLAGES
 %XAMPLESOF3UCCESSFUL5RBAN)NlLL
Page 72

Page 532

PAGE
$EVELOPMENTSITESWITHIN!RGYLLAND"UTESEXISTINGSETTLEMENTS

Page 533

SPECIlCALLYINlLLSITESINCLOSEPROXIMITYTOEXISTING
BUILDINGS

Page 534

REPRESENTANOPPORTUNITYFORSUSTAINABLEHIGHQUALITYDEVELOPMENT)NRURALAREASEXISTINGSERVICESANDACCESS
ROUTESCANVERYOFTENBEUTILISED

Page 535

ANDINMOREURBANAREASTHEDEVELOPMENTOFhGAPvSITESCANENHANCETHETOWNORVILLAGE
QUALITYWHILSTATTHESAMETIMEREDUCINGDEMANDONUNDEVELOPEDGREENlELDSITES
3.0  Overviewdesigning sustainable urban inﬁll
4HEDElNITIONOF)NlLL$EVELOPMENTINTHISCONTEXTRANGESFROMTHEDESIGNOFNEWHOUSINGWITHINTHEMORESUBURBANAREASOF
!RGYLLAND"UTESLARGERTOWNS

Page 536

TODEVELOPMENTINGAPSITESATTHEHEARTOFITSVILLAGESANDBUSYTOWNCENTRESHOPPINGAREAS
4HIS'UIDANCECONSIDERSTHREEBROADSTRATEGICAPPROACHESTOTHEDESIGNOFNEWINlLLDEVELOPMENT)NDECIDINGWHICHMIGHTBE
MOSTAPPROPRIATEINALLCASES

Page 537

THEDEVELOPMENTSHOULDBECONSIDEREDINITSSETTINGASITSIMPACTANDIMPORTANCECONTRIBUTETO
THELOCALENVIRONMENTASAWHOLE
/PTION#ONTEMPORARY@,ANDMARKDEVELOPMENT
$ESIGN OF A HIGH ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLYOFADIFFERENTARCHITECTURAL@STYLETOTHE
BUILDINGSSURROUNDINGIT
4HEDEVELOPMENTOFNEWBUILDINGSOFQUALITYCANHELPTO
REDElNEAREASOFCHARACTERINAPOSITIVEWAY3ENSITIVE
CONTEMPORARYDESIGNCANOFTENBETTERMEETTHENEEDSOFTHE
STCENTURYFORLIGHT

Page 538

SERVICESANDhPRESENCEvTHANDESIGN
BASEDONTHESIMPLEREPETITIONOFTRADITIONALBUILDINGS
$ESIGNINGADEVELOPMENTFROMTHISSTRATEGICSTARTINGPOINT
ALLOWSTHEBUILDINGTOBEDESIGNEDFUNCTIONALLYFROMlRST
PRINCIPLES!HIGHQUALITYDESIGNCANENHANCEANDIMPROVE
ITSSETTINGANDTHELIVESOFTHOSETHATUSEIT!GOOD
DESIGNSHOULDDEMONSTRABLYTACKLEANYINHERENTFUNCTIONAL
CONmICTSASSOCIATEDWITHTHECONTEXTORWITHFOLLOWINGTHE
MORETRADITIONALCONSTRUCTIONAPPROACH
/PTION#ONTEMPORARY@)NTEGRATED$EVELOPMENT
$ESIGNWHICHMOREOBVIOUSLYISBASEDONTHEARCHITECTURE
OFTHEBUILDINGSADJACENT
.OTALLBUILDINGSREQUIRETOMAKEANINDIVIDUALSTATEMENTOFTHEIR
@PRESENCEINASETTLEMENT)NMANYCASESITISAPPROPRIATETHAT
NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD QUIETLY INTEGRATE INTO ITS SETTING IN
ORDERTOCONTRIBUTEBESTTOA3ENSEOF0LACE4HEDESIGNOFSUCH
DEVELOPMENTSSHOULDBEBASEDONTHESENSITIVEINTEGRATIONOF
SCALE

Page 539

PLOTRELATIONSHIP

Page 540

MATERIALSANDANYKEYCONSTRUCTIONDETAILS
INTOTHEPROPOSALSASDEMONSTRATEDINTHEPATTERNANDCONSTRUCTION
OFBUILDINGSWITHINTHEDEVELOPMENTSETTING
)NTHISAPPROACHSENSITIVEINTERPRETATIONOFTHEESSENTIALQUALITIESOF
THEEXISTINGCONTEXTCANALLOWFORANAPPROPRIATEREINTERPRETATION
OFSOMEOFTHEARCHITECTURALELEMENTSWITHINTHECOMPOSITIONOF
THENEWDEVELOPMENT
/PTION4RADITIONAL$ESIGN
3OMEDESIGNERSMAYCHOSETODEVELOPPROPOSALSENTIRELY
BASEDONTHETRADITIONALARCHITECTUREOFTHEIRSETTING4HIS
APPROACHMAYBEPARTICULARLYAPPROPRIATEINSITESTHATARE
VERYSENSITIVEHISTORICALLYANDWHERETHECONSTRUCTIONOF
BUILDINGS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITYS
HISTORY
)NTHISCASEITISHIGHLYIMPORTANTTHATTHEDEVELOPMENT
ISAUTHENTICINITSDESIGNANDCONSTRUCTIONANDTHATTHE
TRADITIONOFLOCALCONSTRUCTIONISUNDERSTOODANDUTILISED
4HIS WILL REQUIRE THE USE OF EXPERIENCED CONSERVATION
ARCHITECTSANDCRAFTSMEN
Page 73

Page 541

PAGE
)LLUSTRATINGTHENEEDFORGUIDANCERETAININGTHECHARACTEROF(ELENSBURGHSSPACIOUSSUBURBS
-ANYOF(ELENSBURGHSLARGERPROPERTIESSITWITHINAGRIDANDEACHPLOTHASACHARACTERISTICARRANGEMENT
4HE@RHYTHMOFDEVELOPMENTTHERELATIONSHIPOFDEVELOPMENTACROSSCONTIGUOUSPLOTSISASIMPORTANT
ASTHEPATTERNOFDEVELOPMENTONTHEPLOTITSELF'ENERALLY

Page 542

MOSTHOUSESWEREDESIGNEDTOOCCUPYTHEIR
PLOTINASIMILARWAY
s,ARGEVILLAFACESTOWARDSSEAVIEWS
s,ARGEFRONTGARDENHASHEDGEASBOUNDARYTREATMENTANDDRIVEFRONTINGONTOTHEACCESSROAD
s4OTHEREAROFTHEMAINHOUSE

Page 543

ANCILLARYBUILDINGSARECONTAINEDBEHINDABOUNDARYWALL
s!SARESULT

Page 544

THESEGRIDDEDSTREETSAREFRONTEDBYHEDGESTOONESIDEANDWALLSTOTHEOTHER
4HISPATTERNOFDEVELOPMENTGIVESCLUESASTOHOWNEWPROPERTIESCANBEINTEGRATEDINTOTHEAREA7ITHIN
THISPARTOF(ELENSBURGH

Page 545

ITISWORTHCONSIDERINGWAYSTORETAINEXISTINGFRONTGARDENSANDHEDGES3MALLER
NEWDEVELOPMENTSSHARINGEXISTINGPLOTSWITHOLDERNEIGHBOURSWILLBEBETTERINTEGRATEDIFTHEYARE
CONSIDEREDINTHESAMEWAYASEXISTINGMEWSPROPERTIES

HEDGESLINEONESIDEOFATYPICALSTREET
ANDWALLSTHEOTHERSEELEFT	
4YPICALPAIRINGSOFLARGEVILLASANDSMALLERMEWS(ILL(OUSEANDITSNEIGHBOUR
VILLAFACES
TOWARDSSEA
VIEWSANDLARGE
GARDEN
HEDGESTOFRONTOFPROPERTY
BOUNDARYWALLAND
ANCILLARYBUILDINGS
GOODLOCATIONFORNEWPROPERTYWHERE
MEWSHOUSESANDOUTBUILDINGSARE
TRADITIONALLYLOCATED
(ELENSBURGHSSPACIOUSSUBURBSDIAGRAMOFTYPICALPLOTS
SEAVIEWS
POORLOCATION
FORNEW
BUNGALOW
Page 74

Page 546

PAGE
,ATERPATTERNSOFPLOTS
2OWOF#OTTAGES!TERRACEOFSINGLEOR
TWO STOREY HOUSES

Page 547

 OFTEN BUILT DIRECTLY
AGAINSTAROAD

Page 548

SOMETIMESWITHSMALLER
FRONTGARDENS
,ARGERROADSIDESETTLEMENT/VERTIME

Page 549


TWO AND SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS HAVE
BEENBUILTAROUNDAROADJUNCTIONSOME
SIT BESIDE ROAD

Page 550

 SOME SIT FURTHER BACK
WITHINTHEIRPLOT
0ENDS4WOORTHREESTOREYHOUSESOR
TENEMENTALSTYLEmATSFACEONTOAMAIN
ROADWITHPENDACCESSTOROWSOFSMALLER
PROPERTIESBEHIND4HEYMAYHAVESMALL
FRONTGARDENSORBEBUILTDIRECTLYOFFA
PAVEMENT
4ENEMENTAL mATS  ,ARGER TENEMENTAL
PROPERTIESSITATTHEFRONTOFTHEIRPLOT

Page 551


THERE ARE OFTEN A VARIETY OF AGES AND
STYLES THEY OFTEN HAVE A SMALL FRONT
GARDENANDOUTHOUSESFACINGONTOLANES
TOREAR
,ARGERVILLASAREBUILTINA@RIBBONALONG
AROADLEADINGINTOACOASTALTOWN4HEY
OFTENSITFARBACKINTOTHEIRPLOTWHICHIS
HEAVILYLANDSCAPED3TONEBOUNDARYWALLS
CREATE ENCLOSURE AND UNIFY DISPARATE
ARCHITECTURALSTYLES
.EW INlLL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT THE
EXISTING PATTERN OF PLOTS THAT

Page 552

 WITH THE ROAD
SYSTEM

Page 553

ESTABLISHTHEHISTORICLAYOUTOFABUILDING
ORSETTLEMENT
)N MANY URBAN LOCATIONS BUILDINGS SIT HARD TO
THE STREET WITH NO SEPARATION BETWEEN THEM
AND THE PAVEMENT 4HIS IS OFTEN THE CASE IN
TENEMENTALTYPEBUILDINGSINTOWNCENTRESANDIN
THECOTTAGESTHATCREATETHESENSEOFENCLOSUREIN
SMALLERVILLAGES
)N OTHER CONTEXTS

Page 554

 PARTICULARLY IN PLANNED
VILLAGES

Page 555

TRADITIONALDEVELOPMENTCONSISTSOFROWS
OFHOUSESSITTINGONNARROWBUILDINGPLOTS/FTEN
THESE HOMES ARE BUILT OF THE SAME MATERIAL n
STONEORRENDER4HISCREATESAVERYSTRONGVISUAL
IMPRESSION

Page 556

ANDADISTINCTSENSEOFPLACE
%LSEWHERE

Page 557

OFTENONTHEEDGEOFSETTLEMENTSAND
ADJACENTTOTHECOAST

Page 558

HOUSESSITWELLBACKON
THEIRPLOTSCREATINGAPREDOMINANTLYLANDSCAPED
SETTING
4HESETRADITIONALDEVELOPMENTPATTERNSMUSTBE
RECOGNISEDANDUNDERSTOOD

Page 559

IFNEWDEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCESBUILDINGSWHICHOCCUPYTHEIRPLOTSIN
ADIFFERENTWAYTOTHOSESURROUNDINGTHEM

Page 560

MORE
OFTENTHANNOTTHEYCANAPPEAROUTOFPLACE
)FANEWDEVELOPMENTPROPOSESANONCONTEXTUAL
APPROACH TO SITING OR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN

Page 561

 IT
REQUIRESTOBEOFHIGHQUALITYANDTOCREATEITS
OWNDISTINCTANDAPPROPRIATESENSEOFPLACE
$ESIGNERS THEREFORE NEED TO CONSIDER THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A DEVELOPMENT AND
ITPLOT4HEYREQUIRETOTAKEACCOUNTOFTHE
HISTORICPLOTDEVELOPMENTAPPROACHANDSIZE
4HE@RHYTHMOFDEVELOPMENTTHERELATIONSHIP
OFDEVELOPMENTACROSSCONTIGUOUSPLOTSAS
MUCHASTHE@PATTERNOFDEVELOPMENTISHIGHLY
IMPORTANT
3.1  Plot size and settlement pattern designing sustainable urban inﬁll
/LDERPATTERNSOFPLOTS
#ROFTINGTOWNSHIP!DISPERSED

Page 562

SMALL
SCALE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN GENERALLY
FOUNDINMOREOPENTREELESSLANDSCAPES
!LTHOUGHFARAPART

Page 563

THEYFORMADISTINCT
COMMUNITY

Page 564

WITHITSOWNIDENTITY
Page 75

Page 565

PAGE
/RIGINALVILLASPLOTLAYOUT
)NTHISPARTOF2OTHESAYTHERE
ARETHREESERIESOFOLDER

Page 566

EXISTING
VILLAS

Page 567

 ALL SEMIDETACHED AND
DESIGNEDINSYMMETRICALGROUPS
OF lVE

Page 568

 lVE AND THREE FACING
ONTOTHEWATER
CENTRALBLOCKWITHSYMMETRICALFACADEBLOCKSTOEITHERSIDEOFCENTRAL
BLOCKAREMIRRORED
BLOCKSTOEITHERSIDEOF
CENTRALBLOCKAREMIRRORED
,ATERPATTERNSOFPLOTSVILLASONTHE
FRINGESOFACOASTALTOWNCLIMBUPTHE
HILLSIDE4HEYALLFACEONTOTHEWATER
ANDSITBACKINTOLANDSCAPEDPLOT
-ODERNINlLLNEWERVILLAS
4HELAYOUTFORTHESEVILLASUSES
THESAMECONCEPTASTHEOLDER
VILLASDESCRIBEDABOVE

Page 569

WHICHARE
LOCATEDBESIDETHEDEVELOPMENT
SITE
!SYMMETRICALGROUPOFlVEFACES
ONTOTHESEAFRONT
CENTRALBLOCKWITHSYMMETRICALFACADE BLOCKSTOEITHERSIDEOF
CENTRALBLOCKAREMIRRORED7ITHIN2OTHESAY

Page 570

ANEWINlLLDEVELOPMENT
ISDERIVEDFROMTHEARRANGEMENTOFEXIST
INGPLOTSANDTHESURROUNDINGDEVELOPMENT
PATTERN
)LLUSTRATED ON THE RIGHT ARE lRSTLY
THE HISTORIC PLOT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
EXISTING VILLAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE
AND SECONDLY THE SITE LAYOUT FOR THE
NEWDEVELOPMENTWHICHISDERIVEDFROM
THOSEAROUNDIT
BLOCKSTOEITHERSIDEOF
CENTRALBLOCKAREMIRRORED
3.1  Plot size and settlement pattern designing sustainable urban inﬁll
Page 76

Page 571

PAGE
4HEFACADESANDFORMSOFBUILDINGSINSETTLEMENTS
CREATES THE CHARACTER OF THEIR STREETS AND PUBLIC
SPACES !RTICULATION IN BUILDING FACADES CREATES
DIFFERENT VISTAS

Page 572

 VARIED ROOFSCAPES

Page 573

 MATERIAL AND
VISUAL INTRICACY AND COMPLEXITY  4OGETHER THESE
CREATEHUMANSCALEANDINTEREST
$IFFERENTELEMENTSWHICHARTICULATEFACADESSUCHAS
BAYWINDOWS

Page 574

BALCONIES

Page 575

PORCHES

Page 576

ROOFSHAPESAND
ENTRANCECANOPIESAREANEFFECTIVEWAYOFADDING
INTEREST

Page 577

BUTTHELEVELANDQUALITYOFTHISINTEREST
ISABALANCEBETWEENTHEUSEOFMATERIALSANDTHE
AMOUNTOFFA ADEMODULATION3UCCESSFULDESIGNS
ACHIEVEANAPPROPRIATEANDSENSITIVEBALANCE
4HEBUILDINGLINEINSTREETSISANIMPORTANTFACTOR
ANDSHOULDBECONSIDEREDANDRESPECTED)NSOME
DEVELOPMENTS IT WILL BE FUNDAMENTAL THAT IT IS
MAINTAINED)NOTHERSINTERESTANDUSEFULSPACES
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY MOVING BUILDINGS BACKWARDS
ANDFORWARDSINRELATIONTOEACHOTHER3TEPSIN
THEBUILDINGLINESHOULDBECONSIDEREDBYEXAMINING
THEQUALITYANDCHARACTEROFTHERESULTANTPUBLICALLY
SEENORUSEDSPACETHEYCREATE
$ESIGNERS NEED TO CONSIDER THE CHARACTER AND
INTEREST OF FACADES BUT FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRE
TO DEVELOP PROPOSALS TAKING ACCOUNT OF THEIR
RELATIONSHIPTOADJACENTBUILDINGS4HEYSHOULD
CONSIDER ADJACENT ROOmINES

Page 578

 mOOR HEIGHTS
WITHINADJACENTBUILDINGSANDTHERHYTHMAND
FENESTRATIONPATTERNSOFTHEIRFACADES
3.2  Building line and street facades designing sustainable urban inﬁll
0OOR1UALITY)NlLL
sLARGESETBACK
sINAPPROPRIATEBOUNDARYTREATMENT
sFRONTAGEPARKINGISOUTOFPLACE
sELEMENTSWITHINFACADEAREOFADIFFERENT
SCALETOSURROUNDINGBUILDINGS
sWINDOWHEIGHTSANDMASSINGHAVENOTHING
INCOMMONWITHNEIGHBOURS
sDIFFERENTMATERIALSAREUSEDTOOLDER
ADJACENTBUILDINGS
0OOR1UALITY)NlLL
sNORELATIONSHIPWHATEVERBETWEENNEW
SHOPUNITANDOLDERBUILDINGS
Page 77

Page 579

PAGE
"UILDINGLINEANDROOFSCAPE
4HISSTREETIN2OTHESAYDEMONSTRATESHOWACOMMONBUILDINGLINECANTIETOGETHERDIFFERENTBUILDINGHEIGHTSBUILDINGSAREALLLOCATED
ONTHESAMEVERTICALPLANEFRONTGARDENSAREALLTHESAMEWIDTHANDHAVETHESAMEHEIGHTOFBOUNDARYWALLS
FA ADEMODULATIONADDSINTERESTANDCHARACTER
LESSVARIATIONINROOFSCAPEMAKES
HOUSINGINAPPROPRIATELYPROMI
NENTBACKGROUNDOFPHOTOGRAPH	
6ARIATIONINBUILDINGLINESANDHEIGHTSLEADSTOAVARIEDROOFS
CAPESEEFOREGROUNDOFPHOTOGRAPHABOVE

Page 580

ANDPHOTOGRAPHBELOW	
3.2  Building line and street facades designing sustainable urban inﬁll
Page 78

Page 581

PAGE
ALTHOUGHFEATURESANDMATERIALSFROMTHEBUILDINGSILLUS
TRATEDTOTHELEFTHAVEBEENUSED

Page 582

THERESULTINGSCALEAND
PROPORTIONSARENOTATTRACTIVE
"UILDING(EIGHTAND0ROPORTION
4HEPROPORTIONOFTHEFA ADEOFBUILDINGSINURBANINlLL
ISACRITICALASPECTOFTHEIRDESIGN4HERELATIONSHIPOF
THEHEIGHTTOADJACENTPROPERTIESROOmINES

Page 583

WINDOW
HEIGHTS

Page 584

STRINGCOURSESETCnSHOULDBECONSIDERED

3UCCESSFULCHANGESINSCALEINTOWNSCAPEANDVILLAGE
STREETS CREATE CHARACTER BUT MUST BE CONSIDERED
TOGETHERWITHKEYBUILDINGHEIGHTRELATIONSHIPS

Page 585

THE
PROPORTIONOFWALLOPENINGSANDTHEUSEOFMATERIALS
)T IS NOT REQUIRED THAT PROPOSALS SHOULD SLAVISHLY
ADOPTEXISTINGBUILDINGLINESANDCOPYTHEFACADESOF
TRADITIONALBUILDINGS

Page 586

BUTITISIMPORTANTTHATAPPLICANTS
UNDERSTANDTHEKEYELEMENTSOFEXISTINGBUILDINGSAND
WHYTHEYAPPEAR@RIGHTINTHEIRSURROUNDINGS
$ESIGNERS CAN TAKE CUES FROM EXISTING BUILDINGS
BESIDEADEVELOPMENTSITEINORDERTOACHIEVEA
DESIGNWHICHENHANCESTHEBUILDINGSAROUNDIT
3.3  Height and proportion designing sustainable urban inﬁll
THESEHOUSESIN#AMPBELTOWNHAVEDETAILSANDPRO
PORTIONSWHICHREmECTTHEIRPERIOD

Page 587

SCALEANDMASSING
&A ADE$ETAILS
$ESIGN AND DETAILING SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SCALE OF
DEVELOPMENT  FOR EXAMPLE A   STOREY mATTED DEVELOPMENT
WHICHUTILISESSMALLSCALEDOMESTICDETAILINGANDSMALLWINDOWS
WILLGENERALLYRESULTINABUILDINGTHATAPPEARSINCONGRUOUSAND
INCORPORATESINAPPROPRIATEPROPORTIONS)TISALSOLIKELYTORESULT
INADEVELOPMENTWITHWINDOWSTOOSMALLFORLIGHTANDSUNSHINE
$ESIGNERSSHOULDAIMTOMATCHTHEDETAILSOFTHEFA ADETOTHE
CONTEXTOFTHEDEVELOPMENTANDITSFUNCTION/FTENTHISWILL
BETOUTILISESIMPLEANDROBUSTDETAILSWHICHCOMPLEMENTTHE
FEATURESOFSURROUNDINGBUILDINGS
Page 79

Page 588

PAGE
MAINTAINRIDGEANDEAVESHEIGHT
RESPECTWINDOWCILLANDHEADHEIGHTS
ANDHEIGHTSOFBUILDINGCORNICESETC
MAINTAINEXISTINGSPACINGBETWEENPROPERTIES
)NlLLRETAININGEXISTINGCHARACTER
)NlLLEXISTINGCHARACTERISNOTRESPECTED
RIDGEANDEAVESHEIGHT
CHANGES
DIFFERENTPROPORTIONSANDMATERIALSUSED
3.3  Height and proportion designing sustainable urban inﬁll        
PORCHESARE
OUTOFPLACE
HIPPEDROOFISNOTAPPROPRIATE
PROPORTIONSOFHORIZONTALWINDOWSAREDIFFERENTTOTHOSE
ONADJACENTPROPERTIES
Page 80

Page 589

PAGE
! KEY ASPECT TO SUCCESSFUL )NlLL $EVELOPMENT
IS THE PROVISION OF PARKING  !S ELSEWHERE

Page 590

 THE
INCORPORATIONOFCARPARKINGIN!RGYLLAND"UTES
SETTLEMENTS REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR CHALLENGE IF
RESIDENTSASPIRATIONSANDNEEDFORACARPARKINGARE
TOBEBALANCEDWITHSUSTAINABLEPRACTICEINTERMSOF
URBANINlLLANDTRANSPORT
7HEREPOSSIBLECARPARKINGSHOULDBEINCORPORATED
INASENSITIVEWAYANDINNOVATIVESOLUTIONSSHOULD
BE CONSIDERED /FTEN IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO
COMPLY WITH STANDARD 2OADS 'UIDANCE IN THIS
REGARD

Page 591

 AND ADVICE SHOULD BE SOUGHT WITH THE
0LANNING$EPARTMENTATANEARLYDATE
0ARKING PROPOSALS SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED THAT
COMPROMISETHEURBANAMENITYOFTHEDEVELOPMENT
CONSIDERATIONSHOULDBEGIVENTO
sDISCREETSMALLPARKINGCOURTYARDS
sIFPOSSIBLEUSINGTHESECTIONOFTHESITETO
CREATEBASEMENTORPARTBASEMENTPARKING
sPROVIDINGATTRACTIVEGARAGESASAKEYPARTOF
THEARCHITECTUREOFTHEDEVELOPMENT
sCREATINGINDIVIDUALPARKINGSPACESDISCRETELY
INDESIGNEDAREASOFHIGHQUALITYHARDSTANDING
WITHINTHEDEVELOPMENT
)NALLCASESINANURBANSETTINGTHEQUALITYOFTHE
DESIGNOFHARDSURFACINGISIMPORTANTANDWHERE
APPROPRIATESOFTLANDSCAPINGSHOULDBEPROVIDED
TOSCREENVEHICLESINPRIVATEAMENITYAREAS
3.4  Car Parking in towns and villages  designing sustainable urban inﬁll
+ILMARTIN(OUSE
CELLULARGRASSPARKING

Page 592

LANDSCAPINGANDSTONEBOUNDARYWALLSALLHELPTO
INTEGRATEPARKINGINTOALANDSCAPEDCOURTYARD
#AMPBELTOWN
VARIATIONINSURFACETEXTUREADDSINTERESTVERTICAL
PLANTERSHELPTOBREAKDOWNCARPARKINGSPACES
Page 81

Page 593

PAGE
  

-URDOCH.ISBET#OURT

Page 594

.EWMILNS
DWELLINGSENCLOSESMALLSCALEURBANSPACESAND
  GOOD QUALITY HARD LANDSCAPING AND BOUNDARY
WALL TREATMENTS  DWELLING ENTERED STRAIGHT FROM
STREET

Page 595

 LEVEL THRESHOLD AIDS ACCESS FOR WHEELCHAIR
USERSCONTEMPORARYARCHITECTURALSTYLEISBASEDON
TRADITIONALPRECEDENTLARGERWINDOWSATlRSTmOOR
LEVELENSUREACTIVESTREETFRONTAGE
.EWCASTLEINlLLHOUSINGDEVELOPMENT
CARS AND PEDESTRIANS SHARE SURFACES WITHIN THIS COURTYARD
DEVELOPMENT#ARPARKINGAREASAREDENOTEDBYPERGOLASAND
ENTRANCESTODWELLINGSHAVECANOPIESANDPLANTINGTOFORM
MORESHELTEREDSEMIPRIVATESPACES
3.4  Car parking in towns and villages  designing sustainable urban inﬁll
Page 82

Page 596

PAGE
#ONTEMPORARY)NlLLDEVELOPMENT#AMPBELTOWN
.EWmATSOCCUPYTHECORNEROFALANDSCAPEDPUBLIC
SQUARE AND ARE A CONTEMPORARY REINTERPRETATION
OF THE ADJACENT TRADITIONAL BUILDINGS 2OOmINES
FOLLOW THROUGH FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES GABLES
AREEMPHASISEDANINTERESTINGROOFSCAPEISCREATED
THROUGH THE USE OF GABLES AND CHIMNEYS LARGER
WINDOWSATTHECORNERGIVEVIEWSACROSSTHESQUARE
4RADITIONALLYDESIGNEDINlLL2HU
(AZELWOOD#OTTAGE
"UILTONTHESITEOFANOLDCOTTAGETHATHADTOBEDEMOLISHED

Page 597

THISNEWCOTTAGEWASDESIGNEDTO
OUTWARDLYREmECTTHESTYLEOFTHEADJACENT"LISTED(AZELWOOD(OUSEINWHOSEGROUNDSITSTANDS
4RADITIONALLYDESIGNEDINlLL2HU
.EW'ARAGE

4HEBUILDINGWASDESIGNEDASASEPARATEANNEXTOGRADE"LISTED!ROS(OUSEANDWHILSTTHE
STRUCTUREANDINTERIORARECONTEMPORARY

Page 598

THEEXTERIORHASBEENDESIGNEDTOCLOSELYREmECTTHE
STYLEOFTHEMAINHOUSE
3.5  Examples of successful sustainable inﬁll
Page 83

Page 599

PAGE
#ONTEMPORARYINlLLDEVELOPMENT/BAN
.EWINlLLCONTINUESTHESTREETPATTERNITHASA
SIMILARSCALEANDFENESTRATIONTOITSNEIGHBOURS
)NlLL$UNOON
4HISRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENTUSESTHELOCALPATTERNOF
PLOTDEVELOPMENTALARGEhFRONTvGARDENFACESONTO
THEWATERFRONTWHILETHEPROPERTYITSELFSITSFURTHERBACK
ONTOTHESITE$UNOONSURBANCONTEXTRELIESONCONSISTENT
BOUNDARYWALLTREATMENTSANDLANDSCAPEDGARDENSSOTHIS
NEWDEVELOPMENTINCLUDESASPECIALLYLANDSCAPEDGARDEN

Page 600


BOUNDARYWALLSANDGATEWAYINTHISAREA
)NlLL4ARBERT
4HIS INlLL DEVELOPMENT OF COURTYARD HOUSING IN
4ARBERTUSESLOCALMATERIALS

Page 601

DETAILSANDCOLOURTO
INTEGRATEITINTOITSSURROUNDINGS
!RANGEOFWINDOWTYPESANDSIZESAREBALANCEDBY
THEMASSOFWALL
3.5  Examples of successful sustainable inﬁll
Page 84

Page 602

PAGE
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
Page 85

Page 603

PAGE
Acknowledgements
4HISGUIDANCEINCORPORATESILLUSTRATIONSFROMTHE
FOLLOWINGSOURCES
s2#!(-3
s#LAUDIA&ERGUSON3MYTH
s'OKAY$EVICI
s4HE3ALTIRE3OCIETY
s4IGHMORE$EVELOPMENTS
s$AVID3UMSION!RCHITECT
s!NDERSON"ELL#HRISTIE!RCHITECTS
s&YNE(OMES
s-IKE$AVIS
s-IKE(YATT,ANDSCAPE!RCHITECTS
s4IREE$EVELOPMENT0ARTNERSHIP
s3IMPSONAND"ROWN
s'AIA!RCHITECTS
sTHE%ASDALE)SLAND4RUST
s'ARETH2OBERTS
s!RC!RCHITECTS
s2ICHARD'IBSON!RCHITECTS
s2ICHARD-URPHY!RCHITECTS
s$AVID"LAIRDUNBEAG	
s"LAST!RCHITECTS
s-ALCOLM&RASER!RCHITECTS
s$UALCHAS
s)SLEOF'IGHA4RUST
s7EST(IGHLAND(OUSING!SSOCIATION
s6ERNON-ONAGHAN
s3ILLSASSOCIATES
s*AMIE4ROUGHTON
s0AGEAND0ARK
s%LDERAND#ANNON
s#HRIS3TEWART!RCHITECTS
s+INGDOM(OUSING!SSOCIATION
Page 86

Page 604

PAGE
)NFORMATIONABOUT!RGYLL"UTE
!RGYLLAND"UTE,OCAL0LAN
4HE,OCAL0LANISAVAILABLEDIGITALLYFROMTHE!RGYLL"UTE#OUNCILWEBSITEAT
HTTPWWWARGYLLBUTEGOVUKCONTENTPLANNINGDEVELOPMENTPOLICY
!RGYLLAND"UTE#OUNCIL,IBRARYAND)NFORMATION3ERVICES,OCAL#OLLECTION
(IGHLAND!VENUE

Page 605

3ANDBANK$UNOON0!0"4EL
&AX#ONTACT%LEANOR(ARRIS

Page 606

,OCAL3TUDIES,IBRARIAN

Page 607

FORMORE
DETAILSELEANORHARRIS ARGYLLBUTEGOVUK	
%ACHBRANCHLIBRARYHOLDSASMALL,OCAL#OLLECTIONSPECIlCTOITSAREA

Page 608

BUTTHE
BULKOFTHEMATERIAL

Page 609

INCLUDINGBOOKS

Page 610

PAMPHLETS

Page 611

MAPSANDPOSTCARDSISHELDAT
,IBRARY(EADQUARTERS
4HE"UILDINGSOF3COTLAND

Page 612

!RGYLLAND"UTE
&RANK!RNEIL7ALKER)3".
!GUIDETOHISTORICBUILDINGSINTHE!RGYLL"UTE!REA
!RGYLLANDTHE)SLANDS!N)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDE
&RANK!RNEIL7ALKER)3".
2)!33ERIESOF)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDESTO3COTLAND

4HE .ORTH #LYDE %STUARY !N )LLUSTRATED !RCHITECTURAL 'UIDE
&RANK7ALKER

Page 613

&IONA3INCLAIR)3".
2)!33ERIESOF)LLUSTRATED!RCHITECTURAL'UIDESTO3COTLAND
4HE3TENLAKE0UBLISHING3ERIES@/LD)SLAYETCCOMPILATIONSOFOLDPHOTO
GRAPHSAREAVAILABLEATWWWSTENLAKECOUK
4HE #!.-/2% DATABASE CONTAINS DETAILS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Page 614

 ANCIENT
MONUMENTS AND BUILDINGS IN 3COTLAND )T ALSO PROVIDES AN INDEX TO THE
CATALOGUEDCOLLECTIONSOF2#!(-3ANDIMAGESOFSOMEOFTHEPHOTOGRAPHSOR
DRAWINGSINTHECOLLECTIONANDCANBEFOUNDATWWWRCAHMSGOVUK
"UILDINGSAT2ISK2EGISTERFOR3COTLANDREDUNDANTBUILDINGSOFARCHITECTURAL
INTERESTWHICHHAVETHEPOTENTIALTOBEREDEVELOPED
HTTPWWWBUILDINGSATRISKORGUK
Bibliography
)NFORMATIONABOUT3USTAINABILITYAND2ENEWABLE%NERGY
0OTENTIAL!DAPTATION3TRATEGIESFOR#LIMATE#HANGEIN3COTLAND
!NDY+ERR

Page 615

!NDY-C,EOD5NIVERSITYOF%DINBURGH3COTTISH%XECUTIVE#ENTRAL
2ESEARCH5NIT
3USTAINABLE(OUSING$ESIGN'UIDEFOR3COTLAND
&IONN3TEVENSONAND.ICK7ILLIAMS
(-3/
!,)%NERGY
!,)%NERGYISALOCALCHARITABLEORGANISATIONDEDICATEDTOINCREASINGTHEUSE
OFRENEWABLEENERGYANDINCREASINGENERGYEFlCIENCY4HEYCANGIVEADVICEON
BOTHTHETECHNOLOGYANDFUNDINGAVAILABLE
4HEIR WEBSITE  CAN BE FOUND AT HTTPWWWALIENERGYORGUK !LTERNATIVELY
EMAILENQUIRIES ALIENERGYORGUKORTEL
3%0!
3%0!ISRESPONSIBLEFORTHEPROTECTIONOFTHEENVIRONMENTIN3COTLANDSOITDEALS
WITHISSUESRELATEDTOPOLLUTION

Page 616

SEWERAGEANDWASTEDISPOSAL4HEIRWEBSITEIS
AGOODSOURCEOFINFORMATIONANDCANBEFOUNDATHTTPWWWSEPAORGUK
35$SINFORMATIONISAVAILABLEONTHEIRWEBSITEATHTTPWWWSEPAORGUK
PUBLICATIONSLEAmETSSUDSINDEXHTM
3%0!ISTHE&LOOD7ARNING!UTHORITYFOR3COTLAND4HESECTIONOFTHEIRWEB
SITEDEALINGWITHmOODINGISLOCATEDATHTTPWWWSEPAORGUKmOODING
mOODLINEINDEXHTMANDDETAILSPRODUCTSANDPUBLICATIONS3%0!AREDEVELOP
INGINTERNETmOODMAPSFOR3COTLAND
4HE%NERGY3AVING4RUST
4HE%NERGY3AVING4RUSTISAPUBLICBODYWHICHENCOURAGESENERGYEFlCIENCY
ANDTHEUSEOFRENEWABLEENERGY)TPROVIDESCOMPREHENSIVEADVICEANDCAN
PROVIDEFUNDING
)TSWEBSITEISLOCATEDATHTTPWWWESTORGUK
3COTTISH%COLOGICAL$ESIGN!SSOCIATIONHASLINKSTOANUMBEROFUSEFULWEB
SITESANDISAVAILABLEATHTTPWWWSEDAORG
72APINFORMATIONABOUTRECYCLINGANDRECLAIMEDPRODUCTSISAVAILABLEATTHIS
WEBSITEHTTPWWWWRAPORGUK
Page 87

Page 617

PAGE
'ENERAL0LANNING'UIDANCE
0LANNING'UIDANCEFROMTHE3COTTISH%XECUTIVE
4HE3COTTISH%XECUTIVEHAVECOMPILEDARANGEOF'UIDANCEONDESIGNWITHIN
BOTHRURALANDURBANAREAS2ELEVANT'UIDANCECANBEACCESSEDFROMTHEIRWEB
SITEATHTTPWWWSCOTLANDGOVUK4OPICS0LANNING"UILDING0LANNINGAND
INCLUDES
s0!.)NCLUSIVE$ESIGN
s0!.$ESIGNING3AFER0LACES
s0!..EW2ESIDENTIAL3TREETS
s0!.0LANNINGFOR4RANSPORT
s0!.(OUSING)NTHE#OUNTRYSIDE
s0!.0LANNING"UILDING3TANDARDS!DVICEON&LOODING
s0!.$ESIGN3TATEMENTS
s0!.(OUSING1UALITY
s0!.0LANNINGAND/PEN3PACE
s0!.0LANNINGANDSUSTAINABLEURBANDRAINAGESYSTEMS
s0!.0LANNINGIN3MALL4OWNS
s0!.&ITTING.EW(OUSING$EVELOPMENTINTOTHELANDSCAPE0!.INCOR
PORATESADETAILEDILLUSTRATEDCONSULTANTSMANUALOFDESIGNANDANALYSISTECHNIQUES
PREPAREDBY'ILLESPIES	
3COTTISH"UILDINGSANDTHEIRCARE
3COTTISH(OUSE!2EVIEWOF2ECENT%XPERIENCEIN"UILDING)NDIVIDUALAND3MALL
'ROUPSOF(OUSESIN2URAL3COTLANDWITHA6IEWTO3USTAINABILITY

Page 618

THE5SEOF4RADI
TIONALAND.EW-ATERIALS

Page 619

AND)NNOVATIVE$ESIGN
"93ANDY(ALLIDAY

Page 620

'AIA2ESEARCHAND'ILL0EMBERTON

Page 621

3COTTISH%COLOGICAL$ESIGN
!SSOCIATION
!VAILABLEFROMTHE3COTTISH%XECUTIVEWEBSITEAT
HTTPWWWSCOTLANDGOVUKCRURESlNDSCNHASP
4HE#ONVERSIONOF2EDUNDANT&ARM3TEADINGSTO/THER5SES
BY!NDY$AVEYWITHASSISTANCEFROM,ESLEY+ERR	
3IMPSON"ROWN!RCHITECTS
!VAILABLEFROMTHE3COTTISH%XECUTIVEWEBSITEAT
HTTPWWWSCOTLANDGOVUKCRUKDORANGECRFSASP

(ISTORIC3COTLAND
-EMORANDUM OF 'UIDANCE ON ,ISTED "UILDINGS AND #ONSERVATION !REAS
(ISTORIC3COTLAND
4HIS#OMPREHENSIVEGUIDANCEFORWORKINGWITHINCONSERVATIONAREASANDWORKING
WITH,ISTED"UILDINGSCANBEDOWNLOADEDFROMTHE(ISTORIC3COTLANDDATABASE
/THER)NFORMATIONABOUT(ISTORIC3COTLANDSPOLICYGUIDANCEAVAILABLE
INCLUDES
s -AINTAINING9OUR(OME!3HORT'UIDEFOR(OMEOWNERS
s 3COTLANDS,ISTED"UILDINGSAGUIDEFOROWNERSANDOCCUPIERS
s 0ASSED TO THE &UTURE  (ISTORIC 3COTLANDS 0OLICY FOR THE 3USTAINABLE
-ANAGEMENTOFTHEHISTORICENVIRONMENT
s ,OOKINGAFTERYOURSASHANDCASEWINDOWSASHORTGUIDEFORHOMEOWNERS
AVAILABLEON
HTTPWWWHISTORICSCOTLANDGOVUKINDEXPUBLICATIONSPUBSFOROWNERSHTM
4IMBERFRAME(OUSINGINTHE3COTTISH#OUNTRYSIDE
*OHNAND-ARGARET2ICHARDS
(-3/
'ENERAL$ESIGN'UIDANCE
#ORK2URAL$ESIGN'UIDANCEBUILDINGANEWHOUSEINTHECOUNTRYSIDE
#ORK#OUNTY#OUNCIL

%DINBURGH3TANDARDSFOR5RBAN$ESIGN
%DINBURGH#ITY#OUNCIL
)NSTITUTEOF#IVIL%NGINEERS+NOWLEDGE$ATABASETHISINTERNETSITEHASMANY
USEFULBRIElNGDOCUMENTSSUCHASh"RIElNG$OCUMENT0LACES

Page 622

STREETSANDMOVE
MENT3UPPLEMENTTO$"	vTHESITEISLOCATEDATHTTPWWWICEORGUK
KNOWLEDGE
5RBAN$ESIGN#OMPENDIUM
,,EWELYN$AVIESFOR%NGLISH0ARTNERSHIPSANDTHE(OUSING#ORPORATION
3AFETYAND3ECURITY
h3ECURED"Y$ESIGNv
)MPROVINGHOMESECURITYWEBSITEADDRESSWHICHLISTSCONTACTNAMESINTHE
!RGYLLAND"UTE!REAHTTPWWWSECUREDBYDESIGNCOM!LTERNATIVELY

Page 623

CONTACT
!#0/#RIME0REVENTION)NITIATIVESTH&LOOR

Page 624

6ICTORIA3TREET

Page 625

,ONDON37(
%84EL
Bibliography
Page 88

Page 626

Page 89

Page 627

Page 90

Page 628

Page 91

Page 629

Page 92

Page 630

Page 93

Page 631

Page 94

Page 632

STATEMENT OF CASE
FOR 
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL 
LOCAL REVIEW BODY 
 
24/0012/LRB
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR
ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO
DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF PATIO –
PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 23/02358/PP
ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET,
TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD 
Page 95 Agenda Item 3b

Page 633

STATEMENT OF CASE 
The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Ken
MacQuarrie (‘the appellant’).
Planning permission 23/02358/PP for alterations and extensions to a dwellinghouse and the
formation of a patio at the site of Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull,
Argyll and Bute (‘the appeal site’) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated
powers on the 16th May 2024. 
This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. 
DESCRIPTION OF SITE 
Rosebank is a detached dwellinghouse set within a prominent corner plot, with the original
dwelling occupying a footprint of approximately 70 square metres with an additional 18 square
metres occupied by attached outbuildings. The property is built of stone with a slated roof and
the walls are finished with wet dash render. The site boundaries are a mixture of stone walls
and metal railings and pedestrian entry to the site is facilitated by access from both
Breadalbane Street and West Street. 
STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED 
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in
making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development
plan, and all other material planning considerations and 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 
Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: 
 Whether the development is considered to be materially harmful to the host dwelling,
the application site and its setting within the townscape which is sited within the
Tobermory Conservation Area and is therefore in conflict with NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and
16 and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15 and 17. 
The Report of Handing (Appendix A) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application
in terms of these key determining issues and concludes that: 
The proposed development by virtue of its size, scale, massing, height and design, would be
materially harmful to the existing dwelling and the surrounding townscape, sited within the
Tobermory Conservation Area. The proposed development would be in direct conflict with
NPF4 Policy 14 which 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 this case, the
proposed development would introduce an overly dominant and inappropriately designed form
of development that would be materially harmful to the character, appearance and qualities of
the host dwelling and the surrounding townscape, the importance of which is acknowledged
by the designation of the site as part of the wider Tobermory Conservation Area. 
Page 96

Page 634

Furthermore, it is not considered that the highlighted unacceptable impacts of the proposed
development can be appropriately mitigated through the use of planning conditions.
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING
It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s
submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in
Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to
determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal has no complex or challenging
issues, and has not been the subject of any significant public representation, it is not
considered that a Hearing is required.
COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION
The appellant’s Agent (‘the Agent’) has submitted a supporting statement. The following
comments are made in relation to their submission:
 The Agent states that the proposed development would be a large building extension
that would nearly double the footprint of the original dwelling, however it would occupy
approximately 22% of the application site area. The Agent states that the proposal
would not constitute an overdevelopment of the site as the curtilage would remain as
generous.
Comment: The external footprint of the original dwelling is approximately 70 square
metres. The proposed extension would provide an additional external footprint of
approximately 73 square metres, thereby increasing the footprint of the original
dwelling by approximately 104%.
NPF4 Policy 16(g) stipulates that householder development proposals will only be
supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home
and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials. LDP2 Policy 01
requires development proposals to respect the character and appearance of the
surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes
and access arrangements. Whilst the proposal would not lead to the overdevelopment
of the relatively spacious application site, this does not negate the requirement for the
proposal to be appropriate to the host dwelling and the surroundings of the site in terms
of scale, massing and design.
 The Agent states that the proposed extension is designed to follow the architectural
character of the original building. The agent states that the extension is in line with the
existing dwelling and the submitted design seeks to maintain ridge and eaves height
and floor levels to retain the 1¾ storey character of the original building.
Comment: The proposed development would dominate the original dwelling in terms
of scale and massing, increasing the footprint of the original dwelling by approximately
104% and introducing an extension that would have a depth significantly greater than
the depth of the original dwelling. The southern elevation of the proposed extension
would be sited parallel to the adjacent public road and the massing of this elevation
would not be broken up, resulting in an appearance that would be overly dominant and
intrusive within the streetscene.
Page 97

Page 635

Whilst the Agent states that the architectural character of the original building would
be followed, this is contested as the proposal would instead incorporate design
features that do no form part of the existing, original dwelling and features which are
not present within the surrounding building types, including the substantial catslide
roof. 
Development proposals should minimise their impact on the existing built setting by
either integrating sensitive, low-key development or introducing high quality
contemporary new design. In this instance however, contrary to the comments of the
Agent, the design of the proposed extension is instead overly dominant and introduces
inappropriate elevation treatment and detailing, such as the contemporary glazing
arrangements, the curved glass balustrade and the catslide roof, that would fail to
complement the architectural character of the original dwelling. Additionally, the
proposed glazing pattern and proportions would not be sympathetic to the windows
within the original dwelling and would not therefore provide consistency or unity of
appearance throughout the original dwelling and the proposed extension. 
 The Agent states that during the pre-application process and during the consideration
of the planning application, the Planning Authority expressed a preference for a small
low-level extension. The Agent states that this approach would deny the applicants
their ambition to improve the dwelling layout and modernise the internal
accommodation. 
Comment: NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that development proposals will only be
supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character or
environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design
and materials. In this instance, the original dwelling has a simple form with a relatively
narrow plan. The depth of the proposed extension, which would be significantly greater
than that of the original dwelling, would provide an unacceptably large and overly
dominant appearance that would have a clear detrimental impact on the character of
the existing home. The Planning Authority maintains that the existing, two storey core
of the dwelling should instead be supplemented by single storey additions; larger
buildings can often be successfully broken up into smaller elements in terms of
massing, and taking this approach may offer opportunity to improve the dwelling in a
sympathetic manner. 
Prior to the submission of the planning application, the applicant submitted a pre-
application enquiry relating to extensions to the dwelling. The pre-application enquiry
response set out the policy requirements and the relevant material planning
considerations. The response advised the applicant of the concerns relating to the
scale and design of the proposal and concluded that an unsympathetic extension, as
proposed, would have a detrimental effect on the wider conservation area as well as
the original property. The applicant was further advised at this time that the Planning
Authority acknowledged the spaciousness of the plot and it was stated that it was
considered that there was scope for extensions to the dwellinghouse, however such
extensions would be required by the relevant Policies to be appropriately sympathetic
to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and its setting within the
conservation area. Notwithstanding this, the detailed planning application as
subsequently submitted was for a development that was essentially the same as that
the subject of the pre-application enquiry, with minor alterations to the proposed
fenestration. None of the other concerns were addressed within the submission of the
planning application. 
 The Agent states that the opinions of the Planning Authority are subjective rather than
based on analysis or design guidance and states that the applicants have analysed
Page 98

Page 636

the original building, site and setting and careful note has been taken of the Council’s
design guidance on building line, roof form and line, maintaining the proportionality and
verticality of the host dwelling.
Comment: During the consideration of the planning application, consultation was
undertaken with the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer. The consultation
response advised that the proposed development, as viewed from West Street, would
not be of a sympathetic scale or height. The consultation response also confirmed that
the scale and style of the proposed extension would not be sympathetic to the existing
house.
It is disputed that the proposal would maintain the proportionality of the host dwelling
given that the proposed extension would have a significantly greater depth than the
depth of the original dwelling.
 The Agent states that the architect has specified the use of rooflights to maximise the
daylight entering the living spaces of the proposed extension and to help allay any
concerns about overlooking.
Comment: The Planning Authority raised no concerns regarding overlooking impacts
resulting from the proposed development.
 The Agent States that the Case Officer has sought to depict the proposed development
as visually jarring, overly dominant, and inappropriate in scale, massing, and height for
a rear extension. The Agent states that this is contended by the applicant because
such a judgement is not supported by the Council’s own design guidance. The Agent
further states that a fair and reasonable assessment of a building extension requires
consideration of curtilage dimensions, an understanding of relationship to street,
neighbouring buildings, respect for setbacks, local building typology and proper
acknowledgement of other examples of building extension, adaptation, and garden
development within the Conservation Area.
Comment: It is maintained that the proposed extension, which would represent an
increase in footprint of approximately 104% of the original dwelling, would be
inappropriate in scale and massing when paying due regard to the character and
appearance of the existing dwelling. The relevant Policies contained within National
Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2 require extensions
to be proportionate and appropriately designed in relation to the existing building.
It is noted that the supporting statement submitted by the Agent identifies the principal
elevation of the dwelling as that which addresses West Street. Given that the proposed
extension would front onto West Street, it would therefore constitute a side extension.
The proposed extension, as viewed from West Street, would span approximately 9.8
metres; this would be in addition to, and significantly greater than, the existing elevation
fronting onto West Street, which spans approximately 7.8 metres. The proposed
development would also extend beyond the rear elevations of the properties to the
north of the application site.
The conclusion that the proposed development would be overly dominant and
inappropriate in terms of scale, massing and height arises from an assessment of the
proposal that has given due regard to the existing, host dwelling and the wider
surroundings of the application site.
Page 99

Page 637

 The Agent states that the proposed development would not harm the amenity of the
neighbouring property or detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area.
The Agent states that the applicant has strong local connections and would not seek
to do anything harmful to the character or appearance of the property or the
surrounding area. 
Comment: The Planning Authority raised no concerns regarding the impact of the
proposed development upon the amenity of the neighbouring property. 
Given the scale of the proposal and its setting within a prominent, highly visible corner
plot within the Tobermory Conservation Area, the Council’s Design and Conservation
Officer was consulted on the application. Conservation Areas are an irreplaceable
cultural and economic resource that contribute to the distinctive character and unique
quality of Argyll and Bute and therefore must be protected. The additional expertise on
technical matters relating to the proposal and the conservation area were therefore
sought from the Design and Conservation Officer, for assistance in reaching a view on
the impact of the proposed development upon the safeguarded historic environment.
The resulting consultation response unambiguously stated that the proposed
development would not be sympathetic in scale, height or design. 
The consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer further
advised that the existing attached outbuildings at the site make a positive contribution
to the area, however acknowledged that their condition may make their repair
undesirable or unviable. It is reiterated that, given the size of the plot, it is considered
that there is opportunity for the dwellinghouse to be extended, however any such
extensions must be of an acceptable design in relation to the host dwelling and its
setting within the conservation area. 
With reference to the consultation response, the proposal was assessed against the
stipulations set out within NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places, and LDP2 Policy
17 – Conservation Areas. These Policies state that development proposals in
conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the
conservation area is retained and enhanced. In this instance, the assessment
considered that the proposal would fail to respect the architectural and historic
character of the original dwelling and would therefore adversely impact upon the
surrounding conservation area. The proposal would introduce built development that
would fail to complement the original dwelling; the significant massing of the proposed
extension, the catslide roof and the glazing arrangements would lead to a development
that would be detrimental to the original dwelling in terms of scale, proportion and
design. The proposal would fail to respect the context of the application site and the
design would impart an inappropriately suburban character to the site that would erode
the special qualities of the Tobermory Conservation Area. The assessment of the
application therefore concluded that the proposed development would be in direct
conflict with NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 17. 
 The Agent states that the applicant considers that the policy grounds offered for refusal
are overstated, stating that greater weight should be attached to the applicants’
supporting written statement and their desire to improve their home to make it better
suited to modern family living. Greater weight should be attached to the published
design guidance which although dated has not yet been superseded by new guidance.
No mention is made of the design guidance in the Case Officer’s report of handling. 
Comment: The Planning Authority does not object to the applicant’s wish to alter and
improve the living accommodation within the dwelling, however the relevant Policy is
clear in stating that householder development proposals must not have a detrimental
Page 100

Page 638

impact upon the character of the home and surrounding area in terms of size, design
and materials. The application site occupies a prominent corner plot within the
Tobermory Conservation Area where the proposed, inappropriately large extension
would be readily visible and appear as overly dominant within the streetscene, such
that it would have a detrimental effect on the wider environment as well as the original
property. 
The Agent makes reference to design guidance however it is to be noted that the Argyll
and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance
March 2016 and Supplementary Guidance 2 December 2016 are superseded and do
not form part of the development plan. 
 The Agent states that there are no objections recorded by the community council, any
heritage body, nor from any third party and that two neighbours have expressed their
support for the planning application. The Agent states that in the absence of any
objection from neighbours, the refusal decision has been reached on the professional
judgement of the appointed officer under influence of the comments of the
Conservation Officer as an internal consultee. The Agent further states that the
determination that the proposed extension is too large, dominant, or unsuited to the
locality is entirely subjective, not analytical nor referenced to the design guidance. 
Comment: The application was assessed with due regard to the material
considerations of the relevant policies contained within the National Planning
Framework 4, the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, consultation
responses, the planning history for the site, the Council’s Technical Note on
Biodiversity, and the Council’s Technical Note on Windows. 
The assessment of the application determined that, in line with the consultation
response received from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, the massing
of the proposed extension would appear as disproportionate to the original dwelling
and its scale would not be distinguishable as a later addition and in this regard the
identity of the dwelling would be lost such that its character would be undermined, and
the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy.   
 The Agent states that the proposal would maintain uniformity across floor levels to
maximise accessibility and that the scale would create practical accommodation and
realise the advantage of elevation and slope to optimise views over Tobermory
harbour. The Agent states that whilst it is a large extension, there is no policy restriction
on 1¾ storey extensions to match the original dwelling. The Agent states that the
footprint is not excessive relative to curtilage and the extended building is sustainably
sited set well back from the street and respectful of existing built development. The
Agent further states that the Planning Authority acknowledges that the proposal raises
no privacy concerns, issues with setback, overlooking or overshadowing or residual
garden size. The Agent states that the fundamental concern stated is building height
and massing simply because the extension is not considered ‘subservient’ to the
original. The Agent states that development is not required to be subservient and this
opinion is incorrectly presented as policy. 
Comment: The relevant Policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted
Local Development Plan 2 require householder extensions to be appropriate to the
character of the existing dwelling in terms of size, design and materials. In this
instance, given that the proposal would represent a 104% increase in the external
footprint of the building and as the extension would be across both the ground floor
and first floor level, it is clear that the proposal would not be appropriate to the existing
dwelling in terms of size. 
Page 101

Page 639

Contrary to the statements of the Agent, development proposals are required by the
relevant policy to be suitably scaled and subordinate in relation to the existing built
development. As previously outlined, both the size and design would visually jar with,
and have a detrimental impact upon, not only the character of the surrounding area
but in particular on the character and appearance of modest original dwelling which
would remain and be read in the context of the substantial new addition to it. 
 The Agent states that the proposed development would not be overly prominent nor
visually discordant, stating that the extension would relate to the original building and
to neighbouring development, would pose no risk of overshadowing or overlooking and
would compare positively with other examples of building extension in the Tobermory
Conservation Area. The Agent states that the proposal is a householder development
and does not involve a significant impact on historic assets or place, setting out that
the proposal would not detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area and
that the siting, form and design of the proposed extension is respectful of the special
qualities of the area, local building typology and density. 
Comment: The proposed extension would fail to respect the architectural and historic
character of the original dwelling by introducing built development that would fail to
complement the original dwelling. Whilst the information submitted in support of the
application seeks to reference the scale of nearby properties, there is a requirement
for extensions to have regard to the scale and character of the core element of the
original dwelling when determining whether an extension is sympathetic. In this case,
the proposed extension would be detrimental to the original dwelling in terms of both
scale and proportions. As previously outlined, the consultation response received from
the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer highlighted concerns regarding the
scale, height and design of the proposed extension. The proposed development would
fail to recognise and respect the value of the historic environment and would not
therefore preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The
proposal would be at odds with the application site and its surroundings and would
undermine the key policies which seek to protect and enhance historic environment
assets and places. 
CONCLUSION 
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) requires that all
decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. 
In this case, as detailed in the Report of Handling appended to this submission, the proposed
development by virtue of its size, scale, massing, height and design, would have an adverse
visual impact on the immediate and wider surroundings and would be detrimental to the
character and appearance of the original dwelling. The proposal would be materially harmful
to the character, appearance and qualities of the area, the importance of which is
acknowledged by the designation of the site as part of the wider Tobermory Conservation
Area. The proposed development is therefore confirmed as being contrary to National
Planning Policy 4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15 and 17. 
Taking account of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the application for Review be
dismissed. 
Page 102

Page 640

APPENDIX A – REPORT OF HANDLING 
Argyll and Bute Council
Development & Economic Growth   
Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland)
Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning
Permission in Principle 
Reference No: 23/02358/PP
Planning Hierarchy: Local Development 
Applicant: Mr Ken MacQuarrie
Proposal: Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio
Site Address:  Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6PD    
DECISION ROUTE 
☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 
☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 
(A)  THE APPLICATION 
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
 Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
 Demolition of existing attached outbuildings 
(ii) Other specified operations
 Formation of patio 
(B) RECOMMENDATION: 
Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is
recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. 
(C) CONSULTATIONS:   
Argyll and Bute Council – Design and Conservation Officer
Report dated 02.02.2024 commenting on the application with regard to the scale and
design of the proposed development. Following the submission of additional
supporting information from the agent, the Council’s Design and Conservation
Officer was re-consulted and in an email dated 27.03.2024, advised of no further
comment to make. 
Argyll and Bute Council – Area Roads Authority 
Report dated 16.01.2024 advising of no objections subject to conditions. 
Page 103

Page 641

The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation
responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s
website.
(D) HISTORY:
23/01821/PREAPP - Storey and a half rear extension – Advice offered 6th October 2023.
This was a pre-application enquiry by the applicant for the current proposed development
and was for a large extension to this dwellinghouse sited in a prominent location within the
Tobermory conservation area.
The following comments were made by officers:
This pre-application enquiry is seeking advice on the erection of an extension to the dwelling
of Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull.
The application site comprises a detached property with an attached outbuilding set within
a linear plot. The property occupies a very prominent corner plot at the junctions of West
Street, Breadalbane Street and Breadalbane Lane. The site is adjoined by a residential
property to the north.
The proposal relates to the erection of a rear extension to the dwelling to facilitate ground
floor and first floor extensions to the property. The proposal would involve the removal of
the existing single storey attached outhouse and store that are sited to the rear of the
dwelling.
NPF4 represents the main policy background against which proposed developments are
currently being assessed, underpinned by the Policy and Supplementary Guidance (SG)
contained within the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 (LDP).
As the property lies within the Tobermory Conservation Area, consideration has to be given
to NPF4 Policy 7 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and LDP 9, supplementary
guidance SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP ENV 18, and Policies 15 and 17 of the proposed
Local Development Plan 2, the key considerations of which seek to ensure that the
character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or
enhanced.
NPF4 Policy 14, as underpinned by LDP Policy LDP 9, the Sustainable Siting and Design
Principles and Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2, seek
developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that
development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is
located. Proposed developments must respect the existing character, form, materials and
detailing of the existing building and neighbouring properties.
Further design advice is available within the Council’s approved Design Guidance - ABC
Design Guidance - Design Guides.
The SSDP referenced above provides detailed advice on proposed extensions highlighting
that care needs to be taken to ensure that the design, scale and materials used are
appropriate in relation to the existing property and neighbouring properties with a
requirement for alterations and extensions to be in scale and designed to reflect the
character of the original property so that the appearance of the property and the amenity of
the surrounding area are not adversely affected. Extensions should not dominate the
Page 104

Page 642

original existing building by way of size, scale, proportion or design and finishing materials
should be complementary to the existing building.
There is concern in this case that the proposed extension would be overly dominant in scale
and would not appear as suitably subservient to the existing dwelling. The external footprint
of the existing property comprises approximately 68 square metres; the proposed extension
would increase the total external footprint to approximately 143 square metres. The scale
of the extension would match the ridge height and eaves height of the existing property, and
would appear large and overly prominent in its massing. In this regard, it is considered that
the extension would dominate the original existing building by way of its size, scale and
proportions. There is also concern that the proportions of the windows proposed do not
respect those of the original dwelling, or the character and appearance of the surrounding
conservation area. As the site occupies a prominent plot within the streetscene, any
potentially unsympathetic extensions would have a detrimental effect on the wider
conservation area environment as well as the original property. The plot is spacious and it
is considered that there is scope for extensions to the dwellinghouse, however any
extensions would need to appear as appropriately subservient, sympathetic to the existing
dwelling and pay regard to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The detailed planning application as subsequently submitted and the subject of this report
of handling is for a development that is essentially the same as that the subject of the pre-
application enquiry (except for a change to the design of some of the windows). None of the
other concerns have been addressed.
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20, Neighbour Notification,
and Site Notice procedures, overall closing date 15.02.2024.
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
(i) Representations received from:
Two expressions of support have been received to the application:
Neil Morrison, Roslyn House, 24 Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, PA75 6PD - by
email only (12.02.2024)
Mattew Spence, 11 West Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6QZ (16.02.2024)
Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are
available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website.
(ii) Summary of issues raised:
 The proposed development would enhance the appearance of the area.
The dilapidated outhouses would be replaced with the extension.
Comment: The expressions of support are noted by the Planning Authority.
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Page 105

Page 643

Has the application been the subject of: 
(i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No  
(ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the
Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations
1994:   
☐Yes ☒No  
(iii) A Design or Design/Access statement:    ☒Yes ☐No 
Following the initial
consultation response
from the Council’s Design
and Conservation Officer,
a Design and Access
Statement and a
Supporting Statement
were subsequently
submitted. 
(iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2
Policy 04) 
TN06 Sustainability Checklist
TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist
☐Yes ☒No
☐Yes ☒No 
The application was
submitted prior to the
adoption of the Local
Development Plan 2 and
has been submitted with
supplementary
information in the form of
a Design and Access
Statement and a
Supporting Statement. 
(v) A report on the impact of the proposed
development eg. Retail impact, transport
impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage
impact etc:  
☐Yes ☒No 
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS 
Is a Section 75 agreement required:   ☐Yes ☒No   
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30,
31 or 32:  ☐Yes ☒No    
Page 106

Page 644

(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 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises
NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption
NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity
NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places
NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places
NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes
provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites)
NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy
NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport 
Liveable Places
NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place
NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes 
Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) 
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 17 – Conservation Areas 
Connected Places 
Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes
Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road
Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses
Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision 
High Quality Environment 
Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity 
Page 107

Page 645

(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 3/2013. 
 Third Party Representations
 Consultation Reponses
 Planning History
 ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017)
 ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) 
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental
Impact Assessment:  ☐Yes ☒No    
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation
(PAC):  ☐Yes ☒No 
(M) Does the Council have an interest in the site:  ☐Yes ☒No 
(N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No    
(O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development:
 Tobermory Conservation Area 
(O)(ii) Soils
Agricultural Land Classification:  Built Up Area
Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1
☐Class 2
☐Class 3
☒N/A
Peat Depth Classification: N/A  
Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No
Would the development restrict access to croft
or better quality agricultural land?
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Would the development result in
fragmentation of croft / better quality
agricultural land?
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A 
(O)(iii) Woodland  
Will the proposal result in loss of
trees/woodland?
☐Yes
☒No 
Does the proposal include any replacement or
compensatory planting?
☐Yes
☐No details to be secured by condition
Page 108

Page 646

☒N/A  
(O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy
Status of Land within the Application  ☒Brownfield
☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature
☐Greenfield 
ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy 
☒Settlement Area
☐Countryside Area
☐Remote Countryside Area
☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt
ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: 
N/A 
(P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material
considerations 
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an extension at the site of
Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull. 
Rosebank is a detached dwellinghouse set within a prominent corner plot, occupying
a footprint of approximately 70 square metres with an additional 18 square metres
occupied by attached outbuildings. The property is built of stone with a slated roof
and the walls are finished with wet dash render. The site boundaries are a mixture
of stone walls and slatted timber fencing and pedestrian entry to the site is via an
access from Breadalbane Street. 
This application seeks consent for an extension to the dwellinghouse, sited to adjoin
the existing rear, southeast elevation of the dwelling. The proposed extension would
have a rectangular form with a width greater than the existing rear elevation
projection, occupying a total footprint of 73 square metres. The proposed extension
would have a ridge height of 7.3 metres, matching the ridge height of the original
dwelling. The proposed extension would have a catslide roof, with an eaves height
of 2.7 metres upon the side, southwest elevation to provide a single storey
appearance, with an eaves height of 4.2 metres upon the side, northeast elevation.
The proposed extension would feature rooflights within both the northeast and
southwest roofslopes, and contemporary glazing arrangements within the side,
southwest elevation and rear, southeast elevation, with modest fenestration within
the side, northeast elevation. A curved glass balustrade would feature at the first
floor level upon the rear elevation. The proposed facing and roofing materials would
comprise wet dash render in a cream colour and slate roof tiles, so as to match the
existing facing and roofing materials. 
NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises seeks to prioritise the
climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other
policies in NPF4. 
Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to
determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for,
or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate
and nature crises. 
Page 109

Page 647

NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption seeks to ensure that new
development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current
and future risks from climate change. 
Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single
accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis
is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The
Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels
of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as
these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment
opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2
recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant
development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services
are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new
facilities elsewhere. 
NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss
and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 
In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is considered that
there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts
have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority.
NPF4 Policy 3(c) states that applications for individual householder development are
excluded from the requirement to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore
and enhance biodiversity. The proposed development is therefore considered to be
in compliance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and is consistent with the
requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and
Biodiversity. 
NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural
assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 
The development proposed by the current planning application would have no
unacceptable landscape impact on the natural environment. The proposed
development is not within any designated European site of natural environment
conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic
Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located
within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or
within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is considered to
be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4. 
NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places seeks to protect and enhance historic
environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the
regeneration of places. 
NPF4 Policy 7(a) requires development proposals with a potentially significant
impact on historic assets or places to be accompanied by an assessment which is
based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and place.
The site the subject of this application lies within the Tobermory Conservation Area
and occupies a prominent corner plot within the streetscene. Following the
consultation response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, a Design
and Access Statement and a Supporting Statement were submitted. 
Page 110

Page 648

NPF4 Policy 7(d) states that development proposals in or affecting conservation
areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the
conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations
include the: 
i. architectural and historic character of the area;
ii. existing density, built form and layout; and 
iii. context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. 
The policies contained within LDP2 seek to support and encourage sustainable
forms of development that seek to protect, conserve and where possible enhance
the historic built environment, encourage and support regeneration, and provide
protection from inappropriate forms of development. 
LDP2 Policy 17 – Conservation Areas, aims to safeguard the buildings, building
patterns and enclosures that give conservation areas their special character;
Conservation areas form an important physical record of the architectural
development and historical growth of an area. They are an irreplaceable cultural and
economic resource that contributes to the distinctive character and unique quality of
Argyll and Bute and therefore must be protected. LDP2 Policy 17 states that there is
a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of a conservation area or its setting. New development within these
areas must respect the architectural, historic and other special qualities that give rise
to their designation. 
In this instance, the proposed extension would fail to respect the architectural and
historic character of the original dwelling by introducing built development that would
fail to complement the original dwelling. Whilst the information submitted in support
of the application seeks to reference the scale of nearby properties, there is a
requirement for extensions to have regard to the scale and character of the core
element of the original dwelling when determining whether an extension is
sympathetic. In this case, the proposed extension would be detrimental to the
original dwelling in terms of both scale and proportions.   
The consultation response received from the Council’s Conservation Officer
highlighted concerns regarding the scale, height and design of the proposed
extension, stating that it would not appear as appropriately subservient to the original
dwelling. The same concerns were also raised following an initial pre-application
enquiry as detailed in Section D above. 
NPF4 Policy 7(f) and 7(g) relate to the demolition of buildings in conservation areas
and state that the demolition of buildings in a conservation area which make a
positive contribution to its character will only be supported where it has been
demonstrated that: 
i. reasonable efforts have been made to retain, repair and reuse the
building; 
ii. the building is of little townscape value;
iii. the structural condition of the building prevents its retention at a
reasonable cost; or
iv. the form or location of the building makes its reuse extremely difficult. 
The Policy further states that where demolition within a conservation area is to be
followed by redevelopment, consent to demolish will only be supported when an
Page 111

Page 649

acceptable design, layout and materials are being used for the replacement
development. 
This application proposes the removal of the existing attached outbuildings sited to
the rear elevation of the dwelling. The information submitted with the application
advises that the outbuildings are in a poor state of repair, with water ingress and
dilapidated and missing windows. Whilst the consultation response from the
Council’s Design and Conservation Officer states that the current outbuildings make
a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, it is
acknowledged that the structural condition of the outbuildings prevents their
retention at a reasonable cost. However, the proposed redevelopment to follow the
demolition of the outbuildings, as discussed in the above assessment, is not
considered to be of an acceptable design or layout. 
In this regard, the proposed development would fail to recognise and respect the
value of the historic environment and would not therefore preserve the character and
appearance of the conservation area. The proposed development would therefore
be contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policies 15 and 17. 
Every attempt has been made by officers to secure an acceptable scheme, even
before the application was submitted, but the applicant has refused to compromise
and wishes for a determination of the development as submitted. 
NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings
seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and
derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield
development. 
The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield
site by virtue of the fact that it is a householder development located within the
established residential curtilage of the property. It is considered that the proposal will
result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and is therefore supported by Policy
9(a) and LDP2 Policy 01. 
The application site is situated within a defined ‘Settlement Area’ where LDP2 Policy
01  gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is
compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable  access and infrastructure; is of
an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it
respects the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape in terms of
density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and that it complies with all other
relevant LDP2 policies. In this instance, the proposal is seeking planning permission
for an extension to the existing dwelling. The proposed extension, by virtue of its
design, scale and appearance, would appear as incongruous with the scale and
design of the existing dwelling. The proposed development would therefore fail to
meet the requirements of LDP2 Policy 01. 
NPF4 Policy 11- Energy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of
renewable energy development, including energy generation, storage, and new and
replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure. 
NPF4 Policy 11(a) states that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-
carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. The proposed
development, through the provision of solar panels, would contribute to the
expansion of low-carbon and zero emission technologies and is thereby supported
Page 112

Page 650

by NPF4 Policy 11 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Design,
which seeks proposed developments to consider renewable sources of energy. 
NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport seeks to encourage, promote and
facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport
for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 
The development the subject of this planning application seeks permission for an
extension to the dwellinghouse. The extension would however increase the level of
accommodation provided at the property. There would be no amendments to the
access or parking arrangements at the site. The proposed development is not
considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is
considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. 
The Area Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and have raised
no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the
provision of a system of surface water drainage and the provision of a bin storage
area. Given that the proposed development relates to extensions to the existing
dwellinghouse and does not propose any alterations to the access or parking
arrangements, it is considered that this requirement could be secured as a note to
the applicant in the event that planning permission were to be granted. 
The proposed development is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and
is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 37, 39 and 40 which
collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and
safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with
the scale of the development proposed. 
NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to encourage, promote and
facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a
design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. 
This policy requires development proposals to contribute to quality places, spaces
and environments through appropriate design and quality, taking into account the
local context and characteristics of the area. 
NPF4 Policy 14(a) requires development proposals to be designed to improve the
quality of an area, with NPF4 Policy 14(b) requiring development proposals to be
consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The proposed development
would directly conflict with NPF4 Policies 14(a) and 14(b) as the shape, size and
appearance of the development would fail to integrate appropriately with the
surrounding built environment and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of the local area. The proposed development would be readily visible from
the public realm and the appearance of the proposed extension would be
incompatible and out of character in the context of the local vernacular. 
The development would not therefore be supportable under the provisions of NPF4
Policy 14 or LDP2 Policies 05, 09 and 10. 
NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the
delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right
locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of
people and communities across Scotland. 
Page 113

Page 651

NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that householder development proposals will be supported
where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental
quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials,
and they do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of
physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. LDP2 Policy 05 sets out the
requirements for development proposals to develop the areas 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. These considerations collectively
seek to ensure that proposals reflect the original character of the dwellinghouse so
that the appearance of the building and the amenity of the surrounding area are not
adversely affected. 
The existing dwelling at the site is a detached dwelling with modest proportions,
scale and massing. The development proposed by this application would fail to be
subservient to the existing dwelling; the proposed rear extension would be of a
significantly greater depth than the existing dwellinghouse, extending approximately
10 metres beyond the existing rear elevation. The ridge height of the proposed
extension, at 7.3 metres, would match the ridge height of the existing dwelling and
the footprint of the proposed extension would be greater than the footprint of the
original dwelling. In this regard, the proposed extension would fail to be subservient
to the existing dwelling in terms of both size and height and would appear as an
overly dominant form of development. The character and form of the existing building
would not therefore be preserved. 
In addition, the elevation treatment and detailing, with the contemporary glazing
arrangements, curved glass balustrade and catslide roof, would fail to complement
the original dwelling. 
The massing of the proposed extension would appear as disproportionate to the
original dwelling and its scale would not be distinguishable as a subservient, later
addition. In this regard, the identity of the dwelling would be lost such that its
character would be undermined as the proposed extension would not reflect the
proportions, scale and size of the original dwelling. The scale, form, massing and
design of the proposed extension would visually jar with and have a detrimental
impact not only on the character of the surrounding area but in particular on the
character and appearance of modest original dwelling which would remain and be
read in the context of the substantial new addition to it. 
With regard to impacts upon neighbour amenity, the proposed development would
be sited at a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties such that,
notwithstanding the inappropriate scale, form, massing and height of the proposed
development, it is not considered that the proposal would materially harm the privacy
outlook, levels of sun and daylight or the living conditions for any nearby residential
properties. As such, the proposed would meet the requirements of Policy 16g of
NPF4 in so far as stated only in respect of not causing a detrimental effect on the
neighbouring properties. 
For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4
Policy 16 and LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 09 and 10. 
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No 
Page 114

Page 652

(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should
be Granted: 
See reasons for refusal set out below. 
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development
Plan 
N/A 
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland:
☐Yes ☒No 
Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 14.05.2024 
Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 15.05.2024 
Fergus Murray
Head of Development & Economic Growth 
Page 115

Page 653

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 654

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2005
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings.
OS License No. XYZ123ABC
Location Plan Relative to:  24/0012/LRB
O
1:1,250
Page 117

Page 655

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 656

1
HLM SCOTLAND LTD | CHARTERED TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT
KILNVIEW | DRAFFEN MOUNT | STEWARTON | EAST AYRSHIRE | KA3 5LG
T.
M.
Email |
_________________________________________________________________________________
Committee Services Officer
Legal and Regulatory Support
Kilmory
Lochgilphead
Argyll and Bute
PA31 8RT
Your Reference: 24/0012/LRB
19 August 2024
Dear Sirs,
23/02358/PP | Rosebank Breadalbane Street Tobermory, Isle of Mull PA75 6PD | Application for
planning permission for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio.
We are in receipt of the Council’s Statement of Case and instructed to submit a further response to matters
raised. This addendum to the appellant’s statement of case is listed as production five.
Also attached is correspondence and photographs from the appellant (production six and six(a)) that we
request be accepted as an addendum to our production list, as he responds directly to matters raised in
the Council’s submissions.
Our client Mr McQuarrie was present at preapplication and post submission interactions with Council
Officers and as a local man he is better placed to comment and respond to specific points raised, whereas
HLM was engaged latterly, to assist with preparation of the appeal. We shall continue to respond on the
planning policy aspects material to handling.
Description of site
We dispute the characterisation of the description of the application site as prominent. The proposed
extension aspects towards West Street and is set well back from this street. West Street is not a principal
street, and the proposed development is not prominent.
Statutory Basis
The presumption that planning applications should be determined with regard the Development Plan and
other material considerations is not disputed. The relationship between the adopted Local Development
Plan and the National Planning Framework is explained in our statement of case. The substance of this
appeal tuns on the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.
Page 119 Agenda Item 3c

Page 657

2
However, we do not agree with the Council’s outright dismissal of the design guidance. Prior to accepting
this engagement, preparing, and submitting this appeal, we consulted with the Duty Planner and
Development Planning Team at Argyll and Bute Council to query and confirm the status of the guidance
as it is dated. Officers advised that it was non statutory, but in the absence of replacement and updated
guidance, it represented the Council’s most up to date committee approved design advice available to
applicants and could still be considered material. It remains on the Council’s website. If the Guidance were
obsolete, it would not still be available to view. There was no reference to the guidance in the Officer’s
report on handling because it was overlooked. The appointed officer seeks to disregard its materiality
because it is not helpful to the Council’s reasoning and the defence of this appeal.
Statement of Case
We have set out carefully and fully in our statement of case reasoning to explain that the proposed
development accords with the Policies set out in the Development Plan. There is no material conflict with
these policies.
Requirement for Additional Information and a Hearing
The applicant restates his request for a site inspection as this will provide opportunity to rebut assertions
that the application site is prominent, that the proposed development will feature negatively and to address
assertions that the West Street contributes significantly to the qualities of the Conservation Area.
Our client who knows Tobermory and the Island of Mull intimately, has addressed this more fully in his
correspondence attached. The application was dealt with under delegated procedures and refused
notwithstanding expressions of public support from two parties. There were no objections recorded, and
since the submission of this appeal, two local Councillors have now expressed their surprise about the
refusal decision and offered support for the proposed development. The email received from Councillor
Hume is listed as production eight. Under the circumstances, a site inspection and familiarisation with the
site and wider setting appears justified.
Appellant’s Submission
It is not disputed that the house extension is large in relation to the original built footprint which was
compact. The original footprint has been expanded with the addition of single storey outbuildings that will
be cleared to accommodate the proposed development. The appointed Officer is concerned about the
ambition of the house extension, its scale, height, and mass relative to the donor property, but it is our
submission that there is capacity to accept this development without harm to the original dwelling or its
wider setting.
The appointed officer does not acknowledge that an adjacent cottage was demolished previously, and this
land now extends the curtilage of the appeal property. In no sense can the development proposed be
described as an over development of land. The curtilage remains generous and exceeds usual space
standards. The proposed development accords with the published design guidance that the Council wishes
selectively to disregard.
The appointed Officer attached considerable weight to the consultation response of the Council’s Design
and Conservation Officer. This Officer is not a Chartered Architect and did not reference the Council’s
Design Guidance nor offer formal assessment against this guidance. We have conducted such an
assessment and submit that the proposed development accords with the Council’s published standards.
The applicant employed the services of an experienced Chartered Architect and invested faith in the
professional expertise and experience of this consultant. Discussion and debate around the design merits
of proposed development is subjective without a meaningful point of reference.
National Planning Policy 4 does not offer fine grained, detailed design advice and is not helpful to judge
the design merits of the proposal. Neither is the adopted Local Development Plan, but where there is
design criteria listed, the statement of case sets out carefully how the proposed development complies.
Page 120

Page 658

Page 121

Page 659

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 660

1
Committee Services Officer
Legal and Regulatory Support
Kilmory
Lochgilphead
Argyll and Bute
PA31 8RT
19 August 2024
Reference: 23/02358/PP
Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6PD.
Application for planning permission for alternations and extension to dwellinghouse
and formation of patio.
Dear Convenor and Councillors,
Thank you all for taking time to consider my request for review of the decision to refuse
planning permission for Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6PD.
This is quite simply a planning application to extend the family house that I was brought up in
and has been in our family for well over a century since my grandfather built it in 1909.
All my life I have had a dream to improve the home, in which I was brought up and make it a
home suitable for my family to live and work in Mull. The object of the extension is to retain
the three double bedrooms and create a second bathroom and a kitchen with living and dining
space.
Section 1: Context
What brings me to appeal and request review is a disagreement on the validity of the reasons
for refusal, the assessment of the impact and nature of the proposed design and the
application of NPF4 and its confluence with the LDP.
My regard and love of the history and culture of Tobermory has driven me to think very carefully
about the proposed extension, its suitability and the materials used. Rosebank has been in
my family for three generations. My grandfather designed and constructed, Rosebank. He was
the principal foreman and stone mason for the building contractor Donald Fletcher in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With the exception of my grandfather, my people
were small holders. My grand uncle Archibald MacLean ploughed with Clydesdale horses. It
was a great pleasure to watch the horses being shod in the Smiddy by the blacksmith Angus
Henderson which was in the little lane on the east boundary of Rosebank.
My father started the Mull Historical Society and set up the Mull Museum. He published the
book: The Place Names of Mull.
I understand the oral culture surrounding the building materials used and the trades that
ensued. For example, I am familiar with the history of the Ballachulish slate quarries. I care
passionately about the integrity of my grandfather’s design and I feel that I am implementing
what both he and my father had wished to do but were unable to fulfil because of circumstance.
The intention was to build a home for his family and for successive generations to come. I
spent much of my childhood in the house of Rosebank, my family were native Gaelic speakers
Page 123

Page 661

2
as am I. I know from my father that it was my grandfather’s intention to extend Rosebank
towards the East, along the whole axis of the house. It had similarly been my father’s ambition
to extend the house in the same direction.
As citizens I think it behoves us to understand the legislative intent of NPF4. I do not believe
it is sensibly deployed in this instance for a house extension. It is a framework which should
be used and applied with judgement. It should neither be a club nor a straight jacket to inhibit
householders and council taxpayers from developing their property.
Section 2: The Site
Rosebank
In the Council statement, Rosebank is described as a detached dwelling house. Today it is
detached but was not always so. Up until the 1920s a cottage was attached to the house
occupied by a family named Colquhoun. The post-World War One economy drove them to
emigrate to Vancouver, Canada. The cottage fell into disrepair and was demolished.
Outbuildings
The Planning Authority have stated that the current outbuildings make a positive contribution
to the character and appearance of the area, but do recognise that their condition makes repair
undesirable /unviable.
The garage belonging to Rosebank on West Street, was built by myself, my late brother and
my father in the 1960s. The low outhouse shed was built of single brick construction with a
corrugated iron roof in the early 1950s. Corrugated iron was the only material that was
affordable at the time. There is barely a view of this building from West Street. The outhouses
are not in good repair with water ingress and the windows are either dilapidated or missing. It
is screened by the garage and the mixed hedge and vegetation in spring, summer and autumn.
The outhouse, which connects the shed to Rosebank was erected to provide some shelter in
the 1970s. They were always intended as temporary structures as mentioned my father’s
ambition was to extend the house.
Under the proposal we seek to retain the existing garage, which pre-dates the connecting
outbuilding, and that will remain as it. Moreover, we will retain the stone boundary wall and re-
introduce
The outbuildings were never intended as a permanent feature but I do not share the design
and conservation officer’s view that they make a positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the area.
Section 3: The Extension
The Planning Authority refer to the house as being on a prominent corner plot. I would argue
it is not because it sits below the crown of Breadalbane Street. It is not on a high elevation
relative to the rest of the town. The Planning Authority argue that the site is highly visible. This
is simply not the case.
The extension is set to the rear of the building. It cannot be seen from the main thoroughfare
of the Breadalbane Street. Breadalbane Street hold the longest axis of the original dwelling
house.
Page 124

Page 662

3
The scale of the extension is in keeping with the original dwelling house. The height is identical
to the height of the current house and much less than the adjacent property [Highland
Cottage]. The design of the extension in relation to the original house uses a wet roughcast to
match the original house and identical slate.
The Planning Authority has chosen to compare the extension only with the house as opposed
to the total of the built form of the site i.e. the outbuildings and the garage. However, as Mr
Hannah, my agent, has clearly demonstrated the plot can easily accommodate the extension
as can the house.
The extension will not be visible at all when looking at the main aspect of the house on
Breadalbane Street and will not change the main views of the original house. By our siting of
the proposed extension to replace the dilapidated outbuildings and the continuity of roof line
and materials I believe the scale of the development is appropriate. If subservience is
desirable then the fact that the proposed extension will not be visible from the main views of
the house from the main artery i.e. Breadalbane Street is in fact the ultimate subservience.
The proposed extension is set well back from the boundaries and is not in the least dominating
the plot.
On the question of detailing and style, we have been sympathetic to the original house. The
render is identical to the dwelling house. To note, the windows in the original house are PVC
double glazed, replicating the design of the original panes and astragals, they are not period
windows.
The height of the gable of the extension is in line with the current roof line, which I believe is
sympathetic to the original house and much lower than Roslyn House (formerly Highland
cottage) to the North side. We do not believe that our proposed extension impacts on any view
within the conservation area. As stated above, the render and design of the windows will match
Rosebank to provide continuity. In relation to roofing material, we have sought to emulate
Ballachullish slate in keeping with character of Rosebank.
Section 4: Relationship
The address of Rosebank has always been Breadalbane Street.
West Street itself runs from Breadalbane Street to the wall bounding the gardens of Argyll
Terrace. For most of my childhood, West Street was an unmetalled dirt road, unlike
Breadalbane Street. West Street was a subsidiary street used as a short cut to the Prison Brae
(Bruthach-a-Phriosain).
West street is described as a streetscape. Only two houses front onto West Street, east of
Breadalbane Street.
The first on the other side of West Street is Beul-an-Á̀tha, (Mouth of the Ford). The house pre-
dates, Rosebank, by some years as it was built in the eighteenth century, the original house
most likely pre-dating the British Fisheries Board’s planning of Tobermory in 1788. Under the
current ownership, Beul-an-Átha, it was successfully extended approximately 30 years ago to
create an additional wing with a continuous roofline. A small wooden car port was also
established.
The second house is a full height new build attached to the rear of Carna, a house which faces
East towards the Prison Brae.
Page 125

Page 663

4
Next to Beul-an-Átha, is a haulage yard owned and used by a local haulage contractor. The
ruins of the building that stands in the yard on West Street, was never a dwelling house nor
intended as such but simply a store. As you descend to the east followed by double gates
which provide access to a house constructed in the 1970s, the aforementioned second house,
attached to Carna and set back to the south. Indeed, Carna was considerably reformed by
previous owners.
The western face of Rosebank is the main aspect of the house on Breadalbane Street and if
looking at the house from Breadalbane Street the extension will not be visible
The original Beul-an-Átha is not opposite our proposed extension, but opposite the main front
door of Rosebank. The extension is set back from West Street, behind the line of the garage
and broadly runs from the East gable of Rosebank, which will remain. Because of the rising
elevation of Breadalbane Street from south to north and the key point that Beul an Atha has
been constructed well below the level of Breadalbane and West Street there is an inevitable
disparity in the height of Beul-an-Átha in relation to Rosebank. This has been true since
Rosebank was built in 1909. The houses were constructed in very different time periods and
naturally vary in style. The whole of this section of Breadalbane Street is on a rising elevation
most significantly on the Rosebank side of Breadalbane Street. The width of West Street and
the location of the extension mean that there is very little visual or spatial relationship between
the proposed extension and Beul-an-Átha. However, by the siting of the extension and
retaining the style of Rosebank I believe the proposed extension will be an enhancement and
no detriment to the status quo.
Looking west is the telephone exchange that catches the eye, which one would expect an
industrial building.
I believed I have demonstrated that despite West Street having had little or no relationship to
the 1788 plan we have shown the utmost respect to the space and the two buildings. Due
consideration has been given to the key views within the conservation area and with regard to
West Street despite its diverse nature we have held the stone boundary as is and the relatively
recent garage construction. The greater part of West Street is formed by the haulage yard, the
dilapidated stone store, a garage and a driveway entrance (please see Appendix A for
photographs). The haulage yard and the dilapidated stone store is directly opposite the
extension and the main sightline.
This is the streetscape that the Planning Authority claim is in receipt of unacceptable impacts.
This is simply not the case. As stated, the proposed extension sits very far back from West
Street and sits within a very generous curtilage.
To the North on Breadlabane Street stands Roslyn House, now an Airbnb (formerly Highland
Cottage Hotel), which occupies a double site and has high elevation and a greater mass. Most
importantly from this main thoroughfare the proposed extension is not visible. On that basis
from this axis the proposed extension cannot materially be harmful to either the townscape or
the existing dwelling. I do not know how the Planning Authority judge materiality. The Planning
Authority claim not only is the extension harmful it is materially harmful.
Again, from this axis of the main thoroughfare the extension cannot be seen yet it is described
as overly dominant and an inappropriately designed development.
In summary, I do not believe the extension will have negative impacts on the original dwelling
house, the street, the buildings surrounding the extension or the totality of Tobermory.
Page 126

Page 664

5 
Section 5: Conclusion 
The proposal is simply for a house extension.
I am perplexed by the strength of language used by the Planning Authority. Pejorative
adjectives and adverbs are liberally sprinkled through the response. The adjectives describing
the proposal are frequently accompanied by intensifiers.
To my mind the Planning Authority language is overblown simply to defend a judgement based
on pure subjectivity. It seems fundamentally unfair.
The Planning Authority states that the extension will not share any of its features with any of
the surrounding buildings. The surrounding buildings are all different in time-period and
function. They range from new builds to the commercial premises of the Hotel/Airbnb to the
public utilities of the Fire Station and the telephone exchange (please see Appendix A for
photographs). I cannot see how there is any validity to the criticism that the planning extension
will visually jar with any of these buildings – none of the buildings share features. 
The Planning Authority say in one place that the extension will be undistinguishable from the
original house and at another point that it would be visually jarring. The two cannot be true. 
The Planning Authority notes that there was no significant public representation and feels that
there are no significant or complex issues. 
I also ask the review body should note two letters of support from the neighbours in Highland
Cottage and Beul an Atha.
As I have previously stated, my regard and love of the history and culture of Tobermory has
driven me to think very carefully about the proposed extension. To that end, I have
commissioned the architect, Mr James Robertson. Mr Robertson has decades of experience
designing domestic housing both public and private, and trained at the Glasgow School of Art.
He is a senior architect and not to mention an architect with a deep understanding of the
Scottish architectural traditions, history and townscapes. 
This is an opportunity for me to extend the house that has been in my family for generations;
someone who is from Tobermory, grown up in Tobermory and continues the Gaelic tradition.
The proposed plan accounts for the built landscape, the people, place and customs as I have
outlined above. I seek to apply for planning permission to improve the quality and comfort of
the house and to create an environment for successive generations to live, enjoy and thrive
in. In meeting the needs of current and future generations I believe it will also fulfil the long-
held aspiration of my father and grandfather. 
Yours faithfully, 
K McQuarrie 
Page 127

Page 665

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 666

Appendix A 23/02358/PP 
1
Haulage yard directly opposite the proposed extension. 
Double extension on Lone cottage, opposite Rosebank. 
Page 129

Page 667

Appendix A 23/02358/PP 
2
The Telephone Exchange viewed from West Street. 
Roslyn House Airbnb (formerly Highland Cottage Hotel).
Page 130

Page 668

Appendix A 23/02358/PP 
3
Fire station on Breadalbane Street and Roslyn House Airbnb showing gable elevation. 
Fire Station on Breadalbane Street diagonally opposite Rosebank.
Page 131

Page 669

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 670

Page 133

Page 671

Page 134

Page 672

Forwarded message -----
From: Hume, Willie <
To: Planning.OLandI 
Cc: 'A MacQuarrie' >
Sent: Monday 19 August 2024 at 09:50:31 BST
Subject: Letter of support . [OFFICIAL] 
Classification: OFFICIAL
Good morning ,  
I have received correspondence for one of my constituants , Mr. K. MacQuarrie regarding the refusal
of planning permission for an extension to the rear of his property.
Planning Ref. number   23/02358/PP  
On reading his very concise summary , I have no hesitation in supporting his appeal.
The extension will be in keeping with the surrounding property’s and will not impact any residents .
The property opposite Rose Bank , Mr. B. Spence , Buel-an-Atha   11 West Street has also put in a
letter of support as has Mr .N. Morison who owns the property adjacent to Rose Bank.  
I would strongly suggest a Site visit by some of the Elected Members of the Planning Committee,
inviting Mr. Mac Quarrie to attend.  
Best regards                                                                                                                                                      
WILLIE HUME Q,F.S.M.
Deputy Policy Lead Roads Transport and Amenity Services.
S.N.P. Councillor Oban South and Isles 
Page 135

Page 673

This page is intentionally left blank