Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 13 November 2023
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 13 November 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 6 November 2023 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2023 at 3:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: 26 CRICHTON ROAD, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 23/0008/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 34) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 35 - 64) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor John Armour Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey (Chair) Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Ref: AB1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/** NOTICE OF REVIEW OFFICIAL USE 18 September 2023 Date Received Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use Block Capitals. Further information is available on the Council’s website. You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to complete this form. (1) APPLICANT FOR REVIEW (2) AGENT (if any) Name Peter Campbell Name Address 26 Crichton Road Address Rothesay Post Code PA20 9JR Post Code Tel. No. redacted Tel. No. Email redacted Email (3) Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you X or your Agent (4) (a) Reference Number of Planning Application 22/01848/PP (b) Date of Submission 9/9/2022 (c) Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) 21/6/2023 (5) Address of Appeal Property 26 Crichton Road Rothesay PA20 9JR Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(6) Description of Proposal Replace existing sliding sash case single glazed windows with double swing double glazed timber frame windows to front elevation and Upvc double glazed windows to the rear (7) Please set out detailed reasons for requesting the review:- See attached document 1 “ Planning Appeal to Argyll and Bute Council “ for full details. Planning request no different to those previously granted for adjacent properties. No objections to the proposed works. Support from local councillors McCabe, Kennedy-Boyle and Wallace. An excessive amount of time to wait for a decision which is not generally considered to be a ‘complex application’. After trawling through all emails on 4 separate devices I still cannot find an email detailing the decision notice for this application, I only received the decision notice regarding Listed Buildings. Our application achieves better environmental outcomes and maintains a reasonable aesthetic objective. Council delay in responding has caused severe financial disadvantage in these very difficult times If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Page 4
Page 5
(8) Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time determination of your application was made Yes 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. Personal Reasons were allowed in a previous application for a neighbouring property, there was no scope to add these in the application form and health matters are not something that should be posted on a public website. I believe an email was sent to Mr Murray from Councillor McCabe regarding this. In our original submission we asked for this review if we were unsuccessful, nothing was mentioned about this in the decision notice. Much more detailed review of why the proposal should go ahead. See document Planning Appeal to Argyll and Bute Council in this proposal. Did not think this amount of detail would be required as permission for what we had requested had already been granted to existing properties. Excessive time delay for reply and this was only after intervention of local councillor. Refusal based on Technical Working written in 2015 which has no review date. (9) If the Local Review Body determines that it requires further information on “specified matters” please indicate which of the following procedure you would prefer to provide such information:- (a) Dealt with by written submission (b) Dealt with by Local Hearing X (c) Dealt with by written submission and site inspection (d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection NB it is a matter solely for the Local Review Body to determine if further information is required and, if so, how it should be obtained. Page 5
Page 6
(10) Please list in the schedule all documentation submitted as part of the application for review ensuring that each document corresponds to the numbering in the sections below:- Schedule of documents submitted with Notice of Review (Note if posting your paperwork 3 paper copies of each of the documents referred to in the schedule below must be attached): No Detail 1 Planning Appeal to Argyll and Bute Council 2 Letter of Support from Councillor Liz McCabe 3 Letter of Support from Councillor Kennedy-Boyle 4 Decision Notice 5 Supporting Planning Statement 6 Letter of Support from Councillor Peter Wallace 7 8 9 10 If insufficient space please continue on a separate page. Is this attached? Please tick to confirm Submitted by (Please sign) Redacted Dated 11/9/2023 Important Notes for Guidance (1) All matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must be set out in or accompany this Notice of Review (2) All documents, materials and evidence which the applicant intends to rely on in the Review must accompany the Notice of Review UNLESS further information is required under Regulation 15 or by authority of the Hearing Session Rules. Page 6
Page 7
(3) Guidance on the procedures can be found on the Council’s website -: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/local-review-body (4) In in doubt how to proceed please contact 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk (5) Once completed this form can be either emailed to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk or returned by post to Committee Services, (Local Review Body), Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT (6) You will receive an acknowledgement of this form, usually by electronic mail (if applicable), within 14 days of the receipt of your form and supporting documentation. If you have any queries relating to the completion of this form please contact Committee Services on 01546 604392/604269 or email: localreviewprocess@argyll- bute.gov.uk For official use only Date form issued Issued by (please sign) Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
1 of 13 Introduction We wish to appeal against the decision of Argyll and Bute Council to refuse our planning application for replacement windows (Reference 22/01848/PP). Our planning request is no different to those previously granted for adjacent properties on Crichton Road within Brighton Terrace. (cfr Reference 08/01391/LIB and Reference 14/00627/LIB) and there have been no objections to the proposed works in Planning application Reference Number: 22/01848/PP. Our appeal is supported by local councillors Liz McCabe, Reeni Kennedy-Boyle and Peter Wallace. Delayed Decision The ePlanning website which all applications must be submitted through states: “In most cases, planning applications are decided within 2 months. For unusually large or complex applications the time limit is 4 months. For these types of applications, Planning Authorities should offer to enter into a processing agreement with developers which provides certainty and a project managed approach to decision making. If the decision takes longer, you can appeal.” Our application was accepted on the 30th September 2022, a decision was not forthcoming until 21st June 2023, a wait of nearly nine months in total and therefore a delay of almost seven months. Additionally, a response was only obtained from the council after the intervention of our local councillor. This was an excessive amount of time to have to wait for a decision given that replacing windows on a domestic property is not generally considered to be a ‘complex application’ and the Scottish Government removed all COVID policies on the 24 June 2022. We would like to highlight by way of comparison application Reference 22/01413/PP a much more complex proposal which was received in July and approved in November 2022. In our application we asked specifically if the proposal being recommended was to be refused then could it be considered by the Planning Committee, (see Supporting Planning Statement), no reference has been made in the decision notice that we received as to when or if this was ever discussed at Committee. No email was received with the decision notice that planning permission has been refused, the only email received was to Reference 22/01847/LIB. Information Access The decision notice which details the conditions of refusal states: “The proposal is also not consistent with Policies 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 which is a significant material consideration” Page 9
Page 10
2 of 13 At the time of writing this appeal, ‘Proposed Local Development Plan 2‘is not available for viewing. While the report of examination is available, I am unable to address the points raised as the examiners report details only amendments to the policies. Technical Working Note In the decision notice published in response to our application, the Council references Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note 2015 which states: “Development Plan which is to uphold the historical and traditional window characteristics – mainly by repairing or replacing with white timber sliding sash and case units.” It is important to note the significance of the use of the word ‘mainly’ rather than ‘exclusively’. The Oxford English dictionary defines mainly as “For the most part; in the main; as the chief thing, chiefly, principally.” Whereas exclusively is defined as “So as to exclude all except some particular object, subject, etc.; solely.” In the conclusion (1.10) it states: “The new Technical Working Note also builds in added flexibility for those buildings that have already had unsympathetic window alterations or do not contribute significantly to the Conservation Area (ie limited views from public places or on rear elevations). There is also an acceptance that good quality uPVC window units can be used in the Conservation Area in certain circumstance” In the Technical Note, published in 2015, it states the Townscape Heritage Initiative is a 5 year plan, there is no review date for this Technical Note that I we have been able to find. We would question therefore the appropriateness of much of this document with regard to our application and this appeal. The Argyll and Bute Council Development Plan Scheme, March 2022 “we need to keep the plan up to date to reflect changing circumstances as land is developed and new issues arise or other factors change” there appears to be no update or planned review of this document. Page 10
Page 11
3 of 13 We would also like to highlight and support proposal Reference 22/01413/PP where the property is in the Rothesay Conservation area. The windows granted approval are uPVC double swing. The world has changed dramatically since the publication of this document. The National Planning Framework 4 recognises this stating that Local Development Plans “must address the global climate emergency and nature crisis by ensuring the spatial strategy will reduce emissions and adapt to current and future risks of climate change by promoting nature recovery and restoration in the area.” The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) Act 2019, was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 25 September 2019 and received Royal Assent on 31 October 2019. The Act requires Scotland to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, with interim reductions of 75% required by 2030, and 90% by 2040. In the Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 64) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 2 March 2020 it recognises “One of the major challenges to meeting these targets will be reducing the emissions caused by heating the country’s homes and other buildings” We feel that the Technical Working Note is out of date and does not address the needs or focus appropriately on the key issues facing communities today. Global environmental improvement requires that priority is given to that which local communities and individuals can do to contribute to saving the planet rather than simply protecting an aesthetic largely driven by antiquated administrative notions and personal opinion. Our application achieves better environmental outcomes and maintains a reasonable aesthetic objective. Increased Costs There is a cost of living crisis. The first Minister Humza Yousaf recognised this in his statements on Government priorities. The Argyll and Bute Council Vision is ““We recognise that the cost of living crisis will affect countless households in Argyll and Bute. We want to play a part in responding to that and mitigating the impact on our communities’ overall wellbeing and future success. We see our council and our communities working together in playing our part and making our contributions to wider priorities like climate change, economic growth, strong local governance and more - using our strong track record in partnership working, at all levels, to secure the best possible outcomes.” The fuel bills for our property have trebled in the last two years and a major contributing factor to this is heat loss due to the poor quality of our windows. We have taken other measures to reduce our fuel bills such as insulating the roof and below the floors. The planning department have recognised that the windows require replacement in the Delegated Planning Application Report. We are seeking to replace our windows with the most cost effective option for ourselves whilst maintaining the look of the property and addressing environmental issues. Page 11
Page 12
4 of 13 The Energy Saving Trust states 18% of heat loss occurs through windows. It is recognised that double swing windows are more energy efficient than sliding sash due to tight fitting seals positioned around the frame. Sliding sash windows become loose over time. Their production also has a bigger impact on the environment as the lead ore for the weights in the balance mechanism have to be mined. In appendix C of the Rothesay Windows Technical note 2015 it states that the cost of replacing a window as £681. I have obtained a quote from Blairs Windows and Doors Greenock for a window to this specification. The current cost of that window would be £1305.56 excluding fitting, a rise of 92%. Due to the delay in response from the Council, there has also been a marked rise in prices for replacement windows for our property. If the front elevation was to be replaced in double swing timber windows the cost has increased by 35%. If the replacement was in sliding sash the increase in price would be 29% however as these windows are much more expensive in cost and in fitting, the cost is prohibitively expensive. These quotes are only valid for the month of August 2023 as Blairs say material costs are escalating all the time. We feel that the Council’s delay in responding has put us at a severe financial disadvantage in these very difficult times. Precedents, caveats and personal issues As will be mentioned later in our appeal, the type of windows we propose for the front elevation would be the same as those approved by the council in planning application ref 08/01381/LIB. This approval included the caveat that when those needed replacing it would be with sliding sash windows. Given the current financial climate we simply cannot afford sliding sash windows. We would however be very happy for a similar condition to be imposed on our application that allowed us to use the same windows as number 28 while preserving the look, reducing our fuel costs, decreasing our carbon foot print and preserving the structure of our building which has already been damaged due to water ingress. As can be seen in Appendix B, the proposed windows are indistinguishable from sliding sash windows from the street. The application ref 08/01381/LIB was also granted taking into account unspecified ‘personal reasons’. We also have ‘personal reasons’ which mean there are difficulties in opening our current style of window. However, we did not feel the planning website was the place to detail them and so an email was sent to Fergus Murray on the 27th June from councillor McCabe regarding this. We would be happy to discuss this at the appeal. Page 12
Page 13
5 of 13 Appeal Detail Rear Elevation The Historic Environment Scotland website lists the properties in Brighton Terrace, 23 to 34 Crichton Road as a Grade C listed buildings. Shown in Appendix A are various properties within Brighton Terrace. As can be seen from these photographs, the installation of uPVC double swing windows is evident in a number of properties. On the Argyll and Bute Council website, the adjacent property planning application (Reference Number 09/01762/PP) it states: “The retention of plastic windows upon the rear and side elevation is deemed to be acceptable.” Planning application 14/00627/LIB uPVC replacement approved. In the Technical Working Note - Rothesay Conservation Area (Replacement Windows) Conclusion 1.10 it states: “There is also an acceptance that good quality uPVC window units can be used in the Conservation Area in certain circumstances (ie limited views from public places or on rear elevations).” We cannot understand why our application has been refused. We are a semi-detached property and the attached building has double swing timber in the upper flat and uPVC double swing windows in the lower flat, an inconsistent finish. The other properties shown in Appendix A also show that there is not a consistent finish. The main window at the rear of the property on the stairwell has had a uPVC finish prior to us purchasing the property in 1996. In light of this information we feel justified in asking that we be afforded the same rights, given the same opportunity and treated in the same way as our neighbours. Front Elevation Our proposal for replacement double swing timber windows is based on cost and retaining the look of the property, otherwise we would have request uPVC windows which are much cheaper. It is recognised that double swing windows are more energy efficient than sliding sash due to tight fitting seals positioned around the frame. Sliding sash windows become loose over time. At time of writing this appeal, as previously mentioned, the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 was not available to view online. The examiners comments were but we were not Page 13
Page 14
6 of 13 able to access the policies in full so cannot comment on them. However, the Delegated Planning Application report outlines the National Planning Framework 4 development plan context. NPF4 Policy 7 seeks to "protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places" with some of the outcomes being that the historic environment is valued, protected, and enhanced; supporting the transition to net zero; and ensuring assets are resilient to current and future impacts of climate change. Policy 7(c) advances support for the alteration of a listed building only in cases where the proposal would preserve its character, special architectural or historic interest and setting. We would argue the given our financial constraints and the lack of grants available from local government that the proposed windows would preserve the interior of the property from water damage. The cornicing in the all the front rooms is original and intact at the moment but may be subject to damage in future if there is further water ingress. Policy 7(d) advances support for development proposals in or affecting Conservation Areas only in cases where the character and appearance of the designated area would be preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the architectural and historic character of the area; the quality of design; and the use of suitable materials. We would argue that this refers to the area of Brighton Terrace, 23-34 Crichton Road. Our proposed windows would be the same as 28, these look exactly the same as sliding sash windows, see Appendix B, unlike 23 which has uPVC on the front elevation. We would also state that our proposed windows would have less impact on the character of the area than changes already made to other properties from the description on the Historic Environment Scotland website which has not been updated since 1997. There have been changes to roofs of some of the properties in Brighton Terrace. Some have been re-roofed in Spanish slate which differs in both colour and shape from the traditional slate. I believe it is more thermally efficient. There have also been changes made from the octagonal chimney pots. We would also like to point out that Scottish Environment Scotland lists 19,20 and 21 Crichton Road as a Grade C listed Building, the same as ourselves. In the statement of Special Interest it states “An imposing block with unusual features - note the decorative windows, hipped gables, cast-iron finials and bracketed eaves.” see Appendix C. Yet replacement windows were granted permission, REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/02280/PP. which are completely different in fenestration to the rest of the building. The transom height Page 14
Page 15
7 of 13 is completely different, I have absolutely no objection to these windows but it does highlight some inconsistency in decision making. Policy 7(e) advances support for development proposals in Conservation Areas where the existing natural and built features that contribute to the character of the designated area would be retained. We would argue that the windows proposed retain the character of the area. The opening method is the only difference and given that the house is Victorian, made of sandstone and located in the West of Scotland it is much cooler inside that a more modern house the number of times the windows will be open will not be significant. The replacements which have been permitted in number 28 will be the same. Policy 14(b) advocates the adoption of the six qualities of successful places in the formulation of developments. These include: Distinctiveness - supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity Sustainability - supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions Adaptability - supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Given I am classed as an essential worker in the NHS on the Isle of Bute, if the proposal is unsuccessful and as such affects our quality of life due to financial pressures we would need to consider working elsewhere which may affect the quality of Healthcare on the Island. NPF4 Policy 16 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." Policy 16(g) provides support for householder development proposals where they would 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. Policy 16(h) supports Page 15
Page 16
8 of 13 householder development proposals that provide adaptations in response to risks from a changing climate. As already stated our increased energy use and carbon footprint is very much driven by loss of heat through windows that require to be replaced. Refusal of our application was also based on comments from the reporter Mr Donald Harris in his letter of the 17th August 2011 when he commented on the application on number 27. Historic Environment Scotland's description for 26 Crichton Road notes that; "despite the loss of some balconies, fretwork finials and glazing, Brighton Terrace retains a degree of architectural interest. Still, the symmetrical layout remains and the details which are intact are of good quality." Mr Harris states that houses in Brighton Terrace have mostly retained sliding sash and case windows but makes no specific mention of the anomaly of uPVC being installed in one of the properties. We would propose that times have very much changed since this report was produced, financial pressures and energy efficiency are very much more to the forefront in the current climate as the Scottish Government has categorically stated on many occasions recently. It was also his opinion that double swing timber would be “unsightly, inharmonious and out of keeping with the character of this dignified building “. We would like to draw attention to a property just a few doors along that is also a Grade C listed building on the Historic Environment Scotland Website, Appendix C and D shows 19- 21 Crichton Road, the windows under the roof are both open one as sliding sash, one as double swing and we would contend there is no discernible difference from the street, it is not unsightly, inharmonious or out of keeping. Summary We cannot understand why our proposal has been declined for the rear elevation to our property based on the changes to surrounding properties some of which have been approved by the planning department. Our proposal to changes to the front elevation are that we want to install windows that look the same, which we are able to afford, are more efficient and have already been installed by one of our neighbours with planning consent from the Council. We are in the middle of a financial crisis and global climate emergency. We would hope that our proposed changes be approved so that we can maintain our property and decrease our carbon footprint. The Council’s delay in responding has put us at a severe financial disadvantage in these very difficult times. Page 16
Page 17
9 of 13 Appendix A – Properties on Crichton Road, Brighton Terrace with mixture of window types Rear elevation of 23 Crichton Road demonstrating uPVC replacement Rear elevation of 24 Crichton Road demonstrating uPVC replacement Page 17
Page 18
10 of 13 Appendix A continued Rear elevation of 25 Crichton Road. Adjoining property, mixture of uPVC and Timber windows Rear elevation of 32 Crichton Road demonstrating a mixture of uPVC and timber windows Page 18
Page 19
11 of 13 Appendix A continued Rear elevation of 32 Crichton Road demonstrating a mixture of uPVC and timber windows. Page 19
Page 20
12 of 13 Appendix B Front elevation of 28 -28 Crichton Road, demonstrates no difference in appearance of windows, lower flat 28, double swing, 27 Crichton Road sliding sash. Page 20
Page 21
13 of 13 Appendix C Front elevation of 19-21 Crichton Demonstration completely different fenestration and transom height in lower flat but approved REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/02280/PP Appendix D No inharmonious view from the street between opened sliding sash and double swing windows at the top of the properties. Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 22/01848/PP for Mr & Mrs P. Campbell 16th August 2023 I would like very much to support the planning application Reference 22/01848/PP submitted by Mr & Mrs Campbell. I appreciate how short staffed our Planning Department have been over the past year, however this is as far as I can see a straightforward application to replace windows. I understand the windows are slightly different to those which are in but when in place will look very much the same. They will also enable Mrs Campbell to be able to open the windows which is something she cannot do at the moment due to health issues. This is not ideal and the new windows planned would make things so much easier. It is also very difficult to understand why this application was refused. Not only did it take almost a year (this means another winter with water ingress etc.) but because of the time delay prices of everything, (windows etc. plus fitting) has increased ridiculously. Their heating bills have also increased due to the state of the windows. They have been put in a very unfair situation because of the type of window they want to fit. The windows will keep the look of the building as does their neighbours. As stated previously, neighbours have had an application passed for the same windows?? I believe however this was done retrospectively. Does this mean more people will put the windows in then apply? I will not go into all the finer details as Mr Campbell has done so in his Appeal Letter. I would like to confirm that I completely agree with everything Mr Campbell has stated and I am more than happy to support his Appeal. I hope this application can be reconsidered and put an end to this ordeal for this family. I must add that Mr Campbell works for our local Health Board and is a very essential worker on the island. This should surely be taken into account as he is someone we definitely do not want to lose. We talk about getting people to move to Argyll & Bute and they are then treated in this way, which I find absolutely awful. I am more than happy to discuss or attend any Appeals Hearing should it be required. Councillor Liz McCabe (Policy Lead Islands & Business Development) Depute Provost – Argyll & Bute Council Tel: 01700-501342 Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 25
To Whom it may concern 2nd September 2023 Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Ward 8 Isle of Bute I am writing in support of the planning appeal with regards to Listed Building Consent (ref: 22/01847/LIB) and Planning Permission (ref: 22/01848/PP) on 21st June 2023 for the installation of replacement windows at the property of Mr Peter Campbell at 26 Crichton Road, Rothesay. Mr Campbell has set out very clearly the reasons why this appeal should result in a reversal of the decision made under delegated powers which refused permission for this project. I fully endorse the points he is making and would urge Local Review Body and Scottish Government Reporter to make a positive decision in favour of Mr Campbell progressing with this project. Yours sincerely Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Page 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/01848/PP The property that is the subject of this application, No. 26 Crichton Road, is a Category C Listed Building that is located in the Rothesay Conservation Area. Argyll and Bute Council adopted the Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note in 2015 and the subject property was identified as one of the Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area where traditional fenestration had remained intact. The existing sliding sash and case timber windows on the front elevation of the building are considered to be very important and are an essential aspect of its special interest. Regarding this type of Listed Building, the adopted Technical Working Note advocates the refurbishment/repair of windows or the installation of 'like-for-like' replacements as the preferred options. In cases where it can be demonstrated that the existing windows are beyond economic repair, the installation of high quality double-glazed units that are identical to the original windows in all other respects are very likely to be permitted. The windows that are proposed for installation on the front elevation would have a double swing method of opening and, when in the open position, they would project from the external façade of each unit thereby appearing visually incongruous and discordant. In this regard, it is considered that they would detract from the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the wider Rothesay Conservation Area to an unacceptable degree. The rear elevation of the property is visually inconspicuous and is of less significance in terms of fenestration. However, as timber is the consistent finish, the proposed installation of upvc windows to replace traditional timber sliding sash and case units on the upper floor and in the east-facing (side) elevation of the single storey outhouse is considered to represent an inappropriate intervention. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Furthermore, the works are not consistent with Argyll and Bute Council's adopted Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note 2015 nor with the expectations of Historic Environment Scotland through their 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment' guidance on windows. The proposal is also not consistent with Policies 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 which is a significant material consideration. Page 28
Page 29
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 22/01848/PP 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) within three months from the date of this notice. A Notice of Review request must be submitted on an official form which can be obtained by contacting The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT or by email to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, and it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the landowner’s interest in the land, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Page 29
Page 30
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 22/01848/PP A. Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No B. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No If yes, state level of departure: No Departure C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission The proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. There are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant Planning Permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act. Page 30
Page 31
Supporting Documentation for Windows Application We propose to install timber double swing windows on the front elevation which would be in keeping with the visual appearance of the other properties in Crichton Road. We would also propose to install uPVC windows on the rear elevation, several of the adjacent properties have already this type of window installed, and they are both cost and thermally efficient. Our current windows are sliding sash single glazed windows which are now in desperate need of replacement. We have already had potentially damaging water ingress. We are fully cognisant of the Argyll and Bute Technical Working Note from 2015. However since its publication things have changed dramatically in the world. Energy costs are spiralling out of control as is inflation. Our monthly fuel bills have doubled with a further increase in the pipeline. Both the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council have produced commitments to reduce carbon emissions and increase fuel efficiencies. We have already taken steps to insulate our property and then the next step would be to reduce the substantial heat loss through our windows Sliding sash windows over time become loose and allow loss of heat, double swing windows would allow a much better seal and reduce emissions. The Scottish Government’s: Heat in Buildings Strategy - achieving net zero emissions in Scotland's buildings Published 7 October 2021 states: We simply cannot afford to replace windows with sliding sash. We managed to obtain a quote for timber sliding sash windows and also timber double swing windows. The difference in price was just short of £10,000 and the suppliers Blairs Windows in Greenock could only guarantee the price for one week due to escalating costs of materials. The difference in price does not include fitting and more time is required to install sliding sash windows, so it will incur even more cost. As discussed with Mr Gove, the planning department has already allowed the replacement of double swing timber windows in a property just along the road at 28 Crichton Road, this Page 31
Page 32
is still part of Brighton Terrace and part of the conservation area. Visually no difference can be seen from the street so our replacement would not look out of place. In the current financial climate we hope you will look favourably on our proposal which will help to preserve the integrity of this building, increase energy efficiency within our property, and reduce emissions and carbon footprint. If this proposal is rejected we would be grateful if it could be passed to the Committee for consideration. Page 32
Page 33
From: Wallace, Peter Sent: 15 September 2023 10:06 To: Peter Campbell Subject: Replacement Windows at 26 Crichton Road, Rothesay [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Peter, I am happy to support your planning appeal for replacement windows at 26 Crichton Road, Rothesay (Reference 22/01848/PP -22/01847/LIB) to be replaced in a similar style to neighbouring properties. Your attempts to reduce your carbon footprint by making your home more energy efficient are to be welcomed. Kind regards Peter Councillor Peter Wallace Isle of Bute Ward Argyll and Bute Council In order to assist my constituents and to allow me to fulfil my role as an Elected Member, I need to collect, store,use, share and dispose of personal data. When I process your personal data I must comply with data protection legislation. Please read the following Privacy Notice Elected Members (argyll- bute.gov.uk)which explains how I will use your personal data as an Elected Member of Argyll and Bute Council. Argyll and Bute Council's e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll)classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content. Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 23/0008/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SLIDING SASH AND CASE SINGLE GLAZED WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE SWING DOUBLE GLAZED TIMBER FRAME WINDOWS TO FRONT ELEVATION AND UPVC DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO THE REAR PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 22/01848/PP 26 CRICHTON ROAD, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE Page 35 Agenda Item 3b
Page 36
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The applicant who has sought the review is Mr Peter Campbell (“the appellant”). Planning Permission 22/01848/PP for the replacement of existing sliding sash and case single glazed windows with double swing double glazed timber frame windows to the front elevation and Upvc double glazed windows to the rear at 26 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 21st June 2023. This decision is the subject of referral to a Local Review Body. As the property is a Listed Building, an application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 22/01847/LIB) was processed concurrently with the application for Planning Permission. Listed Building Consent was also refused and is presently the subject of an appeal to Scottish Ministers (ref: LBA-130- 2029). DESCRIPTION OF SITE The property at the appeal site is No. 26 Crichton Road, which is a dwellinghouse in the easternmost half of a two-storey semi-detached villa, the other half of which is subdivided into two flats. It is a Category C Listed Building that is located prominently within the Rothesay Conservation Area. It forms part of the symmetrical Brighton Terrace and dates from 1878. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) 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 The Council considers that the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows: Whether the proposed window replacements would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the subject property (a Category C Listed Building) and the wider Rothesay Conservation Area having regard to the relevant Policies and Supplementary Guidance contained in National Planning Framework 4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015; the emerging Policies in the Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as recommended for modification); and other published policy and guidance, including Historic Environment Policy for Scotland 2019; Historic Environment Scotland’s ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Windows;’; and the Argyll & Bute Council ‘Technical Working Note – Rothesay Windows’ (2015) Page 36
Page 37
Whether there are any other material considerations to be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal other than those stated above The Report of Handling (contained in Appendix A of this document) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of these key determining issues and concludes that: The windows that are proposed for installation on the front elevation, even though they are proposed to be timber, would have a double swing method of opening and, when in the open position, they would project from the external façade of each unit thereby appearing visually incongruous and discordant. In this regard, it is considered that they would detract from the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the wider Rothesay Conservation Area to an unacceptable degree. The rear elevation of the property is visually inconspicuous and is of less significance in terms of fenestration. However, as timber is the consistent finish, the proposed installation of upvc windows to replace traditional timber sliding sash and case units on the upper floor and in the east-facing (side) elevation of the single storey outhouse is considered to represent an inappropriate intervention. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan; the emerging Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as recommended for modification); and the published national and local policy and guidance documents. It is considered that no other factors put forward by the appellant and the contributor have sufficient weight to take precedence over the detrimental impact that the proposed windows would have on the property and the wider Conservation Area. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING The appellant’s submission contains information that was not available at the time of the decision being made on the application and it also responds to the reason for refusal stated in the Decision Notice. These matters are addressed in the next section of this statement and, when taken in combination with the Report of Handling contained in Appendix A, it is considered that no additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. Given the above, it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. In these circumstances, and on the basis that the proposal has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENTS ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The appellant has submitted a supporting statement in association with the review. The following is a summary of those matters that were not before the Planning Service at the time of the decision being made on the application together with comments in response: i) An excessive amount of time was taken for a decision to be issued particularly given that the replacement of windows on a domestic property is not generally considered to be a Page 37
Page 38
‘complex application’ and the Scottish Government removed all COVID policies on 24th June 2022. The appellant feels that the Council’s delay in issuing a decision has put him at a severe financial disadvantage in these very difficult times as there has been a marked rise in prices for replacement windows at his property in the last twelve months. Comment: It is acknowledged that there was a delay in the processing of this application, which was due to a number of factors. The appellant’s statement on the rise of prices is noted. ii) When the application was originally submitted, the appellant specifically asked that, if the proposal was being recommended for refusal, it should be considered by the Planning Committee. It is contended that no reference has been made in the decision notice as to when or if this was ever discussed at Committee. Comment: The Development Management Service considered the appellant’s request for the application to be decided by the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee if a recommendation of refusal was likely and he was informed by e-mail on 15th February 2023 that the application would be determined under delegated powers. iii) It is contended that no e-mail was received by the appellant enclosing the Decision Notice on the application for Planning Permission. The Decision Notice for the refusal of Listed Building Consent was received and it stated that the appeal should be made to Scottish Ministers. After enquiries were made by Councillor Kennedy-Boyle, the appellant was notified by her that he had to appeal to both the Scottish Ministers and Argyll and Bute Council Planning. At no point was the appellant informed of this by the Planning Department. Comment: The paperwork for the refusal of Planning Permission was sent by e-mail on 22nd June 2023 to the appellant using the correct e-mail address. A copy was sent to the Planning Officer and he confirms that he received the e-mail. In Form AB1, the appellant advises that he has trawled through all emails on 4 separate devices and he has been unable to find an e-mail detailing the Decision Notice for application 22/01848/PP. When Councillor Kennedy-Boyle sought advice on the appeal procedures, it was explained that there was a different protocol for each (challenge of the Planning refusal to the Council and appeal of the Listed Building refusal to Scottish Ministers). The appellant has submitted an appeal to Scottish Ministers and it is currently under consideration. Notwithstanding the issue of the decision paperwork relating to the refusal of Planning Permission, the appellant has submitted his request for a review prior to the expiry of the deadline. Page 38
Page 39
iv) Whilst the report of examination on ‘Proposed Local Development Plan 2’ was able to be read on the Council’s website, the appellant contends that, when he was preparing his statement for review, the ‘Proposed Local Development Plan 2’ itself was not available for viewing. On this basis, the appellant states that he is unable to address the points raised as the examiner’s report details only amendments to the policies. Comment: The Written Statement for ‘Proposed Local Development Plan 2’ was available for viewing on the Council’s website for a considerable time period prior to the publication of the report of examination in the middle of June 2023 and it has remained available in the period since. v) The Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note, published in 2015, states that the Townscape Heritage Initiative is a 5 year plan. There is no review date for this Technical Note and the appropriateness of much of this document with regard to the application and this review is questioned. It is felt that the Technical Working Note is out of date and does not address the needs or focus appropriately on the key issues facing communities today. Global environmental improvement requires that priority is given to that which local communities and individuals can do to contribute to saving the planet rather than simply protecting an aesthetic largely driven by antiquated administrative notions and personal opinion. The application achieves better environmental outcomes and maintains a reasonable aesthetic objective. Comment: The reference in the Technical Working Note (TWN) to the Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) was to explain the benefits of the funding that had been allocated to revitalise the historic town centre and to highlight the need for the TWN to support conservation principles; protect and promote improvements in the Conservation Area; and to underpin the wider heritage led regeneration “already commenced” by the THI. The TWN was prepared in 2015 and, under ‘Aims and Related Advice’ on Page 1, it is stated that it “aims to provide clear and consistent planning advice in relation to the replacement and refurbishment of windows in the Rothesay Conservation Area. This Guidance must be read in conjunction with the Development Plan, Rothesay Window Advice Note 1 and 2, the Council’s Historic Environment Strategy 2015 and Scottish Historic Environment Policy – Managing Change”. As such, it was formulated in the context of the policies and guidance existing at that time. In the interim period, the Council has adopted a new Local Development Plan and is nearing the adoption of its replacement; the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland 2019 has been published; and Historic Environment Scotland has produced ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Windows’ (2018 and updated 2020). None of these documents represent a change to the approach advocated by the TWN in relation to the assessment of applications for replacement windows in the Rothesay Conservation Area and in Listed Buildings. Page 39
Page 40
vi) The application (ref: 08/01391/LIB) that was approved for the installation of double swing windows at 28 Crichton Road was granted taking into account unspecified ‘personal reasons’. The appellant states that there are also ‘personal reasons’ associated with his property which mean there are difficulties in opening the current style of window. He explains that he did not feel the Planning website was the place to detail them and so an email was sent to Fergus Murray on the 27th June from Councillor McCabe regarding this. The appellant would be happy to discuss this at the appeal. Comment: The information in support of application 22/01848/PP that was taken into account in its determination was the applicant/appellant’s statement from September 2022 and the contribution from Councillor McCabe. As the decision was taken on 21st June 2023, any information received after that date would not have been taken into account in the determination of the proposal. vii) The appellant has submitted photographs which, he states, show the installation of uPVC double swing windows on the rear elevation of a number of properties in Nos. 23 to 34 Crichton Road (Brighton Terrace). He refers to the approval of uPVC windows on rear elevations of 24 Crichton Rd (refs: 09/01762/PP in 2010 and 14/00627/LIB in 2014). He mentions that the other half of the semi-detached property in which he resides has double swing timber in the upper flat and uPVC double swing windows in the lower flat. In these circumstances, he feels justified in asking that he be afforded the same rights, given the same opportunity and treated in the same way as his neighbours. Comment: Nos. 23 and 24 Crichton Road are anomalous in the context of Brighton Terrace in that modern glazing had been introduced in parts of these properties prior to their listing in 1997. Subsequent decisions on applications for these buildings have been influenced by these factors and, in the Technical Working Note, the 23 and 24 semi- detached block has been identified as having been ‘devalued’ in terms of fenestration. viii) The appellant points out that replacement windows were granted Planning Permission (ref: 12/02280/PP) in 2013 at 19 Crichton Road (also a Category C Listed Building) which are completely different fenestration to the rest of the building. He has absolutely no objection to these windows but he considers that it highlights some inconsistency in decision making. Comment: In the assessment of the applications that were submitted for this property in 2012, it was stated that, “on the basis that the original timber glazing has unfortunately been eradicated from this ground floor flat and that non-traditional windows are proposed to be replaced, the introduction of timber windows is considered to be an improvement on the existing situation.” The circumstances pertaining to the property that is the subject of this review are markedly different from the flat at 19 Crichton Road. Page 40
Page 41
ix) The appellant states that refusal of his application was based on the decision from the reporter, Mr Donald Harris, in his letter of 17th August 2011 when he commented on the application on 27 Crichton Road. The appellant insists that times have very much changed since this report was produced with financial pressures and energy efficiency being very much more to the forefront in the current climate as the Scottish Government has categorically stated on many occasions recently. Mr Harris was also of the opinion that double swing timber would be “unsightly, inharmonious and out of keeping with the character of this dignified building“. The appellant draws attention to a property just a few doors along that is also a Category C listed building and Appendices C and D in his statement shows 19-21 Crichton Road. One of the windows under the roof is sliding sash and case and one is double swing and they are both open. The appellant contends there is no discernible difference from the street and the double swing windows are not unsightly, inharmonious or out of keeping. Comment: The decision letter dated 17th August 2011 in respect of the Listed Building appeal for the installation of replacement windows at No. 27 Crichton Road is reproduced in Appendix B of this document. It is noted that the new National Planning Framework 4 has stronger policies relating to the climate emergency but the Historic Asset policies both within NPF4 and the LDP continue to value the historic environment and ensure it is protected and enhanced whilst supporting the transition to net zero. Furthermore, Section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that, in exercising their functions (including determining applications for Planning Permission), special attention must be paid by Planning Authorities to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The current proposal relates to thirteen windows on the front elevation of the building and, as such, the impact of the double swing windows would be of greater significance in the context of the appeal property’s character and its contribution to this part of the Conservation Area. 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 windows on the front elevation would have a double swing method of opening and, when in the open position, they would project from the external façade of each unit thereby appearing visually Page 41
Page 42
incongruous and discordant. Whilst the rear elevation of the property is visually inconspicuous and less significant in terms of fenestration, the proposed upvc windows as a replacement for traditional timber sliding sash and case units on the upper floor and in the east-facing (side) elevation of the single storey outhouse are considered to represent an inappropriate intervention. As no justifiable reasons for supporting the development have been demonstrated that overcome the concerns outlined above, the proposed development is confirmed as being contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Furthermore, the works are not consistent with Argyll and Bute Council’s adopted Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note 2015 nor with the expectations of Historic Environment Scotland through their ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ guidance on windows. The proposal is also not consistent with Policies 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 which is a significant material consideration. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the Local Review Body dismiss the review. Page 42
Page 43
APPENDIX A – REPORT OF HANDLING Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/01848/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Peter Campbell Proposal: Installation of Replacement Windows Site Address: 26 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 Replacement of existing timber, sliding sash and case, single-glazed windows with timber, double-swing, double-glazed windows on the front elevation and upvc, double-swing, double-glazed windows on the rear elevation (ii) Other specified operations None ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Permission be refused for the reason set out below. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: Listed Building Consent (ref: 05/00151/LIB) granted on 16th March 2005 for the carrying out of internal alterations to form a ground floor cloakroom in the subject property. Page 43
Page 44
Planning Permission (ref: 09/00524/DET) granted on 9th June 2009 for the erection of a timber garage within the side rear curtilage of the property. There is an application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 22/01847/LIB) also currently under consideration in relation to the proposed window replacements. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: None ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Subject of Neighbour Notification (closing date 22nd October 2022) and advertised as development in Conservation Area (closing date: 4th November 2022). ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: An expression of support has been received from Councillor Liz McCabe, Ward 8 – Isle of Bute (e-mail dated 24th April 2023). 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. The points raised can be summarised as follows: i. Councillor McCabe has explained that Mr Campbell submitted the applications during September 2022 and he was hoping to have approval granted and the new windows installed before the winter months again due to the condition of the windows which are in place at the moment. They are extremely old windows with significant defects such as water ingress and loss of heat from the interior of the house. ii. The windows that Mr Campbell is proposing would look exactly like the existing windows but would be much more effective in terms of both cost and aesthetics. iii. Mr Campbell has a neighbour two doors down who used the same new windows as currently proposed and this was agreed/passed. It is, therefore, contended that there is no reason why Mr Campbell should not be allowed the same outcome. Comment: The above points will be addressed in the assessment contained in Section (P) below. ____________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: Page 44
Page 45
(i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No (v) Supporting Statement: Yes The applicant submitted a statement in support of the application (received 9th September 2022) and the points that are raised can be summarised as follows: The proposal involves the installation of timber double swing windows on the front elevation of the property, which would be in keeping with the visual appearance of the other properties in Crichton Road. It is also proposed to install uPVC windows on the rear elevation, as several of the adjacent properties already have this type of window installed and they are both cost and thermally efficient. The current windows are sliding sash and case, single glazed windows that have already had potentially damaging water ingress and are, therefore, in desperate need of replacement. The contents of the Argyll and Bute Technical Working Note from 2015 are acknowledged; however, since its publication things have changed dramatically in the world. Energy costs and inflation are spiralling out of control and the monthly fuel bills for the property have doubled with a further increase in the pipeline. Both the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council have produced commitments to reduce carbon emissions and increase fuel efficiencies. The applicant has already taken steps to insulate his property with the next stage being to reduce the substantial heat loss through the windows. Sliding sash and case windows become loose over time and allow loss of heat; however, double swing windows would allow a much better seal and reduce emissions. The Scottish Government’s ‘Heat in Buildings Strategy - achieving net zero emissions in Scotland's buildings’ was published on 7th October 2021 and it places strong emphasis on the role of improving the energy performance of buildings in order to unlock the rollout of zero emissions heating. The replacement of the windows with sliding sash and case types is not an affordable option. Quotes were obtained from Blairs Windows in Greenock for timber sliding sash and case windows and for timber double swing windows. The difference in price was just short of £10,000 and the suppliers could only guarantee the price for one week due to escalating costs of materials. This difference in price did not include fitting and, as more time is required to install sliding sash windows, an even greater cost would be incurred. The Planning Department has already allowed the installation of double swing timber windows in a property just along the road at 28 Crichton Road, Page 45
Page 46
which is still in Brighton Terrace and within the Rothesay Conservation Area. There is no difference in visual terms when the property is viewed from the street so the proposed replacement would not look out of place. In the current financial climate, it is hoped that the Council will look favourably on the proposal as it would help to preserve the integrity of the building; increase energy efficiency within the property; and reduce emissions and carbon footprint. If the proposal is being recommended for refusal, it is respectfully asked if the applications could be considered by the Planning Committee. ____________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ___________________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No _________________________________________________________________________ (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 7 – Historic Assets and Places Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (March 2015) Written Statement 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones Page 46
Page 47
LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design Supplementary Guidance (2016) SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 17 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Planning History Argyll & Bute Council Technical Working Note – Rothesay Windows (2015) Historic Environment Policy Statement 2019 HES - Managing Change in the Historic Environment Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 The Examination by Scottish Government Reporters into the Argyll and Bute Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (PLDP2) has now concluded and the Examination Report has been published. The Examination Report is a material consideration of significant weight. Consequently, the PLDP2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination Report and the published Non Notifiable Modifications is a material consideration in the determination of all planning and related applications. PLDP2 Policies relevant to the current application are as follows: Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 - Settlement Areas High Quality Places Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Historic Built Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 47
Page 48
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No ____________________________________________________________________________ (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (O) Requirement for a hearing: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) (i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Category C Listed Building Rothesay Conservation Area Isle of Bute Area of Panoramic Quality (ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Within an urban built-up area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: 0.0 Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No (iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No Page 48
Page 49
Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒Not applicable (iv)Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed ☐Greenfield ABC LDP 2015 Settlement Strategy LDP DM 1 (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Main Town Settlement Area ☐Key Rural Settlement Area ☐Village/Minor Settlement Area ☐Rural Opportunity Area ☐Countryside Zone ☐Very Sensitive Countryside Zone ☐Greenbelt Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations A. Application Site The subject property is No. 26 Crichton Road, which is a dwellinghouse in the easternmost half of a two-storey semi-detached villa, the other half of which is subdivided into two flats. It is a Category C(S) Listed Building that is located prominently within the Rothesay Conservation Area. It forms part of the symmetrical Brighton Terrace and dates from 1878. B. The Proposal There are a total of thirteen windows on the front elevation of the property and these are all two-paned, timber, sliding sash and case, single-glazed windows. Planning Permission is sought to replace these with two-paned, timber, double-swing, double-glazed windows. The two windows on the upper floor of the rear elevation of the main building and the two that are on the east-facing elevation of the rear outhouse are two-paned, timber, sliding sash and case, single-glazed units and it is proposed to replace these with two-paned, upvc, double-swing, double-glazed windows. C. Development Plan Policy Context National Planning Framework 4 NPF4 Policy 1 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 or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. Page 49
Page 50
NPF4 Policy 2 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. NPF4 Policy 7 seeks to “protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places” with some of the outcomes being that the historic environment is valued, protected, and enhanced; supporting the transition to net zero; and ensuring assets are resilient to current and future impacts of climate change. Policy 7(c) advances support for the alteration of a listed building only in cases where the proposal would preserve its character, special architectural or historic interest and setting. Policy 7(d) advances support for development proposals in or affecting Conservation Areas only in cases where the character and appearance of the designated area would be preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the architectural and historic character of the area; the quality of design; and the use of suitable materials. Policy 7(e) advances support for development proposals in Conservation Areas where the existing natural and built features that contribute to the character of the designated area would be retained. NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to “encourage, promote and facilitate well-designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle.” Policy 14(a) seeks to improve the quality of an area irrespective of its location and regardless of scale. Policy 14(b) advocates the adoption of the six qualities of successful places in the formulation of developments. These include: Distinctiveness – supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity Sustainability – supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions Adaptability – supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time NPF4 Policy 16 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 50
Page 51
Policy 16(g) provides support for householder development proposals where they would 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. Policy 16(h) supports householder development proposals that provide adaptations in response to risks from a changing climate. Many of the above principles are contained in Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. D. Assessment Argyll & Bute Council Technical Working Note – Rothesay Windows Argyll and Bute Council adopted a Technical Working Note (TWN) in December 2015 in order to provide clear and consistent planning advice in relation to the replacement and refurbishment of windows in Listed Buildings and in the Rothesay Conservation Area. The document took account of Policies LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. It also reflects the contents of the relevant Historic Environment Scotland documents that have been produced in the interim period, including the Historic Environment Policy Statement 2019 and the ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ series (specifically windows guidance from 2020). It is also considered to align with the principles of the recently published National Planning Framework 4. As explained in the TWN, Listed Buildings have been designated by Historic Environment Scotland (HES - formally Historic Scotland), on behalf of Scottish Ministers, specifically due to their special interest. They are vitally important to the distinctive character of Rothesay and contribute significantly to the overall heritage appeal of the Conservation Area. Arguably, they are the most important buildings in the context of the Conservation Area. During the process of formulating the TWN in 2015, a survey of the Rothesay Conservation Area was carried out and this identified that there were 199 domestic Listed Buildings within the designated area. 148 of these properties were considered to have their traditional fenestration intact with 51 having been the subject of previous window replacements such that the buildings had become devalued in terms of their fenestration. Historic Environment Scotland’s description for 26 Crichton Road notes that “despite the loss of some balconies, fretwork finials and glazing, Brighton Terrace retains a degree of architectural interest. Still, the symmetrical layout remains and the details which are intact are of good quality” One of the features mentioned for the application property in particular is the two-paned timber sash and case glazing and, as a consequence, it is considered that one of the key architectural features of the property is this original fenestration. Page 51
Page 52
Given the above, 26 Crichton Road was one of the Listed Buildings referred to in the TWN survey as having its traditional fenestration retained and no works have been undertaken to the building in the intervening eight year period that would result in a change to this assessment. In the case of existing traditional timber sliding sash and case fenestration on intact Listed Buildings, the TWN expresses encouragement for the refurbishment or repair of windows; the installation of 'like-for-like' replacements; or the installation of double-glazed units that are identical to the original windows in all other respects (providing that it can be demonstrated that the existing windows are beyond economic repair). There may be instances on the rear or secondary elevations of a Listed Building where flexibility would be afforded and the level of flexibility would be assessed on a case-by- case basis particularly in instances where the property has not been identified as having been ‘devalued’. Based upon an external visual inspection of the existing windows on the front elevation of the application property, the timber frames are showing signs of decay and it is accepted that their replacement is justifiable. As described in Part B above, the proposal for this visually prominent elevation involves the replacement of the thirteen existing windows with units of the same two-paned design; white timber finish; and horn features. The principal differences would be the double swing method of opening and the introduction of double glazing. Both the applicant, Mr Campbell, and Councillor McCabe (who has expressed support for the proposal) have referred to the granting of Planning Permission for the installation of timber double swing windows at 28 Crichton Road. The details of this approval and subsequent decisions in relation to window replacements at 27 Crichton Road both have relevance to the assessment of the current application. Previous Applications for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent Listed Building Consent (ref: 08/01391/LIB) and Planning Permission (ref: 08/01393/DET) were granted in December 2008 for the installation of timber double swing windows in the ground floor flat of 28 Crichton Road, which is located in the block to the immediate east of the application property. These windows were supported by the Council (contrary to the recommendation of Officers) for the following reasons: They were approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan because the windows closely match in appearance the windows which are to be replaced They would not have an adverse impact on the special architectural interest of the building Due to the distance from and orientation to the public thoroughfare on Crichton Road Due to the aged nature of the Development Plans and Central Government advice at that time Page 52
Page 53
For personal reasons due to the applicants’ difficulties with the heavy lifting of the windows A condition was attached that required the installation of traditional sash and case timber windows in the future should the approved windows need to be replaced. In 2010, applications for Planning Permission (ref: 10/00382/PP) and Listed Building Consent (ref: 10/00383/LIB) were submitted for the installation of timber double swing windows in the dwellinghouse in the other half of the semi-detached villa at 27 Crichton Road. These applications were refused under delegated powers with the applicant requesting a Local Review Body (LRB) for the Planning refusal and a DPEA appeal for the Listed Building refusal. The current application essentially involves the installation of the same windows as these other two properties and it is considered to be of significance that, in dismissing the Listed Building appeal for No. 27 in his letter of 17th August 2011, the Reporter (Mr Donald Harris) made the following points: o The proposed double swing timber windows would appear similar to the existing windows when closed. But when open, they would project from the building. In the Reporter’s opinion, they would then be “unsightly, inharmonious and out of keeping with the character of this dignified building” o The houses in Brighton Terrace have mostly retained sliding sash and case windows. The Reporter gave careful consideration as to whether the “anomaly” of the double swing units that had been permitted and installed in the lower flat at No. 28 justified an approval for the installation of similar windows in the front elevation of No. 27. He noted that the applications in 2008 were granted as “a minor departure from policy for personal reasons” and drew attention to the condition requiring replacement with traditional windows when this became necessary. In these circumstances, he did “not accept that a precedent has been created which would apply to no.27” o He considered that the sliding sash and case timber windows on the front elevation of the building were an essential aspect of its special interest and were very important. He was of the opinion that the impact of the proposed timber double swing windows on that special interest would be substantial o He mentioned that the building could continue in beneficial use if replacement sliding sash and case timber windows were fitted. He acknowledged that it was “a matter of regret” that this option would be more expensive but, whilst unfortunate for the appellant, “the need to protect the special interest of the building outweighs this consideration” o He did not consider that there were any significant benefits for economic growth which would justify departing from the presumption against works that would adversely affect the special interest of the building o In terms of energy efficiency, the Reporter accepted that the proposed double glazed, double swing units would assist in energy conservation as they would have been an improvement on the existing single glazed sliding sash and case windows. Page 53
Page 54
He noted, however, that the Planning Authority had no objection to the installation of double glazed, sliding sash and case windows and he commented that these “could be expected to make a similar contribution to energy efficiency” Given that the appeal against the refusal of Listed Building Consent was unsuccessful, the Council’s LRB agreed to dismiss the request for review in relation to the Planning Permission and to uphold the Planning Department’s reasons for refusal. The owner of 27 Crichton Road subsequently received Planning Permission (ref: 11/02257/PP) and Listed Building Consent (ref: 11/02258/LIB) in January 2012 for the installation of timber, sliding sash and case, double glazed windows to the front elevation and timber, double-swing, double glazed windows to the rear and side elevations. Conclusion Whilst the DPEA appeal and LRB decisions are nearly twelve years ago, the same issues remain very pertinent to the current proposal. A significant number of documents have been produced in the interim period – Local Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Guidance; the Council’s Technical Working Note on Windows in Rothesay; a variety of HES publications; and National Planning Framework 4 – and all of these reinforce the decisions that were taken by the Council and the DPEA in relation to the proposed window replacements at 27 Crichton Road. Furthermore, it is not considered that any new factors have been introduced in association with the current proposal that would constitute such a significant and material change in circumstances to allow the current application to be recommended for approval. The principal issue with the current application relates to the windows that are proposed for the front elevation and what is considered to be an inappropriate method of opening. However, there is also a proposal for some of the windows in the rear part of the building. This elevation of the main dwelling contains five large windows – the two on the upper floor are traditional timber sash and case and appear to be original; the two on the ground floor are timber with a sash and case appearance (method of opening not known) but do not appear to be original; and the arched window in the middle is timber but without the sash and case appearance. There is a single storey outhouse that projects from the rear elevation and it contains two four-paned, timber, sliding sash and case windows on its east-facing (side) elevation. The current application proposes the replacement of the two rear upper floor windows and the two windows on the side elevation of the outhouse with upvc double swing units. Given that this part of the building is relatively inconspicuous and has already seen the introduction of replacement glazing, it is considered that there would be scope for the installation of windows with a double swing method of opening. However, as timber is the consistent finish, the introduction of upvc would not be supported and this is referred to in the reason for refusal. Matters Raised by Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as modified by Examination) Proposed Local Development Plan 2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination Report is now a significant material consideration. In this instance, there is sufficient Page 54
Page 55
alignment in the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the current development plan and PLDP2 (as modified) that the decision to refuse the application is supported by both sets of documents. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be refused The property that is the subject of this application, No. 26 Crichton Road, is a Category C Listed Building that is located in the Rothesay Conservation Area. Argyll and Bute Council adopted the Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note in 2015 and the subject property was identified as one of the Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area where traditional fenestration had remained intact. The existing sliding sash and case timber windows on the front elevation of the building are considered to be very important and are an essential aspect of its special interest. Regarding this type of Listed Building, the adopted Technical Working Note advocates the refurbishment/repair of windows or the installation of 'like-for-like' replacements as the preferred options. In cases where it can be demonstrated that the existing windows are beyond economic repair, the installation of high quality double-glazed units that are identical to the original windows in all other respects are very likely to be permitted. The windows that are proposed for installation on the front elevation would have a double swing method of opening and, when in the open position, they would project from the external façade of each unit thereby appearing visually incongruous and discordant. In this regard, it is considered that they would detract from the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the wider Rothesay Conservation Area to an unacceptable degree. The rear elevation of the property is visually inconspicuous and is of less significance in terms of fenestration. However, as timber is the consistent finish, the proposed installation of upvc windows to replace traditional timber sliding sash and case units on the upper floor and in the east-facing (side) elevation of the single storey outhouse is considered to represent an inappropriate intervention. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Furthermore, the works are not consistent with Argyll and Bute Council’s adopted Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note 2015 nor with the expectations of Historic Environment Scotland through their ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ guidance on windows. ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No Page 55
Page 56
____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 19th June 2023 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 13th June 2023 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 56
Page 57
GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/01848/PP 1. The property that is the subject of this application, No. 26 Crichton Road, is a Category C Listed Building that is located in the Rothesay Conservation Area. Argyll and Bute Council adopted the Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note in 2015 and the subject property was identified as one of the Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area where traditional fenestration had remained intact. The existing sliding sash and case timber windows on the front elevation of the building are considered to be very important and are an essential aspect of its special interest. Regarding this type of Listed Building, the adopted Technical Working Note advocates the refurbishment/repair of windows or the installation of 'like-for-like' replacements as the preferred options. In cases where it can be demonstrated that the existing windows are beyond economic repair, the installation of high quality double-glazed units that are identical to the original windows in all other respects are very likely to be permitted. The windows that are proposed for installation on the front elevation would have a double swing method of opening and, when in the open position, they would project from the external façade of each unit thereby appearing visually incongruous and discordant. In this regard, it is considered that they would detract from the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the wider Rothesay Conservation Area to an unacceptable degree. The rear elevation of the property is visually inconspicuous and is of less significance in terms of fenestration. However, as timber is the consistent finish, the proposed installation of upvc windows to replace traditional timber sliding sash and case units on the upper floor and in the east-facing (side) elevation of the single storey outhouse is considered to represent an inappropriate intervention. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 16 and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Furthermore, the works are not consistent with Argyll and Bute Council’s adopted Rothesay Windows Technical Working Note 2015 nor with the expectations of Historic Environment Scotland through their ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ guidance on windows. The proposal is also not consistent with Policies 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 which is a significant material consideration. Page 57
Page 58
APPENDIX B – LISTED BUILDING APPEAL DECISION LETTER DATED 17/08/2011 Page 58
Page 59
Page 59
Page 60
Page 60
Page 61
Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
Page 63
Page 64
This page is intentionally left blank