A Crieff man is taking on Perth and Kinross Council for telling him to remove his “identical” replacement windows.
Alastair Gourlay moved into the former Duchlage Farmhouse on Duchlage Road in 2021.
At that time he says the windows on the B-listed building were single-glazed and “rotting”.
He replaced them with double-glazed versions of “identical appearance” but the council took enforcement action after a complaint from a member of the public.
The council then turned down Mr Gourlay’s retrospective planning application because the new windows do not “preserve the subject listed building’s character.”
Old windows left Crieff house ‘draughty’
Mr Gourlay has now lodged an appeal that a Scottish Government planning reporter will decide.
“Mrs and Mrs Gourlay found the house draughty and prone to moisture ingress in inclement weather,” his appeal statement said.
“Without realising that the replacement windows require listed building consent, they replaced the windows on, as they considered it, a like-for-like basis, retaining
the geometric appearance of the windows and the elevations containing the windows.
“Mr and Mrs Gourlay chose to match the pre-existing windows with replacements of identical appearance to their eyes.
“They received nothing but compliments on the windows from people who have commented to them personally.
“It is only the planning authority who have taken exception to the replacement windows.”
‘Nobody has complained’ about replacements
The appeal statement says the glazing panes on the replacement windows measure 460mm horizontally by 250mm vertically.
This compares to 469.9mm by 228.6mm for the old panes.
“The difference is negligible visually when the windows are inspected on site,” it added.
“The windows do not alter the appearance of the house to a lay person from the restricted views of the house.
“Nobody has complained about the appearance of the replacement windows or their effect on the appearance of the house.”
Council says new windows don’t have ‘matching joinery details’
The council is yet to respond to the appeal statement.
But its original decision notice said: “The proposal does not preserve the subject listed building’s character, architectural interest or setting by failing to replace the historic windows (now removed) with matching joinery details, specifically the loss of structural
astragals.”
It added that “repair works have not fully investigated where a repair ‘potential’
had been identified.”
Conversation