The application sought planning permission, alongside listed building consent, for a single-storey side and rear extension to a property on Campbell Street, Helensburgh. The property forms part of an 1856 classical sandstone villa, listed at Category B, which was subdivided in 1957 into three dwellings. The site lies within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area, which holds outstanding status. The extension was to be built hard against the shared boundary, in render with white uPVC windows and doors.
Our clients, neighbouring residents whose home faces the proposed extension across a narrow pathway, were concerned that the extension would enclose that gap and take daylight from habitable rooms, and that it would harm the architectural character of the listed villa. The application had been submitted without any design statement, heritage assessment, cross-section or daylight study.
Policy 16 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 only supports development affecting a listed building where it respects the original structure in setting, scale, design and materials, and it places the burden on the applicant to demonstrate this through design statements and conservation plans. No such information had been submitted, so the effect on the special interest of the building had not been assessed at all. We set out why a rendered extension with uPVC openings, built tight against the rear of a fine sandstone villa, was an unsympathetic addition, contrary to Policies 15 and 16 of LDP2 and Policy 7 of National Planning Framework 4.
Drawing on the Helensburgh Conservation Areas Character Appraisal, we explained that the special interest of Upper Helensburgh lies in large villas set within generous, garden-dominated plots, with boundary walls and planting that contribute greatly to the streetscape. Filling the open space between the two dwellings, against the listed boundary walls, was exactly the kind of incremental loss the Appraisal warns against. The proposed render and uPVC were also out of keeping with the stugged, snecked sandstone of the villa, contrary to Policy 17 and the design policies of LDP2.
With the extension built hard against the boundary and its eaves projecting over a pathway less than two metres wide, the scheme would create a tunnel-like condition. Because the affected windows face north towards the extension, the harm was a loss of daylight and an overbearing sense of enclosure rather than lost sunlight. Applying the BRE 25-degree test, an obstruction of this height at such close range would very clearly fail, yet the applicant had provided no section, levels or daylight assessment. LDP2 requires the applicant to demonstrate there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, and that had not been done.
We also noted that a mature tree stands close to the shared boundary, with no arboricultural information showing how it, or its roots, would be protected during construction.
Argyll and Bute Council refused planning permission on 25 September 2026 for two reasons. First, the design and wrap-around form of the extension failed to respect the character of the Category B listed villa and amounted to overdevelopment of its small rear curtilage, contrary to NPF4 Policies 7 and 14 and LDP2 Policies 10 and 16. Second, by reason of its length, height, massing and proximity to the shared boundary, the extension would create an oppressive and enclosing form of development in the narrow corridor between the two dwellings, with an unacceptable overbearing impact on the neighbouring occupiers. Both reasons reflect the central points of our objection.
Related guidance: Heritage Objections · Overbearing Impact · Scotland
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →