AN HISTORIC golf clubhouse has won its fight to install uPVC windows after councillors branded the current frames "ugly".

Musselburgh Old Course Golf Club’s clubhouse currently has aluminium frames on windows and a door, which the club wants to replace.

However, East Lothian Council planning officers rejected the use of uPVC in the Category B listed building, which they said would neither “preserve nor enhance” the 19th-century building on the town's Balcarres Road.

At a meeting of the council’s planning committee on Tuesday, officers said that listed building consent had already been granted for the club to replace the frames with timber.

However, Brian Weddell, representing the club, said that it had come to their attention that other planning applications in the county had been granted permission for uPVC.

He told the committee that the building, which was built in 1873 by the Royal Burgess Golfing Society, was an “authentic and period golf clubhouse from its time”.

'More sustainable'

He said that the club took it over in 1995 and restoration work had been ongoing, with replacing the windows the next phase.

He said that, since applying to replace them with timber frames, the club had become aware through the press of other cases where people had been allowed to install uPVC windows.

And he pointed out that a number of properties locally already had uPVC windows.

Urging councillors to disregard the officers' recommendation to refuse permission for uPVC frames, he said: “In 2019, East Lothian Council declared a climate emergency and has made a significant commitment to tackling the causes of climate change.

“This revised planning application represents an opportunity to support a local organisation which is seeking to upgrade its property in a way which contributes to achieving a more sustainable building with lower maintenance costs while contributing to the council’s objectives to reduce greenhouse emissions.”

Keith Dingwall, head of planning, pointed out that in other cases where the plastic frames had been allowed, the buildings were not listed.

'Can't see the difference'

Councillor Cher Cassini, local ward member said: “Wood is infinitely preferable but it is costly and requires maintenance. uPVC, to the untrained eye, you can’t really see the difference.

“I sympathise and, considering we want to get to net zero, I would support them being allowed to put uPVC in.”

And fellow committee member Councillor Neil GIlbert said: “To me, modern uPVC windows are virtually indistinguishable from the wooden alternative. Any replacement windows in this building would be an improvement.”

Committee member Councillor Jeremy Findlay said that if the committee was being asked to allow a change from timber to uPVC, it might be different.

But, he said: “We are going from fairly ugly aluminium windows to uPVC.”

And Councillor Norman Hampshire, planning convenor, said: “It is quite clear the windows in that building detract from the beauty of it.

“If we are not able to support this application, it is likely the windows currently in there will not change.”

The committee unanimously agreed to reject officers’ recommendation and approve the change to the frames.