D21A/0835

The proposed development was refused because the applicant failed to provide a strong justification for the demolition of a structurally sound, habitable dwelling, thereby contravening policies that prioritize retrofitting and reuse (Policy CA6); additionally, the scale and elevated positioning of the replacement dwelling were deemed visually obtrusive and detrimental to the residential amenities of neighboring properties.

• The demolition of a habitable 1930s dwelling is not justified under current climate-resilient planning policies which favor the retention of embodied carbon and deep retrofitting over new-build construction.
• The replacement dwelling's significant mass, scale, and positioning on a steeply sloping site would result in a visually dominant and obtrusive structure that fails to respect the character of the sensitive coastal setting.
• The proposed design would cause undue injury to the residential amenities of adjoining properties through significant overlooking and an overtly overbearing physical presence.