F23A/0570

The proposal was refused because the applicant failed to prove the existing structure had been a permanent year-round residence for at least seven years, the scale and design were deemed excessive and visually obtrusive for a high-amenity coastal area, and the site is at significant risk from coastal erosion, making the development premature.

• The applicant failed to provide verifiable documentary evidence that the existing unit has been occupied on a year-round basis for a period of 7 years or more, meaning it does not meet the criteria for replacement/conversion of seasonal chalets under Objective DMSO47.
• The proposed side and rear extensions are excessive in scale, height, and mass relative to the existing dwelling, resulting in a visually dominant and discordant development that would detract from the character of the High Amenity zoned coastal area.
• The development is premature as the site is located in an area identified as being at risk of coastal erosion (within 100m of the coastline), and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not necessitate future coastal defense works.