| 1. | The proposed amendments, by virtue of the removal of the historic chimney stacks, the introduction of balconies with glass balustrades formed on the roofs of the original canted bay windows, and the associated rooflight, would result in unsympathetic and visually intrusive alterations to the host building. The chimneys are key historic features that contribute positively to the character of the building and feature prominently within views of the surrounding streetscape, and their removal would cause unjustified harm. The proposed balconies, by virtue of their form, materials and location on the principal elevation, would represent an incongruous addition, distorting the historic fenestration and architectural integrity of the building.
Given the prominent corner position of the property on a main route to the seafront, the cumulative impact of the proposed amendments would be readily visible from the public realm and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Area No.16 Seafront, resulting in less than substantial harm to its significance, without the submission of sufficient justification demonstrate that such harm is necessary or outweighed by public benefits.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies CS10 and E5 of the Development Plan, and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. |
