Knowle relocation project: another PegasusLife application rejected due to 'scale, bulk and height of the proposed buildings' and 'insufficient contribution towards affordable housing'

PegasusLife have been pushing for a retirement complex in Sidmouth for some time now - which was rejected as being too big and not having any affordable housing:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project >>> a far more imposing development than assumed? Part Six: "the new building would be twice as high a the current building"
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: PegasusLife looking to classify their development as 'extra care housing' >>> "The advantage of a scheme falling within a C2 Use Class should not be underestimated."

They try to do pretty much the same in other parts of the country:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: the PegasusLife 'vision' >>> >>> "We strive to make all our projects unique, relevant and inspiring" >>> unless it looks pretty much the same as other uninspiring developments

For example, in the parklands of Chigwell, Epping Forest:

Chigwell Development, Epping Forest, Essex - PegasusLife

An application for five blocks totalling 105 apartments was considered last month:
Agenda item - EPF/3386/16 - Land West of Froghall Lane, South of Chigwell Cemetery, Chigwell

It was rejected - as it was too big and there was not enough affordable housing:

Decision: 

(1) That planning application EPF/3386/16 at Land West of Froghall Lane, South of Chigwell Cemetery in Chigwell be refused permission for the following reasons: 

1. The proposal as a whole was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that was by definition harmful to it. Furthermore, by reason of the scale, bulk and height of the proposed buildings together with associated works, the proposal would cause considerable harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development amounted to a substantial intrusion of built form into the countryside and therefore conflicted with two of the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The benefits of the proposal were insufficient to overcome the harm it would cause to the Green Belt, and therefore the application did not demonstrate very special circumstances in favour of granting planning permission. Accordingly, the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan and Alterations policies GB2A and GB7A, which were consistent with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2. By reason of making an insufficient contribution towards the provision of off-site affordable housing. It was therefore contrary to the Local Plan and Alterations policies H5A, H6A, H7A and H8A, which were consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCILCOMMITTEE MINUTESCommittee: District Development ManagementCommitteeDate: 4 October 2017
.

.

.