Pegasuslife: some interesting planning application comments

Wilmslow, on former council office land:

Too large, too high, no affordables:


” … stumbling blocks for councillors included its height – a maximum 20.7m high in the six storey part of the complex – and the lack of privacy for neighbouring occupants.

Councillors were told that a planning policy required a separating distance of 27m between facing upper floor windows, but the nearest facing ones were 19.3m apart.

Also, the scheme’s footprint was 28 per cent greater than existing buildings.

Harpenden resident David Newton told the committee the six-storey high block would be ‘visually intrusive’ and set a dangerous precedent if approved.

Cllr Maxine Crawley said: “What’s there is obviously not nice and needs to be replaced, we all know that.”

She was concerned residents’ parking would spill onto neighbouring roads, as the scheme allowed for 25 parking spaces for 38 units.”

Bristol Civic Society:

The Society regrets that it cannot support the third proposed [Pegasuslife] scheme. The height and mass of three new linked replacement blocks would exceed the height and mass of the buildings proposed in both the earlier schemes. The replacement blocks would increase development, present a large building mass, and stand out strikingly to dominate the townscape. The planning question is the impact of the new buildings on designated heritage assets. The townscape and landscape of Brandon Hill is unique; planning policy recognises them to be heritage assets of high significance. The existing building makes a positive contribution to the landscape.

The Society would strongly support redevelopment within the main hospital building, which could provide a substantial number of mixed sized of apartments within a building of character. Such an attractive development in this highly desirable location would be highly marketable.

In response to a pre-planning application enquiry, Council Officers have advised Pegasus Homes that they are unable to be support the current scheme due to its excessive bulk and massing. Officers do not consider that the scheme relates adequately to the site’s surrounding context. Officers would welcome a scheme that recognises their criticism.”