91 - 101 Church Road Redfield Bristol BS5 9JS

1. 1.The proposed development will result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding local area, in relation to its proposed layout, scale and massing. The proposed continuous five-storey frontage along Church Road would appear overly tall and monolithic given the prevailing height of two storeys in the surrounding area. The lack of variation in height, articulation, and/or set-backs across the frontage would exacerbate the perception of bulk, failing to respect the finer grain and vertical rhythm of existing plots, appearing dominant and out of keeping with the established street scene. In addition, the proposed layout would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the street scene due to its impact on the existing mature trees along Church Road. The partial loss of the undesignated heritage asset, which has not been sufficiently justified, weighs proportionately against the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is considered to conflict with policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), policies DM26, DM27, DM28, DM29, DM30 and DM31 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014), The Urban Living SPD (2018) and the NPPF (2024).
2. 2.Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light and overbearing impact. The height, massing and siting of the development would result in an overbearing and enclosing form of development, especially given the constrained distances to the rear and narrow street context on Brook Street, causing significant harm to the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers, without evidence to demonstrate otherwise. In addition, due to the addition of further student accommodation and associated rear-facing windows at a separation distance of approximately 17m, the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents on Heber Street. Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated that the privacy of dwellings on Brook Street would be safeguarded. Therefore, the application is contrary to policies BCS21 of Bristol's Core Strategy (2011), policies DM27 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014), and the NPPF (2024).
3. 3.The proposed development, by way of its layout, design and internal arrangements, would result in an unacceptable standard of accommodation for future occupants. In particular, the provision of ground floor units with direct interfaces to communal areas, parking and the public realm, combined with insufficient and ineffective screening measures, would lead to a harmful loss of privacy. The predominance of single-aspect units, many of which are north-facing, together with their limited size and depth, would result in poor outlook, restricted natural ventilation and an oppressive internal environment. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that adequate levels of daylight and sunlight would be achieved. Overall, the combined impacts of poor privacy, limited outlook and ventilation, inadequate daylight and sunlight, and constrained and inflexible internal spaces would result in substandard living conditions for future occupants, contrary to policies BCS21 and BCS18 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), policies DM7, DM29 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014, and the NPPF (2024).
4. 4.The proposal fails to provide safe, suitable and sustainable access arrangements. In particular, it would result in inadequate and unsafe cycle access, unresolved highway safety concerns, insufficient servicing and delivery arrangements, and the absence of a robust Travel Plan. In addition, inadequate waste storage and collection arrangements would be likely to result in refuse being stored within internal circulation areas or on the public highway, to the detriment of pedestrian safety and the amenity of surrounding occupiers. Furthermore, in the absence of effective management measures, the proposal is likely to exacerbate existing on- street parking pressures in the surrounding area. As such, the development fails to demonstrate that it would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users, contrary to policies BCS10, BCS11 and BCS13 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), policies DM2 and DM23 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
5. 5.The proposal fails to adequately mitigate its impact on the local transport network. In particular, it does not provide or secure necessary improvements to walking, cycling, parking or public transport infrastructure, including enhancements to local cycling infrastructure, bus stop capacity, the provision of direct and attractive links to nearby campuses, or the introduction of a Residents Parking Scheme. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure such measures, the development would place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, to the detriment of the safety, capacity and sustainability of the transport network. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies BCS10, BCS11 and BCS13 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), policies DM2 and DM23 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
6. 6.The proposal fails to demonstrate that it would safeguard existing street trees of significant amenity value. The submitted arboricultural information is inadequate, inaccurate and fails to accord with the requirements of BS5837 (2012). In particular, it relies on outdated survey data, provides incorrect assumptions regarding tree management, and fails to properly assess the relationship between the development and existing trees. The proposed tree works are excessive, unjustified and would be likely to harm the health, longevity and amenity value of the trees, while also giving rise to future pressure for further pruning or removal due to the proximity of the built form. In addition, the application fails to provide appropriate tree protection measures or a robust arboricultural method statement to ensure that root protection areas would be safeguarded during construction. As such, the proposal has not demonstrated that it would avoid unacceptable harm to existing trees or that it can be successfully accommodated on the site, contrary to policies BCS21 and BCS9 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) and the NPPF (2024).

From the council's decision notice.

Postcode

BS5 9JS

Application type

Outline Planning

Scale / size

Medium

Parish

Ashley, Easton And Lawrence Hill

Date validated

26 January 2026

Consultation expiry

4 March 2026

Consultation end

23 February 2026

Neighbour consultation end

24 February 2026

Target decision date

27 April 2026

Statutory period

91 days

Advertisement expiry

4 March 2026

Site notice end

4 March 2026

Planning Portal ID

PP-14619770

Documents

56

Constraints

11