Planning application: 25/11778/F| Phased demolition and redevelopment to provide residential dwellings (Use Class C3), student accommodation (Sui Generis), Commercial, Business and Service floorspace (Use Class E), amenity spaces, parking, servicing, landscaping, open space, play space, and associated works. Land South Of Princess Street Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AG.
TRESA strongly objects to this application on the following grounds:
1] OVERDENSIFICATION
The density of the proposed development, at 380 dwellings per hectare (dph) is excessive, resulting in harm to heritage assets and poor design. The site is located part edge of Bedminster town centre and part out of town centre. As a regeneration site it is considered suitable for a density of 120dph. Bedminster train station is the nearest train station which not a major train station but does provide transport links. New rules require a minimum density of 40–50dph near such transport links to ensure efficient use of land.
Over-densification of the site has resulted in a high proportion of single aspect dwellings. 20% of the rooms do not comply with the BRE guidance for daylight. 55% of rooms do not meet the BRE guidance for sunlight. Outdoor play space lacks suitable boundaries. The 24-storey tower is overbearing. Concerns about overlooking, from the Learning Partnership West (LPW) school and St Mary Redcliffe primary school, have not been addressed.
2] HEIGHT
The proposed 24-storey PBSA tower is excessive in height. It will be unduly dominating in the surrounding area, resulting in harm to the wider townscape and heritage assets as illustrated by the visual impact assessments.
The site lies within the Whitehouse Street regeneration framework area. To produce this framework, the council worked in partnership with land owners and developers including the current applicant. There was consultation with the community, businesses and community organizations and the framework was endorsed by Bristol City Council at a cabinet meeting in March 2023. It is a material consideration in the determination of applications and is referred to in emerging policy.
The current prevailing height in the Whitehouse Street regeneration area is 3-4 storeys. Within that context, a tall building is defined as more than two times the prevailing height i.e. more than 6-8 storeys). Bristol’s Urban Living supplementary planning document (SPD) also refers to tall buildings as more than twice the prevailing height, while the emerging local plan refers to buildings of 10 storeys or more.
3] HARM TO HERITAGE ASSETS
Historic England remain concerned about the harm to heritage assets. Despite some modifications to earlier plans, Heritage England stated: “While Block D is more finessed, with slenderer proportions, its position remains within the critical view corridor from Victoria Park. Despite the amendments, the development would still impose a reduction of the panoramic experience of this view. The visibility of the towering spire of St Mary Redcliffe would remain unaltered from the previous iteration and its primacy within the middle foreground would be seriously compromised, causing harm to its setting and thus significance. We do not concur with the assessment provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum. We would remind your authority that this a very important key view, which is included within the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework.”
Historic England has NOT withdrawn these concerns. Their latest submission (17 February 2026) states: “We therefore refer your authority to the advice in our previous letters relating the impacts outlined from the view corridor from Victoria Park. Recommendation: Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 212 and 213 of the NPPF. In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.”
The proposal contravenes Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which mandates that local planning authorities and the Secretary of State must have “special regard” to preserving a listed building, its setting, or any special architectural/historic features when considering planning permission. This statutory duty places considerable importance and weight on avoiding harm to heritage assets.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires decisions to consider the significance of heritage assets and how development impacts their setting. As well as the Grade I listed St Mary Redcliffe church, the setting of other heritage assets will be harmed by this proposal including the Grade II listed Langton Street Bridge, and the Grade II listed buildings at York Road.
Section 72 of the Planning Listed Building Conservation Areas Act requires an authority to place special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the conservation area and have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. The site is adjacent to the Bedminster conservation area.
4] PRESSURE ON INFRASTRUCTURE – PRIMARY HEALTHCARE
The applicant fails to address the additional demand on primary healthcare generated by the development.
The Bristol Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2023) states that “additional primary care facilities in South Bristol” will be delivered via S106/CIL. The NHS letter (19 Nov 2025) states: “There is not sufficient existing primary healthcare capacity locally to address demand generated by the development. Mitigation is therefore required in the form of a financial contribution of £663,885 towards the capital cost of delivering the additional primary care floorspace required to serve residents of the new development. Without this mitigation, the development would not comply with adopted Bristol Local Plan Policy BCS11 and DM14, emerging Local Plan policies HW2B and IDC1, and paragraphs 56 to 59 of the NPPF and related Planning Practice Guidance.”
The applicant’s cover letter (5 Nov 2025) states: “It is not considered appropriate for a financial contribution to be sought from this scheme with regard to healthcare.” The applicants would agree to a condition requiring them to undertake marketing of some commercial space to the NHS. Should the NHS not take this up, the space could be used by other health care providers including private doctors or dentists. This fails to address the additional demand on primary healthcare generated from the development.
Section 106 money should be sought from the applicant and held in a ring-fenced account with an S106 agreement linking expenditure to addressing additional demand on primary healthcare generated from the development.
5] PURPOSE BUILT STUDENT ACCOMODATION (PBSA)
The proposal undermines the planned location and number of PBSA developments. Local authorities are able to control PBSA accommodation through the planning system to: balance student housing needs with the availability of housing for permanent residents; prevent over-concentration in specific areas, and; protect the supply of standard residential homes.
The Bedminster Green Placemaking Framework was endorsed by BCC Cabinet in 2019. Bedminster Green was deemed suitable for an allocation of 1,300 PBSA beds. Within the area, Metal Works accommodates 819 students and there is planning permission for a 484-bed scheme at Malago Road (Former Pring & St Hill Site) i.e. 1303 PBSA places are built or consented, just over the 1,300 PBSA allocation
6] TILTED BALANCE AND HOUSING TARGETS
The negative impacts outweigh the benefits of the proposed scheme.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out in the national planning policy framework, and often referred to as the tilted balance. Where there is no 5-year housing land supply, as in Bristol, decision takers need to give more weight to the provision of housing when weighing matters in the planning balance. But if a proposed development has considerable negative impacts, that outweigh the benefits of new housing, it should be refused.
When considering housing targets, a Chief Planning Officer should also address: Quality – ensuring developments adhere to a required standard; Strategic planning – ensuring new housing is supported by infrastructure (schools, GP surgeries); Balancing needs – balancing the pressure to meet targets with the specific, long-term needs of the local community.
7] VIABILITY
Viability is a planning consideration but no viability assessment has been undertaken for this proposal. Given the negative impacts of this proposal, and the failure to comply with local policies and frameworks, a revised application should be sought which may lead to viability assessment. Current government policy is strengthening the expectation that authorities should optimize density, especially in urban areas and near transport hubs, but this does not mean any density is acceptable; the focus remains on “appropriate” densities that constitute “good design”.
8] STRENGTH OF OBJECTIONS AND EXCESSIVE ‘CONDITIONS’
The proposals have attracted considerable opposition from residents, organisations and statutory consultees. The overwhelming majority of comments submitted are objections. Where consultee objections have been reduced or withdrawn, this has usually been achieved by proposing conditions. It should be noted that where numerous planning conditions are required, this is often because of insufficient detail, attempts to mitigate problems arising from poor design, or temporarily sidestepping issues to speed up approval. This is unacceptable for a large-scale, controversial project that is the first to come forward in the Whitehouse Street regeneration area.
I couldn’t disagree more over this latest building proposition – it’s just a gruesome penitentiary-style monster (in comparison to the new development in Windmill Hill – is it called Bedminster Green? – that has a relatively low-level series of nicely placed flats with a lovely use of materials, colours and a human scale that generates a sense of community). I don’t feel there’s a single redeeming feature in this vast monstrosity and presumably these flats would have very little light – and we all know that it will only breed misery and contempt for everyone living there – or in its shadow. I have nothing against views being proportionally disrupted or against redevelopment but this colossal lump is not an example of anything being well-developed and is definitely not something that integrates into the overall environment…it’s actually insulting to even propose something like this – especially if it’s being built as ‘social housing’ – if that’s the argument – as if people who can’t afford to live in decent environments have to just submit to being placed in buildings tantamount to prisons as a punishment for being poor!
What is wrong with wanting a balance of decent quality housing with space for people to live alongside each other as part of a community and why isn’t the wider 360 degree ‘view’ important? Any new building should always have consideration for how it relates to its surroundings or it will become a ghetto of misery.
Then there’s all the viability issues to do with provision of additional schools, doctors’ surgeries etc and with this kind of density I would imagine substantial mental health impacts and the need for additional policing would quickly start to become overwhelming.
I would welcome an equivalent to what’s happened further along the railway in Bedminster but this proposition is just repulsive. The (still empty) flats near Totterdown Bridge are even ok (but way too high in my opinion) because of their design & a nice selection of varied, interesting, well-designed and proportioned high-rises (kept under 10 storeys for people’s sanity) over where the Peugeot garage was, would also make sense – and as for those two derelict hotels that the entire city has to navigate around – why aren’t they pulled down and redeveloped?
Almost every flat above the shops on East Street is empty and so many people could live there but it seems there’s just a relentless ambition to destroy every scrap of land and remove every tiny remaining habitat for nature and simply erect yet more disgusting eyesores – in a false notion of solving the housing crisis when more grassroots efforts should be at work. This latest horror cannot be compared to a well-designed and well-constructed development like the recent one in Bedminster which naturally integrates itself due to the spacing out and orientation of the blocks.
We keep on building student accommodation when A I is going to destroy jobs on a massive scale and render universities as pointless institutions before too long, so where is the forward thinking in relation to these exponential changes coming down the line?
Half of Broadmead is empty along with many units in Cabot Circus and numerous offices are empty so why not repurpose before it’s too late?
When I look at this latest carbuncle of a design I just see ensuing misery for hundreds of people all stacked on top of each other and that’s not good for anyone – whatever background they’re from.
Let’s elevate people’s spirits rather than generate monstrous amounts of carbon in the construction of something which will then be pulled down 30 years later because it failed to offer any sanctuary, and at huge cost to the environment as well as the public purse.
Valerie, this is so well put. For a Green-led Council, Bristol seems to have an extraordinary amount of ill conceived, poorly designed & environmentally damaging building projects taking place all over the city.
Of course, people need housing but they also need access to decent schools and health care, and for mental well- being, access to green spaces and places where communities can be strengthened, not isolated. Has nothing been learned from Covid?!
Consultations took place within the neighborhood prior to planning proposals being made public.
Under consideration at the time were 3 rows of buildings across the proposed area, ranging in height from 4 storeys, thru 6 storeys and then 8 storeys nearest to the park.
To my mind 8 storeys is still too high & doesn’t fit into an area where existing buildings are 3 or 4 storeys
At no time during initial consultations we’re tower blocks of thus height ever mentioned.
As Valerie states there are lots of empty properties across the city which could be converted for a fraction of the cost and disruption this project will cause.
The proposed block is horrendous & the impact on people who have to live in or close to it has no saving graces that I can see.
I cannot imagine for one minute that the people who promote this as acceptable, would ever consider living there themselves..