By Andrew Waller, 21 August 2026
 

Councillors will decide the fate of the St Joseph’s planning application, now revised down to 126 student beds, at a committee meeting in City Hall on Wednesday, 2 September 2026. The meeting starts at 6pm.
 

A recommendation by planning officers to approve or reject the application will be published on Bristol City Council’s websites on Wednesday, 26 August. Look in either of these locations:
 

• The planning portal: The report will appear on the document page for the application at https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=TEB341DNFO100 (or search for “Bristol planning portal” and insert “St Joseph’s” or the application number, 26/11841/F, in the search box on the page.
   

• The meeting page for Planning Committee B: https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=12424&Ver=4an . See “Agenda pack” or “public reports pack”.
   

Members of the public can participate in the Public Forum section of the meeting (usually allocated about 30 minutes near the start of the agenda) to ask questions or submit statements or petitions. Notice of questions and statements needs to be submitted in advance, and speaking time is limited to one minute.

​

Full details of how to participate will be available on the committee page before the meeting. Or see this guide: https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/8240-have-your-say-public-forum-guide/file .
 

People who submitted objections to the proposal are also likely to receive a council letter giving this and other information.

​

The plan to turn St. Joseph’s, a former care home in Cotham Hill, into student accommodation (originally with 132 beds) drew huge opposition when it was submitted in April by developer Harringay Real Estate. By the time the first round of public consultation had finished in June, more than 160 people and groups had submitted responses, with roughly 98% of them against.

​

Most objected on the grounds Cotham Hill and surrounding areas already have a large student population, which many associate with night-time noise, litter and other problems. A lot of objectors (including the Noise Pages) said the proposal was at odds with Bristol planning policies aimed at preventing over-concentrations of shared and specialist housing, such as HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation) and purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) like St Joseph’s.

​

Many people pointed to Woodland Court, an existing 196-bed development that stands across the street from St Joseph’s. (Few if any people cited it as a source of noise or other specific problems, but it exemplifies the large number of students already present; there are also dozens of HMOs in the surrounding area, adding several hundred more students to the total count.)

​

One problem for the council, cited frequently by Savill’s, the property agent acting for Harringay, is that its most recent and detailed policies for PBSA are part of a revised Local Plan that has yet to be formally adopted. It must first complete a lengthy process of consultation and scrutiny by central-government inspectors. 

​

Savill’s argued that as a result, these “emerging” policies can only be given limited weight in the council’s evaluation of the proposal. It also suggested Bristol’s failure to meet government targets on house-building meant it had little option but to agree to the plan – student beds count towards housing totals.

​

However, the Local Plan has now completed most of its progress through the verification process. And while the government’s inspectors did demand some changes, the PBSA policy survived largely intact. So, although the Local Plan still awaits adoption,  local planners will be allowed to factor its policies into their thinking – to some extent, at least.

​

Harringay was also forced to make changes. Bristol’s planners criticised the lack of natural light in many of the ground-floor studio flats as well as other aspects of the internal layout and several other issues. In response, Harringay reworked the plans to meet daylight standards and other requests.

​

As a result, a second round of public consultation was opened up, lasting until 19 August for most people. This has brought forth further objections.

​

I submitted a response to this round, confirming my original opposition to the proposal. I also replied to comments the developer published in early August, attempting to rebut some of the arguments I and others had deployed in our objections.

​

Related links:

• My own original objection

• My supplementary response on 18 August