By Andrew Waller, 18 October 2026

 

Councillors voted against the St Joseph’s planning application for a second and final time at the 14 October meeting of Planning Committee B. If developer Harringay Real Estate appeals, the fate of proposals for 126 student beds at the former care home may rest with a government planning inspector.

 

At the moment, it’s unclear what Harringay’s next move will be.

 

Given recent developments in planning policy at both local and national levels, as well as the government’s eagerness to kick-start construction, particularly in housing, there’s a significant chance an inspector would approve the plans—even though councillors say there are already too many students in the area.

 

Bristol’s planning officers continued to recommend approval when Planning Committee B debated the plans for a second time. But the committee’s elected members stuck to their guns, voting 5-3 against—as they had in September—to overturn the officers’ recommendation.

​

Reasons for Refusal

They then voted by a similar margin to reject the application on the following grounds:

 

“The proposed development, by reason of the introduction of 126 purpose-built student bedspaces within a locality already characterised by a substantial student population, existing purpose-built student accommodation and a concentration of shared student housing, would contribute towards a harmful concentration of specialist student accommodation.

 

“The cumulative effect of additional student accommodation would therefore contribute towards a local imbalance of student occupation and adversely affect community balance and existing residential amenity within the locality.

 

“The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DM2 and BCS18 of the Bristol Development Plan, inconsistent with the objectives of Bristol’s emerging Policy H7 and contrary to the aims of Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026) which requires development to be appropriate for its location having regard to its effects of pollution, including cumulative effects, on health and living conditions.”

 

Turnout of Objectors

There was a stronger turnout of objectors in the public gallery for the second meeting compared with the first, with a packed list of public-forum contributions.

 

Eight people (including me) submitted written questions; five spoke (again, including me). Some of the same people were also among the 43 who had submitted written statements; about a dozen were invited to speak, including a spokesman for the developer.

​

(I submitted a written statement as well as questions but was not called to speak a second time because the public forum is limited to 30 minutes.)

 

Video Link: The proceedings were live-streamed and can be watched on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVlzdLwp6c4.

Questions and Statements: All the public forum written contributions can be seen in the committee agenda papers (pages 4 to 62).

​

How Councillors Voted

Although the key votes were 5-3 against the proposals at both the September and October meetings, the numbers mask several differences in the make-up of the two committees.

 

At the September meeting, the committee had its normal complement of nine elected members. However, three members (George Calascione of Clifton Down ward and Guy Poultney and Mohamed Makawi of Cotham ward) stood down so they were freed from impartiality obligations and therefore able to openly campaign against the application. Their places on the committee were filled by substitutes (Councillors Bartle, Stone and Tshabalala.)

 

In the key September vote, Cllrs Bartle, Stone and Tshabalala, together with Cllrs Jemphrey and Peat, formed the majority, with only committee chair Don Alexander and Cllrs Eddy and Durston siding with the officers. Another member, Cllr Dudd, abstained.

 

The make-up of the committee was substantially changed for October’s second vote, and it had only eight elected members. Cllrs Calascione, Poultney and Makawi again recused themselves, to be replaced by Cllrs Al-Maghrabi, Ani Townsend and Freeman respectively.

 

In the key October vote, Cllrs Al-Maghrabi, Townsend and Freeman, together with Cllrs Russell and Dudd, formed the majority. (Cllr Russell was substituting for Cllr Jemphrey; Cllr Dudd had abstained in September.) As before, the minority siding with the officers were Cllrs Alexander, Eddy and Durston. There were no abstentions.

 

Of the 14 councillors who have formally opposed the application—Cllr Serena Ralston of Clifton Down, who brought the application before the committee; the three members who recused themselves; plus the five who voted against in September and the five who voted against in October—all but two are members of the Green party.

 

The exceptions are Cllr Peat, Liberal Democrats, and Cllr Dudd, Labour.

 

Of the three siding with the officers, Cllrs Alexander and Durston are Labour and Cllr Eddy is Conservative.

​

​Related links:

• Video of the 2 September planning meeting

• My 'cleaned' transcript of the September meeting

• St. Joseph's planning documents (ref 26/11841/F)

• Planning Committee B website (agenda papers)

• Public Forum rules (if you want to participate)

• My own original objection

• My supplementary response on 18 August

• My Public Forum statement (2 September)​