St Joseph’s ... meet Woodland Court (Comment)

Updated: It’s difficult to say definitively how Harringay Real Estate's proposals will fare when they’re assessed against Bristol City Council’s published policies governing student accommodation. (Updated 24 May 2026 after formal application submitted. Other updates below.)

But one factor that could influence the outcome is already obvious—it stands directly opposite the St Joseph’s site on the other side of the street.

Woodland Court is a commercially managed development comprising four multi-storey blocks of student flats, providing 196 beds in total. At first glance, therefore, it looks like the council’s quota for so-called purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) in this area has already been exceeded, making it hard to see how a further 132 beds could win planning approval. (Revised total, as per application.) However, planning is rarely simple, and I've commented further on Woodland Court's status in a new section, Note 4, at the end of this article. (Sentence added to introduce additional information.)

Here’s the detail, with reference to official documents:

University of Bristol has roughly doubled its student rolls over the past decade, to approximately 34,000 this year. The council says it’s been told to expect about 8,000 more by 2040.

To meet the challenge, BCC has formulated detailed policies governing how much student accommodation can be built in different parts of the city. These can be seen in a series of documents setting out the city’s Local Plan:

1. We start with the 2011 Local Plan, a suite of documents, including Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, in which Policy DM2 covers “specialist student accommodation” and other forms of housing: "Proposals ... will not be permitted where: (i) The development would harm the residential amenity or character of the locality as a result of any of the following: Levels of activity that cause excessive noise and disturbance to residents; or Levels of on-street parking that cannot be reasonably accommodated or regulated through parking control measures; or Cumulative detrimental impact of physical alterations to buildings and structures; or Inadequate storage for recycling/refuse and cycles. [or] (ii) The development would create or contribute to a harmful concentration of such uses within a locality as a result of any of the following: Exacerbating existing harmful conditions including those listed at (i) above; or Reducing the choice of homes in the area by changing the housing mix.

   It's open to argument whether, given this wording, the St Joseph’s proposal would pass or fail either of the tests I’ve highlighted in bold. (Update, 24 May 2026: See Note 1 at end.)
   

2. There is greater clarity in the 2023 Local Plan, a draft revision currently awaiting central government approval (held up since 2024 by a wrangle over housebuilding targets). The submitted documents are listed here, including the core Local Plan document, CSD001. This now has a whole new section, Policy H7: Managing the development of purpose-built student accommodation. Although the 2023 revised Local Plan hasn’t yet received final approval, it seems likely its contents will nonetheless have legal standing—they are essentially more fully articulated explanations of how the 2011 principles cited above should be interpreted and applied. (They have also benefitted from public consultation: BCC invited feedback on its emerging student accommodation policy in 2022; I submitted a detailed reply.)
   

3. So, how would Policy H7 apply to the St Joseph’s proposal? First, recognising that PBSA is more acceptable in some parts of the city than others, H7 divides Bristol into four buckets (my term, not theirs):

   1. UoB’s existing residential sites in Clifton and Stoke Bishop,

   2. Five growth and regeneration areas, listed as: the UoB precinct centred on Tyndall Avenue, its new site in Temple Quarter, Broadmead, the Frome Gateway, and Central Bedminster,

   3. Areas where more PBSA is “demonstrably supported by local communities”,

   4. All other locations. In these other locations, "Development should: ... Not result in a local imbalance of [PBSA] within any residential area, city centre commercial area or town centre; ...”
      

4. St Joseph’s doesn’t fit a or b, and likely won’t fit c. So it’s d. This is significant, because as paragraph 6.87 of Policy H7 explains:“As a guide the council considers that a local imbalance of [PBSA] is likely to occur where bed space numbers within 200 metres of the site (including the proposal) exceed a threshold of 100 bed spaces within residential areas ...” (Update, 24 May 2026: See Note 2 at end.) In practical terms, you draw a 200m-radius circle on a map, centred on St Joseph’s, and count all PBSA beds within the circle—existing plus proposed. If the result exceeds 100, you’re over the limit. Woodland Court is within St Joseph’s 200m circle and has 196 beds, so the limit is exceeded even before we add anything else. (For comparison, the acceptable beds limit in other areas such as those within the city centre is 1,000. The full methodology is shown in a supporting document: Topic paper TPC006 on PBSA.)

5. For good measure, H7 recognises that PBSA is just one kind of student accommodation; another kind is student-occupied HMOs. It says: “In all cases the proximity and concentration of houses in multiple occupation should also be taken into account.” (Update, 24 May 2026: See Note 3 at end.) By my rough calculations, St Joseph’s 200m circle would also include 35 to 40 HMOs in nearby streets. Probably nearly all are occupied by students, adding 250 or more beds. So the full count of student beds at this location (132 at SJ + 196 at WC + 250 in HMOs) would be approaching 600—nearly six times the limit. (Update, 24 May 2026: See Notes 3 and 4 at end.) ---------
   

Note 1:

Although the DM2 "policy text" quoted in 1. above is somewhat abstract, the associated "explanatory text" (best seen via the "Site Allocations ..." link above) is more explicit:

" 2.2.6 When making assessments on new development, consideration is to be given to the particular qualities and characteristics of a residential area or residential uses that might contribute to it being an enjoyable or otherwise satisfactory place to live. These usually include generally quieter surroundings; a reasonable level of safe, accessible and convenient car parking; a well-maintained or visually attractive environment and the preservation of buildings and structures that contribute to the character of a locality. Harmful concentrations are likely to arise when issues commonly associated with these uses, listed in para. 2.2.5 above [see page], cumulatively result in detrimental effects on these residential qualities and characteristics. Harmful concentrations will also result where the choice of housing is reduced and no longer provides for the needs of different groups within the community.

" 2.2.7 Assessments should consider the relative impacts at street, neighbourhood and ward levels."

Note 2:

The wording of paragraph 6.87 has changed slightly in the latest stages of revision (the 2023 Local Plan is still being pored over by government planning inspectors, and Bristol city council has modified some plan wording in response. However, the revisions have not changed the intent of the paragraph. Here is the latest version in full:

" 6.87 As a guide the Council considers that a local imbalance of purpose-built student accommodation is likely to occur where bed space numbers within 200 metres of the site (including the proposal) exceed a threshold of 100 bed spaces within residential areas (including city centre residential areas identified on Diagram 6.2 and all other areas outside of the city centre) and 1,000 bed spaces within the city centre’s commercial areas (identified on Diagram 6.2) and designated town centres. In all cases the proximity and concentration of houses in multiple occupation should also be taken into account. Assessments on whether an imbalance would occur should also consider the extent to which the development provides for a mix of uses, including residential, that contributes to the diversity of uses and housing choice within the area."

Note 3:

On further consideration, I don't think it will matter whether the HMOs are occupied by students or not. Policy DM2 is principally concerned with the possibility that an excess of "shared housing"—which includes HMOs (howsoever occupied), student accommodation and other specialised housing categories—will upset the balance of a district.

Note 4:

Since I first wrote this, I've realised that the Woodland Court development lies within the area designated as "Bristol city centre" for planning purposes, whereas St Joseph's does not—the boundary between the two zones runs along Cotham Hill (possibly in the centre of the road?!). How then will the planners treat Woodland Court's existence when they plonk their 200m-radius circle on a map of St Joseph's? Might they say, we're only going to count PBSA and HMOs that lie within the same planning zone as St Joseph's? (Which means they might ignore Woodland Court completely.) Even if they did, St Joseph's proposed 132 beds already exceed the 100 beds limit in Policy H7. It's also not completely clear how they will count the beds housed in each of the several dozen HMOs around St Joseph's, but the planners are nevertheless required to "take them into account". So it remains my view that if the H7 criteria are applied in full to the St Joseph's proposal it will fail the area assessment.