This is another attempt to gain planning permission on this site for residential/student living. The previous scheme went to appeal and was lost on scale, massing, damage to the local character and loss of employment. The local policy suggests that student living would not be suitable however the appeal decision suggested this use would be acceptable. The application seems to be for HMO living, yet the documents refer to student living or at least students living in a large HMO development.
Unfortunately, the Bristol Civic Society cannot support this application in its current form. There is still a loss of employment on a site. Employment use has been on the site since the turn of the 20th Century. These uses, a timber yard, perambulator depot and undertakers should have a bearing on the new proposals. There is also the Wain Brook and Chapel of Rest which all give the site a history which is not acknowledged within the proposals. The history of the site also shows a certain Victorian terrace urban grain, and this should be captured within any new proposals.
The loss of the chapel is disappointing, especially as no reference in the current building proposal is given. The use of this larger open space would have been ideal for large flats or communal study lounges.
There should be a more active street frontage to any proposal. The proposed layout is very simple and offers no real benefit to the site or community and unfortunately provides many north facing flats which would result in poor day light standards.
We acknowledge the applicant has tried to take account of the inspector’s comments regarding scale and massing; however, the overall impression is now one of a large Victorian workhouse totally at odds with the local Redfield area character. Using the historic burgage plot lines would help in breaking up the elevations and further reducing the scale at the Brook Street corner incorporating a more traditional parapet and roof would help ease its integration into the street scale.
Ian Jenkins
This site is completely inappropriate. Its a residential area for families with historic terraced cottage type housing. It will put huge pressure on local resources for the local community and will interfere with light and is of no benefit to anyone.
Well said. This is not the place for such a huge development like the one proposed. Please think of the residents around the site when you are making these decisions. Such a large building complex will dwarf all surrounding buildings and we do not have the infrastructure needed for this kind of project.
I’m not sure a Victorian workhouse would be that out-of-keeping in Redfield. Victoria Avenue had a formidable corset factory before it was replaced by flats in the 80s.
The site has been spot listed by Historic England on the advice of the conservation team at Bristol City Council and this should be taken into consideration when considering the application.
I’m a resident, I fully support this, and I urge other commenters who don’t live locally not to interfere.
We’ve had van dwellers, squatters, fires, and poor business tenants on the site over the years. And it’s currently in a real state of disrepair. It’s makes the approach to our homes very unsightly and this is a solution to all of these problems.
Developing this site will be a boost for the area.
Myself, along with many others in the community, are deeply opposed to this scheme for the following reasons:
Excessive Height and Inappropriate Design
The proposed building is too tall, overwhelming the surrounding area and completely out of character with the low-rise residential streets nearby. The design is harsh and unattractive, failing to reflect the architectural or cultural identity of Church Road or its surroundings. It is not a positive contribution to the local landscape—it is an eyesore.
Loss of Historic Chapel – We Request a Rebuild
The original chapel on this site was not demolished—it was set on fire, endangering nearby residents and homes. This building held historic significance and was an important part of the area’s heritage. As such, we strongly believe the chapel should be rebuilt or faithfully restored as part of any redevelopment. To proceed without acknowledging or restoring this historical feature is unacceptable.
Back Wall Must Be Preserved as a Historic Boundary
The back wall between the former Co-op site and the houses on Heber Street is an important historic boundary structure. It has stood for generations and forms part of the character and memory of the neighbourhood. It also provides a crucial visual and acoustic buffer between the properties and any future development. Demolishing or altering it would erase a tangible piece of local history and remove vital protection for neighbouring homes.
Traffic and Access Concerns (Brook Street & Heber Street)
We strongly oppose the plan to route traffic from the development through Heber Street, a narrow residential road not designed for such use. Similarly, we do not agree with the proposed car park access via Brook Street, which would increase congestion and pose safety risks. These small streets cannot accommodate the level of traffic a development of this size would bring and doing so would endanger pedestrians, children, and vulnerable residents.
Safety Risks and Impact on Neighbouring Homes
The fire at the site previously endangered homes and lives, and this development risks repeating that danger. The scale and density proposed do not take into account the fire safety concerns or the privacy and wellbeing of neighbouring residents. The scheme lacks adequate safeguards and sensitivity to those most affected.
Overdevelopment of the Site
This proposal is far too dense and tall for the area. It represents overdevelopment that would increase pressure on local infrastructure, damage the area’s character, and set a negative precedent for future planning applications.
Parking Provision Is Inadequate
Any development of this scale must include a suitable amount of off-street parking for each flat. Failing to do so will push additional parking pressure onto already congested surrounding streets, causing inconvenience and safety issues for existing residents. The current proposal does not appear to provide adequate parking and this must be addressed before any approval is considered.
For all these reasons, I urge the planning authority and Bristol Civic Society to reject this proposal. It disregards the safety, character, and historical identity of the local community.