260-home development at Broomhill Road, Bristol
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Bristol Planning Committee B on 20 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought approval for the layout, appearance, scale and landscaping of up to 260 homes under an outline permission.
“Application for the approval of Reserved Matters (layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping) pursuant to outline permission 22/01878/P( Development of up to 260 new residential dwellings (Class C3 use) together with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access, cycle and car parking, public open space and associated infrastructure. Approval sought for access with all other matters reserved).”
Officer report
The site
The site is a sloping 9.6-hectare area of open fields beside homes, a school, employment land, allotments, a park and paddocks.
“The Site comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land consisting of open fields, extending to c.9.6ha. To the northeast, the site is bound by Broomhill Road and residential properties in Condover Road. To the north the Site is bound by residential dwellings on Belroyal Avenue and an associated rear access land, Broomhill Junior School, Mama Bear’s Day Nursery and residences accessed off Allison Road.”
“There are no statutory or locally listed buildings, or Scheduled Monuments on the Site or within the immediate vicinity. There are numerous trees and hedgerows on the Site, a number of which are covered by a TPO.”
Officer report
Earlier permissions
An outline permission for up to 260 homes was allowed on appeal after non-determination, followed by pre-application discussions and a pending condition application.
“22/01878/P Application for Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved - Development of up to 260 new residential dwellings (Class C3 use) together with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access, cycle and car parking, public open space and associated infrastructure. Approval sought for access with all other matters reserved. (Major) Appeal Allowed following Non-determination.”
“25/12389/PREAPP Proposals for a reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning permission ref. 22/01878/P - Development of up to 260 new residential dwellings (Class C3 use) together with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access, cycle and car parking, public open space and associated infrastructure.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval, saying the proposal provided suitable housing, design, transport, sustainability, nature conservation and green infrastructure.
“The Reserved Matters application demonstrates that the proposed development is of an appropriate type and mix for the area, that the design and appearance of the dwellings is acceptable and that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of transport and highways.”
“The proposed development demonstrates sufficient reductions in CO2 emissions, considers sustainable design and construction, nature conservation and green infrastructure.”
Officer report
What consultees said
Highways raised no safety objection but could not adopt the roads, while other consultees sought amendments or details on waste, flooding, acoustics and rights of way.
“TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT No objections to Highway Safety however cannot adopt the highway due to non-compliance of LTN 1:20 standards.”
“RIGHTS OF WAY No objection in principle; however, the proposed layout will require Rights of Way diversion with a Public Footpath Order, prior to the development being compleated.”
Officer report
What people said
There were 423 objections and five letters of support, with concerns including poor design, privacy, traffic, routes, ecology, biodiversity, flooding and ordnance.
“RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION Neighbouring properties have been consulted and 423 objections and 5 letters of letters of support have been received. Objections have been received on the following material grounds:”
“Ecology/BNG - No clear plan on how BNG mitigation will be achieved, Missing, outdated, or non- compliant information across ecology. Concerns that the baseline habitats have changed with no copy of the survey. Concerns regarding protection of Wildlife and Fauna. Concerns of loss of existing greenspace.”
Officer report
What members debated
Members debated biodiversity scrutiny, site constraints, gradients, accessibility and whether the combined effects would provide an acceptable living environment.
“Members debated the application and raised concern that the site’s constraints, including topography, location and ecological value, resulted in a scheme reliant on compromises across drainage, design, accessibility and environmental considerations.”
Minutes
How the committee voted
A motion to approve was defeated with three votes for, five against and one abstention, followed by a successful refusal motion.
“It was moved by Councillor Eddy and seconded by Councillor Alexander to approve the recommendation in the Report.”
“On being put to the vote there were 3 for, 5 against and 1 abstention and it was therefore…”
Minutes
The decision
The application was refused because members found tension between the scheme's overall accessibility and its gradient design.
“In order for the Committee to support an alternative motion the Chair agreed an adjournment so that Cllr Poultney could clarify a form of wording with Officers. On conclusion of that adjournment Cllr Poultney moved and it was seconded by Cllr Calascione that the application be refused due to tension between accessibility of the scheme overall and the gradient design. On being put to the vote it was:-”
“RESOLVED (6 for, 3 against): That the application be refused due to the tension between accessibility of the scheme overall and the gradient design…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“Members noted that BNG Strategy (Version 2) was submitted on 11 May 2026 and approved under delegated powers on 18 May 2026. 3.”
“Members noted that updated ecological mitigation information following the previous Committee meeting was not available on the planning portal and sought clarification.”
“Members noted that, despite deferral at the previous meeting to address these concerns, no material changes or additional evidence had been submitted.”
“Members also considered that a further deferral was not justified and could weaken the Council’s position in the event of an appeal if Members were minded to refuse. 19.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Bristol Planning Committee B minutes, 20 May 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Bristol's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Bristol Planning Committee B
- Council
- Bristol
- Date
- Wednesday 20 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Vote
- 6 for refusal, 3 against
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Bristol committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
9 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.