A community representation to Square Bay & Acorn Property Group
This document has been prepared by St Christopher’s Action Network (SCAN) in response to redevelopment proposals for the former St Christopher’s School site in Westbury Park, Bristol. It is based on views from the community and across our city-wide network of stakeholders including environmental, SEND and heritage campaigners, school governors and head teachers, as well as drawing on independent expert advice from the planning and research sectors.
Overview
SCAN recognises Bristol needs more housing and a long vacant site should have a viable future. We support redevelopment of this site in principle as long as any development is sensitive and appropriate to the local townscape and brings genuine community benefit. SCAN acknowledges that the revised scheme presented in September 2026 is an improvement on an earlier proposal that Bristol City Council refused in August 2023. However, the developers have not yet demonstrated that this scheme can be delivered without unacceptable harm.
We present below the outstanding issues that have been brought to our attention. We hope the developers will take these concerns on board and revise the scheme before a full planning application is submitted.
In summary:
1. Road safety risk due to traffic congestion, access issues and parking stress - Traffic, access and parking provision need to be safe and adequate, not assumed to work.
2. Building height, density and design inappropriate - The scheme is too tall and dense, risking invasion of privacy, overlooking and harm to neighbouring homes. The number and size/height of the units must be reduced.
3. Loss of SEND provision - The loss of SEND provision has not been justified. Given the history of the site as a SEND school that was designated by Bristol City Council as an Asset of Community Value, we would expect the development to deliver direct benefits for local people with additional needs.
4. No affordable housing provision - The development should include affordable housing or justify an alternative contribution.
5. Harm to heritage and conservation area - The proposals risk harming the conservation area and the design and density fail to respond to the open garden nature of the site
6. Loss of trees and green space - Replacement planting and the protection and management of shared green spaces need clearer guarantees.
7. Poor consultation process - The consultation has lacked transparency and balance, with inadequate information provided to the public and the use of a flawed questionnaire that risks steering responses in favour of the developer’s proposals.
In more detail:
1. Road safety risk due to traffic congestion, access issues and parking stress
Surrounding roads are already narrow, with existing problems involving passing vehicles and unsafe parking on all sides of the site. We are concerned that all the proposed access points could lead to increased congestion and safety risk in those roads, most of which serve as walking corridors for the local primary school.
Westbury Park: The one-way access system from Westbury Park could cause queues within the site and obstruct traffic on this already busy road. White Tree roundabout, approached from Westbury Park, and North View roads, is already congested and often creates substantial bottlenecks and tailbacks, with existing traffic levels. Adding another circa 50 or more cars exiting the site at Westbury Park and Belvedere Rd during rush hour, will no doubt create traffic chaos for these roads and have significant knock-on effects across the wider road network. Bus timetabling via North View is already impacted and causing operator concerns due to current delays.
The Glen: Additional traffic would exacerbate safety concerns due to Belvedere Road frequently being blocked by vehicles for the 3 nursing homes, causing vehicles to reverse onto the main road at the junction with Westbury Park and Clay Pit Road, already a challenging junction which shouldn't be made worse. Access here is highly likely to encourage parking overspill in an area known for severe parking stresses causing road safety issues. Five previous planning applications in this area have been refused by Bristol City Council on this basis, with a Planning Inspectorate statement last year indicating that "any extra demand for parking would have a very significant effect on highway safety".
Etloe Road/Bayswater Avenue: This junction was highlighted in the last failed application in 2023 as being unsuitable for multiple vehicle use according to written comments submitted by Bristol TDM to the previous developers during the consultation process.
Meeting a standard parking figure on paper does not necessarily show that parking demand can be accommodated locally without overspill. Nor does it prove that the proposed access arrangement will be safe and practical in everyday conditions. Traffic and access need to be proven to be safe, not assumed to work.
The developers should address the realistic case that Bristol’s parking standards are insufficient to avoid overspill in an area where on street parking is already known to be saturated. We want to hear how the developers intend to mitigate this risk.
SCAN expects a comprehensive Transport Assessment covering realistic future traffic levels, highway safety, congestion and parking demand. We expect this to take into account any additional units in Grace House and the Lodges which are, to date, unspecified. If these were to be converted into flats (which we understand is highly likely) this could, on a conservative estimation, add a further 34 units and potentially 70 new cars to the site/area traffic. The developer or Bristol City Council planners should fully disclose the use of the buildings, or the planner should seek a legally binding agreement as to the proposed use of these buildings when considering the application.
SCAN would like to see a significant reduction in the size and number of units on site which would in turn ease the pressure on surrounding roads.
2. Building height, density and design inappropriate
SCAN considers the development too dense and too tall for this constrained residential site with development crammed into tight corners and too close to the perimeter. All the new buildings are three-storeys which contrasts with the predominantly two-storey Victorian and Edwardian surroundings. The site sits within the Downs Conservation Area, so the site’s character is an asset, not a spare space to fill.
Particular concerns include the circa 12m high, nine-home terrace behind the Westbury Park lodges the 8.8m high Konig Terrace and the proposed large blocks near The Glen and Bayswater Avenue. The height and proximity of these buildings would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, direct overlooking, an overbearing outlook and an oppressive sense of enclosure. ALL of these buildings are higher than their nearest neighbouring residential houses and dominate the site. This is particularly unacceptable for vulnerable residents in Jonathan House in Bayswater Avenue as well as other residential neighbours.
Recognising that this site lies within the Downs Conservation Area, SCAN expects to see a reduction in number and height of key buildings and more detailed drawings to demonstrate how any modified scheme fits the surroundings and responds to changes in ground level.
3. Loss of SEND provision
There is an ever-increasing need for specialist SEND provision within Bristol and the developers have failed to justify the loss of the school’s contribution to the social well-being of the local community. SCAN has been working with two SEND charities who would like a presence on site. There is also interest from other charities across Bristol, proving the demand for SEND locally still exists. In accordance with the previous recognition of the school as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), the scheme should provide for a continued form of SEND provision on site with preferential consideration given to the Shared Lives model and Able Stay, a holiday home for children with complex needs. We would also like to see proposals detailing how local primary school children in our community, especially those with special needs, will benefit from this development in a direct way to compensate for the loss of the important contribution made locally to social well-being by St Christopher’s for more than 75 years.
4. No affordable Housing
The consultation describes a range of homes but does not set out a definitive schedule covering the new-build homes, the Grace House conversion and the five lodges. It also leaves affordable housing dependent on a future viability assessment. The adopted policy target is 40% affordable housing for this area, while the emerging Local Plan proposes 35%. SCAN believes that some affordable housing provision, or a justified alternative contribution, should still be expected regardless of the developers' efforts to extract themselves from this important social and civic obligation.
5. Heritage and Conservation
The site lies within The Downs Conservation Area and it contains Grade II listed Grace House, which has architectural and historic significance. The new development's proposed density, design, regular arrangement of buildings and access roads could undermine the site's established green, spacious character and, in particular, the verdant setting of Grace House. There is insufficient detail about the proposed conversion and alterations to this listed building, and these details need to be presented by the developer.
6. Trees and green space
The previous proposal was refused planning consent in part due to the unacceptable loss of 32 trees, 2 groups of trees and 4 hedgerows. The latest proposal, with the loss of at least 22 trees, 3 tree groups and 2 hedgerows is little better than the previous failed plan. The latest proposal offers to plant 114 new trees, though it is not made clear where these will be planted, nor whether the plantings will be on or off-site. Any future proposal should demonstrate that this level of tree planting is actually possible, preferably by identifying all replacement sites. The proposed replacement planting does not necessarily compensate for the increased building coverage.
Guarantees are needed to ensure there is usable communal green space as promised. Clarity is needed about the ownership and management of these shared public areas and how the loss of privacy and the clear security risk for bordering private gardens will be mitigated.
7. Community consultation
We have raised concerns with the developers about the disappointing community consultation process - which we believe was not fair, balanced or transparent nor capable of capturing what the community genuinely thinks. It was defined by lack of key information easily available, a misleading PR campaign in the local press, misrepresentation of the ‘changes’ that were implemented, short notice of the community drop-ins with missing invitations. Most worrying of all is the questionnaire designed to elicit community opinions on the revised scheme. According to an independent survey methodology expert who reviewed this questionnaire, it is poorly structured, fails to address some of the key community concerns in the planning briefs, and contains questions that are skewed in favour of the developer’s proposals.
We attach 2 appendices to this report to providing more evidence to support these arguments:
1) Statement of Concerns regarding the questionnaire and
2) SCAN’s assessment of the ‘changes’ that were purported by the developer but under closer inspection were materially different from what was listed.
Conclusion:
We urge Square Bay & Acorn Property Group to work with local residents and SCAN to produce a genuinely revised scheme. Before submitting a full planning application, we ask you to:
Acknowledge the safety risks to surrounding roads of traffic issues and overspill parking and identify tangible steps to reduce and mitigate these to an acceptable level.
Reduce the most intrusive building heights, the number of units and the overall sense of density, particularly where new homes face existing gardens and houses. Publish accurate site sections, street scenes and verified views showing level differences and the true relationship with neighbours.
Work with our partnered SEND charities and the local primary school to achieve meaningful provision to enhance social wellbeing on site or locally.
Confirm the total housing numbers, housing mix and affordable housing offer, with transparent justification for any shortfall against policy.
Protect established trees, be clear about the replanting programme on site, provide guarantees to ensure meaningful green space and specify who will manage communal areas in the long term.
Commit to a construction management plan covering traffic, parking, noise, dust, phasing, tree protection - particularly with regard to the proximity of the local primary school - and repair of the northern boundary wall along Royal Albert Road.
A well-designed scheme can deliver homes while respecting the character of Westbury Park, safeguarding the living conditions of the community who live here, protecting local heritage and townscape, and addressing the consequences of losing a highly respected school that provided valuable services to the children from Bristol with special educational needs. Those objectives are not anti-development; they are the foundations of good development.
We invite the developers to address our concerns as early as possible to give the scheme a better chance of earning the confidence of the community.
We are asking for a development that belongs here, not one that simply is squeezed onto the site.