Eight Kennard Road homes proposed for a former timber yard in St George, Bristol, have been refused on appeal. Inspector D Wildsmith dismissed the appeal on 12th October 2026 after finding that the building would harm the street scene and privacy, while inadequate parking evidence left highway concerns unresolved.
The scheme would have replaced commercial buildings with a block containing four ground-floor homes and four upper-floor homes, with no on-site car parking. Bristol City Council had refused the outline application. Although landscaping was reserved for later approval, access, appearance, scale and layout were all part of the decision.
I would read this as a warning about the evidence needed for a constrained infill site. The Inspector accepted that new housing and reuse of brownfield land were benefits. Those benefits did not overcome the particular building relationships or establish that calling the scheme car-free would prevent parking pressure on nearby streets.
Why the Kennard Road homes appeared too large
The site lies south of Two Mile Hill Road, near a Salvation Army hall and established housing. Existing workshop buildings were broadly one to two storeys high. The Inspector assessed the proposed block against that mixed setting, including newer development opposite, rather than assuming that every building nearby had the same character.
The Kennard Road homes had been presented by the appellant as a two to two-and-a-half-storey building, following changes to an earlier withdrawn scheme. However, the southern parapet would still reach 9.4 metres, matching the previous proposal’s ridge height, with living accommodation in the roof. Wildsmith found that the building would read as three storeys.
Its position compounded the concern. The block would stand noticeably forward of existing properties immediately to the south, making its extra height and mass more prominent. The Inspector also found that the continuous access deck and railings worked against attempts to break the frontage into smaller elements, leaving the impression of one long block.
Wildsmith described the proposal as “incongruous, cramped and out-of-keeping”. He acknowledged the contemporary development opposite, but explained that its separation from other houses and their higher position helped it sit more comfortably. A nearby taller building therefore did not settle whether this particular arrangement was acceptable.
Near a guideline did not mean acceptable privacy
Privacy was a separate problem for the Kennard Road homes. Windows in the central upper-floor units would face homes in Barcroft Close at distances ranging from about 19.3 to 21 metres. The appellant relied in part on the slightly angled relationship between the properties, but the Inspector considered that their windows would face one another fairly directly.
The council’s guidance referred to 21 metres as a rule of thumb between facing habitable-room windows, with some flexibility in densely developed inner urban locations. Wildsmith did not consider this location to fall within that category. He also identified the effect of different levels, with windows effectively at second-floor height.
The outcome was unacceptable mutual overlooking affecting existing residents and some future occupants. I would not treat a dimension close to a guideline as the end of the assessment. The height of the windows, their direction and the rooms they serve can explain why a seemingly modest numerical difference still matters.
The decision is more qualified on overshadowing. Wildsmith accepted that some would occur but could not reach a firm view that it would cause unacceptable living conditions on the evidence available. Privacy nevertheless supplied a clear adverse finding. It would overstate the decision to report that every neighbour-impact allegation was proved.
Car-free needed evidence about the surrounding streets
The Kennard Road homes would have adequate cycle parking and a location with access to shops and services. The appellant argued for a car-free development and said soft landscaping had been chosen instead of parking to improve the design. The Inspector acknowledged the site’s sustainability credentials.
However, no mechanism had been identified to guarantee that the development would be car-free. Wildsmith considered it likely that some residents would own cars, with additional needs arising from visitors and servicing. The road outside is narrow, partly one-way and protected by double-yellow lines, so parking demand would fall elsewhere locally.
Neighbours reported limited available spaces and congestion at school drop-off and pick-up times. The council’s transport officer had sought a parking survey, but none had been undertaken. Without it, the Inspector could not reach a clear favourable conclusion and considered there a strong likelihood of unacceptable parking pressure and consequent highway safety problems.
For the Kennard Road homes, a separate concern about the external stair and cycle parking could have been addressed by a condition if the scheme were otherwise acceptable. That distinction is useful: the Inspector did not reject every aspect of access design, but the wider parking evidence remained inadequate.
Housing benefits did not overturn the overall balance
The Kennard Road homes appeal recorded an undisputed housing-land supply figure of 3.75 years. Wildsmith gave weight to additional homes and bringing a brownfield site back into use, but concluded that those benefits would be substantially outweighed by the harm identified. He found conflict with the development plan as a whole.
For another infill proposal, I would resolve the building line, window relationships and parking evidence together before relying on a broad sustainable-location argument. The full official decision, appeal 6015349 and application 26/11874/P, explains how these issues combined. Our Housing Delivery Test guide provides background on a separate measure of housing delivery; it should not be confused with the land-supply figure considered here.
0 Comments