By Andrew Waller, 6 October 2026
 

Public data shows that HMOs—mostly occupied by students—make up roughly 14% of the total housing stock in the vicinity of the former St Joseph’s care home at Cotham Hill.

​

The size and impact of the existing student population have become key issues as councillors prepare to vote for a second time on plans to create 126 student bed spaces at the site. Residents are girding for a fight when Planning Committee B meets at city hall at 2pm on 14 October.

​

At a meeting in September, planning officials appeared to downplay suggestions that the “concentration” of student housing is above the 10% threshold at which council policy says “a local imbalance is likely to arise”. Establishing the true number could therefore be important when the debate resumes. 

​

The 14% figure comes from my analysis of publicly available statistics for the so-called Lower Super Output Area that contains Cotham Hill. LSOAs, which are used to analyse census data, are bigger than just a few streets but smaller than a council ward.

​

• See here for full details, and why it matters

• Minutes of 2 Sept meeting now published

​

On my count, there are at least 105 HMOs in the LSOA, out of a total housing stock of 760 dwellings. That’s 13.8%. Using the LSOA gives a truer picture of HMO density in the vicinity of St Joseph’s than either the ward-level or street-level measures displayed by planning officials in September. These were respectively too big and too small to illustrate the specific issues under discussion.

​

The relevant council policy, DM2, requires analysis to be done at “street, neighbourhood and ward levels”. Using the LSOA satisfies the “neighbourhood” test.

 

At the 2 September meeting, councillors voted 5-3 to reject the officers’ recommendation to approve the plans. However, council policy says that when officers’ views are overturned, the issue must be deferred to a second meeting to allow drafting of a new report based on reasons to reject.

​

It nevertheless looks likely that on 14 October, councillors will be pressed to change their minds—partly to avoid the possibility that the developer could successfully appeal the rejection and win legal costs against the council. Recent changes in national planning regulations may have made that outcome more likely.

​

Residents opposed to the plans have called for as many objectors as possible to attend the Planning Committee hearing to show the depth of opposition. In a public consultation this summer, 163 people objected, with only 3 in support
 

​Related links:

• Video of the 2 September planning meeting

• My 'cleaned' transcript of the meeting

• St. Joseph's planning documents (ref 26/11841/F)

• Planning Committee B website (agenda papers)

• Public Forum rules (if you want to participate)

• My own original objection

• My supplementary response on 18 August

• My Public Forum statement (2 September)​