Controversial housing plans to increase Bristol village's population by 50% set to go ahead despite objections

Councillors are being advised to grant permission for the massive estate called Pennymeads that will extend Charfield’s boundary to the southwest when they make their decision on Thursday, June 26.

The development is one of two major sites in the village earmarked for new homes in the local authority’s draft housing blueprint, the Local Plan, although this is not yet official policy as it needs to go through public examination by government planning inspectors in spring 2026.

The other, for 250 homes on the other side of Charfield, received 230 objections but was given the green light by a planning committee in March.

Land promoter CEG and a local landowners’ consortium are applying to build 525 homes, a neighbourhood centre, commercial space, community facilities, three football pitches, allotments, a park and open space on land bordered by the B4058 Wotton Road, Churchend Lane and Little Bristol Lane.

South Gloucestershire Council planning officers are recommending that the strategic sites delivery committee grants consent.

Their report to the meeting said the developers would provide millions of pounds of contributions towards infrastructure, including the reopening of Charfield Station in 2027, an expansion of the village primary school, more frequent buses, traffic calming measures, improvements to junction 14 of the M5, and investment towards the Greenway traffic-free walking and cycling route.

But there would be no money for GP or dentist services despite a request from the NHS. The 41 hectares of largely agricultural land is in the open countryside but not in the greenbelt or the Cotswold Natural Landscape. Thirty-five per cent of the homes would be classed as affordable and there would be some housing for the elderly.

A total of 402 residents have objected with concerns including traffic problems, lack of facilities for young people, air and noise pollution, unreliable bus services, the oversubscribed primary school, destruction of the countryside and wildlife habitats, flooding, and the fact the proposals would effectively turn Charfield into a town.

Three parish councils objected saying the development was unsustainable, there was a lack of local employment, and local services were already under strain. South Gloucestershire Council’s urban design officer also objected.

But the committee report said: “It is considered that the benefits of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harms associated with the development which are localised and short-term. The planning balance therefore falls in favour of permission.

“The council is not currently meeting its housing needs, and the provision of 525 residential units, including 35 per cent affordable and some potential housing for older people, would make a significant contribution to the council’s housing land supply.

“Public transport services in Charfield are not extensive, but it is hoped that the railway station will open in 2027 and together with the bus service – No 60 being part-funded by the development – the sustainable transport options for existing and proposed residents are sufficient to mean that a reason for refusal on sustainability grounds cannot be substantiated.”

It said harm would be caused to the setting of Grade I-listed St James’s Church and Grade II-listed tombstones in its cemetery but that Historic England had raised no concerns.

The report said National Highways had imposed limits on how many homes could be built before the railway station, which shut in 1965, was reopened and the motorway junction had been improved to cope with extra traffic.

It said: “Overall, it is considered that the site layout is broadly acceptable, with improvements to the layout following previous comments.

“However, the reserved matters design of the proposals will need careful thought in order to assimilate the development into the valley landscape and address the visual impact in views from St James’s Church.

“It is considered that the harm to the heritage assets is outweighed by the benefits.”