The Background Level Noise at the 1/F of the nearest Noise Sensitive Receptor wasdirectly measured as 30dB using a new, calibrated sound level meter at various times of the dayon various days - therefore not an estimated value as used in the Noise Impact Assessment (withthe reference location of the monitoring equipment some 80-100m from the NSR). This directlymeasured value is 2db lower than the estimated value of 32dB for 'Daytime background soundlevel' used in comparisons, for example at Table 12: BS 4142 assessment summary. (It seems 2dB difference is around 60% less sound intensity). Consequently the correct maximum noise levelpermissible to fulfil the Local Authority Criteria of ' The rating level of any noise generated by plant& equipment as part of the development shall be at least 5 dB below the pre-existing backgroundlevel at any time at any residential premises.' should be a target of 25 dB (30dB Measured - 5dBCriteria). Therefore, the Noise Impact Assessment indicates at Table 12: BS 4142 assessmentsummary that this maximum value would be exceeded.

Within Table 5 of the Noise Impact Assessment describes distances between noise sources andthe nearest Noise Sensitive Receptor and the respective attenuation factors applied:HydropoolCorrection for distance attenuation (38 metres) = -32 dBFire Place Seating AreaCorrection for distance attenuation (25 metres) = -28 dBLounger Chair Area 1 (12 Loungers)Correction for distance attenuation (31 metres) = -30 dBLounger Chair Area 2 (6 Loungers)Correction for distance attenuation (44 metres) = -33 dBThe actual proximity of the proposed extension area to the nearest aspect of the noise-sensitive

receptors (NSRs) is probably less than 10 meters so the applied attenuation factors seem overlygenerous and insufficient.

A current noise complaint has already been raised with Bristol City Council (Ref.450790) regarding an increase in volume of plant noise emanating from the same rear south eastaspect of the club premises as the area of the proposed application, noticeable in recent monthsfrom the garden of 8 Holmwood Gardens and now from windows which are being opened in thewarmer weather. When the Club premises was first built a noise complaint was made related toplant noise from the same rear south east aspect of the premises adjacent to 8 HolmwoodGardens which subsequently required mitigating acoustic action by the Club directed by BristolCity Council to bring the noise within the prescribed limits. That noise level has now recentlyincreased/returned to a much higher and unacceptable levels presumably in relation to additionalplant, a change of plant or processes or opening/removal of acoustic vent doors or such.Additionally, seemingly automated audio waring alarms trigger around certain times of day andnight from the plant area before resetting, most of this alarm is late at night and disturbing oursleep.

The proximity of the nearest aspect of the noise-sensitive receptors (NSRs) is probably less than10 meters from the nearest aspect of the proposed extension area. In spite of the proposed 2.1mretaining wall surrounding the proposed extension area, there will be aspects of the openproposed spa garden which are likely to have direct line of sight to the 1/F elevation windows ofthe nearest noise-sensitive receptors (NSRs) meaning the noise attenuation factor proposed in thenoise Impact Assessment for the 2.1m retaining wall should be reduced for noise emanating fromthe aspect of the outdoor spa area which is closest to the club main building.

The noise Impact Assessment does not appear to consider any potential noise reflection from theproposed spa garden and plant reflecting off the main club building structures back in the direction

of nearest noise-sensitive receptors (NSRs).

The averaging measure in the noise Impact Assessment is not a reasonable measure of thepotential noise /harm disruption. By applying averaging, it discounts the most severe disruptiveand annoying volumes/noise (shouting/laughing) which would be the most penetratingdisruptive/distracting noise.

Notwithstanding the theoretical calculations within the noise Impact Assessment of estimatednoise emanating from a spa garden, it would be a more reasonable to apply actual real world dataobtainable for plant, people use, wall attenuation, etc. from any of the existing 29 spa gardensseemingly available at other David Lloyd clubs (Acton Park, Bicester, Derby, Bristol EmersonsGreen, Enfield, Finchley, Kidbrooke Village, Northwood, Raynes Park, Swindon, Woking,Worcester, Royal Berkshire, Farnham, Purley, Chigwell, Hampton, Warrington, Beckenham, ActonPark, Beaconsfield, Cheadle, Colchester, Coventry, Newbury, Nottingham West Bridgford,Cambridge and Bushey) at different times of day and different days including potentially busiertimes such as public holidays

Any background noise to the immediate rear aspect of the club property basically comes from apublic path and an empty field surrounded by trees used by the public on the whole for dogwalking, so without any numerical analysis a layperson could surmise the pre-existing backgroundnoise level is this area to be very low if not virtually nil.

I am a close neighbour to both David Lloyd leisure centre and the walkways of Badockswood, I am also a member of Badocks wood.I am a frequent walker and enjoy the peach and tranquillity this rare park has to offer.

I remain as an objector to these plans, my concerns and fears for the local ecology remainsstrong. I believe that the increased noise pollution and light pollution that will come with thisextension, will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife, through the day and the evening/night. Thelocal ecology in place at this time is key to the role of the great biodiversity in this area, thisbiodiversity provides habitats for wildlife I strongly feel it would be devastatingly affected if thisextension is allowed to go ahead.Thank you

Additional noise pollution and traffic volume in and around my home. Cars are alreadyparking on the pavements outside my home.

I'm Really supportive of this application. Improving services available centrally willreduce home spa installations whilst improving leisure facilities in the area for public use.

Enhancing existing facilities and space is only a positive to support health and wellbeingof the local residents. For this space in particular it will be a change from high octane high paceactivity to quiet relaxation and contemplation.

Dear Planning Committee,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Spa Facilities at David LloydWestbury, Bristol. My concern here is the apparent lack of effort being put into enhancing localecology and wildlife as part of the plans.

There is limited consideration for the local ecology. The choice of non-native plants forlandscaping and the potential impact on local wildlife seem to have been overlooked. No referenceto lighting and ensuring there is no or limited impact of local animals trying to sleep (includinghumans) has been made clear.Local ecology plays a vital role in maintaining biodiversity and providing habitats for wildlife. Anydevelopment should aim to enhance, not diminish, this biodiversity. The current plans, however,do not seem to reflect this principle or that of BCC's Biodiversity plans.

I believe that incorporating measures to enhance local ecology and support wildlife into the planswould not only address many of the concerns of local residents but would also demonstrate aleading commitment to environmental sustainability in Bristol. At present the reports sharedhighlight trees of limited significance, an acceptance of human derived ecological adequacy anddecisions described as "sympathetic" to the leafy character of the area which given the size ofDavid Lloyd is a car park and road.

Entrusting Bristol to inspire everyone to build better.

Thank you

I will respond to this application more fully once an updating noise impact report isreceived as the old one is now defunct.

I could not see exactly where the relocated Battle Box would be placed. There is no availablespace elsewhere other than by the trees which in turn would cause them harm. This questionneeds to be resolved otherwise DL will just secretly build a battle box where the trees are after thespa is constructed. Will they give an assurance and a condition that the battle box is permanentlygone? Or do they intend to construct that without planning? Like the padel courts?

I think that this question needs to be resolved. What exactly is involved in removal and reallocatingthe battle box eg resurfacing etc.

Also worth noting the cars parked in the photo of the non car park car park - which means that it ishard to rely upon what is said. Also noting it was referred to as a car park in the padel courtapplication.

This is already a very busy and congested area. More traffic and noise pollution in thearea. Extra noise and disturbance to my residence.

The transformation of Badock's wood over the past 30 years is nothing short of amiracle. From a No Go Rubbish Dump to an area of beauty. The City Council should do everythingin its power to protect it from further development around its fringes. This proposed developmentwill increase noise and light pollution to unacceptable levels and will inevitably negatively impactwildlife and habitat. It is a vital free resource which must be protected by our City Representativesas do the many volunteers who work to do the same.

Hi

Re David Lloyd Padel Courte

It seems that some objections/ comments seem to apply to both the padel courts andspa combined. People are referring to the flood lights / padel courts but then putting onthe number for the spa. It's quite confusing for them.

Will you do something about that as in this instance it it clearly also directed at the padelcourts!

As stated, this is a scheme of works and both applications should have been looked atin the round.

Sadly people are now confused or referring to both applications in their objections.

Thanks

Having read about the detriment to the wildlife in the area plus the effect of lighting onthe neigbouring houses and residents I consider that this is not a reasonable use of the land inDavid Lloyd. An indoor spa would not be as invasive however no trees or hedges should bedisturbed by the construction. I am a member of this club and I am disturbed to hear that the newpadel courts involved tree removal also.

I am firmly apposed to any further encroachment of the woods proposed by thisdevelopment.I believe the current noise level already effects the natural habitat of every living creature living inthe wood. The noise pollution also effects the peace and tranquillity for people walking through,any further noise pollution would be to detriment of animals and birds. The space that is thereshould be saved and not built on any further. David Lloyd should revamp the area they alreadyhave and not be allowed to take any more of the woodland.

The site is already huge and only benefits their members. I object to the extension as itwill have a negative effect on nearby wildlife without any benefit for the whole community.

More floodlighting will add to the already heavy light pollution affecting Badock's Woods.This is disturbing to the many species who live in the woods, reducing their survival andcontributing to biodiversity loss. An increase in industrial noise and amplified music will also havesimilar affects, particularly for species which are noise-sensitive, including protected species suchas bats.

The removal of trees and vegetation will also contribute to the damage done to this Local GreenSpace and its wildlife. At the very least there should be a replanting scheme which includes thereplacement of the trees lost.

Lighting and noise from this are likely to be detrimental to the wildlife of Badocks Wood.

My objection is related to the negative impact such an extension would have on theenvironment of Badock's Wood, which is one of only 11 parks and green spaces across the wholeof Bristol (out of hundreds) which has been assessed as meeting all 5 of these Local Green Spacecriteria;i. recreational value;ii. historic significance;iii. richness of wildlife;iv. beauty;v. tranquillityI believe that criteria iii and v especially would be directly compromised

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.ukRegistered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 2

View of the car park area, taken at 16.45 Tuesday 6th June 2024

They encourage evening socialisation in their own words - gathering around a fire pit.

Please put this as evidence before the planning officer

Some new spas even have bars in the spas of not the members go to the bar to getdrinks

Some David Lloyd even extended their hours after the spa was put in - there areFarnhams extended hours

2 of 6

Wildlife ImpactsBadock’s Wood is a designated Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), a designated Local NatureReserve (LNR) and listed in the extant Local Plan as a site of Important Open Space and in the newLocal Plan as Local Green Space. The whole of the site is Local Green Space of the highest qualitybecause it meets all 5 criteria for this designation in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).The criteria are: beauty, tranquillity, richness of wildlife, historic significance and recreational value.Badock’s Wood is just one of 11 sites across the whole of Bristol that scored on all of these criteria.Bristol has hundreds of Green Open Spaces listed for protection in the Local Plan so to be one of only11 to meet all 5 criteria is an indication of just how special this site is. Local Plan Policy GI1 – LocalGreen Space refers.

Badock’s Wood and the green spaces around it all form part of a designated Wildlife Corridor andthese are there to provide protection and a buffer for the wildlife in the SNCI. Hedgerows are keynatural features that provide important habitat, nesting and foraging sites and are particularlyimportant in wildlife corridors.

We can see NO mention in this application of the site being adjacent to an important public openspace and wildlife habitat. There is no ecological impact report and this needs to be properlyassessed before any planning permissions are given.

The field adjacent to the site is managed for wildlifeand is not in use as a playing field, so the description inthe application documents is wrong. The field has notbeen used for sports since at least 2017 when it wastaken out of sports use and confirmed to us in an emailfrom Parks Department in July 2017. Since then it hasbeen managed for wildlife and identified by the CityCouncil in 2022 as a site for greater management forwildlife under their Managing for Nature project. Anupdate of the Badock’s Wood Management Plan isbeing finalised and should include the naturemanagement regime. However, a casual visitor to thesite can immediately see that this is clearly not aplaying field and would not be suitable for sports use.See photo – which also clearly shows a nest site in atree adjacent to the proposed spa garden site.

The double hedgerow that bounds the site on either side of the Public Right of Way running behindthe proposed location of the spa garden, is considered to have been there for hundreds of years, as ithas been a documented field boundary for centuries and is adjacent to the Badock’s Wood AncientWoodland site.

The path running behind the proposed site of the Spa Garden, is not only a public footpath used byhumans, but also a route for badgers who live in both Elmfield School Grounds and Badock’s Wood.There are setts close by where badgers live and breed, and badgers are seen here. Badgers areprotected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and no assessment has been made of theimpact on any of the wildlife on the adjacent site.

LightingWhilst floodlighting is not explicitly proposed, even adding low level LED lighting can impact on thenative wildlife that live there. LED lighting needs to be carefully selected in a spectrum that issuitable for wildlife whereas the standard LED lights used do not.See https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi8322

3 of 6

Moths are an important food source for bats and night time lighting is a problem. Badock’s Woodhas recorded 6 species of bat in the wood, 5 of those on one night, and the hedgerow that runsalong the boundary of the David Lloyd site is of particular note as a foraging site for bats. Batsrecorded in Badock’s Wood on one night alone include Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus ),Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Noctule (Nyctalus noctula), Serotine (Eptesicusserotinus), and a Mysotis bat species, possibly Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii) and Brown LongEared Bat (Plecotus auritus). Badock’s Wood is an important site for bats in Bristol and the region.

Artificial lighting poses a threat to bats’ ability to forage https://www.bats.org.uk/about-bats/threats-to-bats/lighting and the hedgerows immediately adjacent to David Lloyd Club are batforaging routes.

The proposed external lighting will have an adverse impact not only on bats and moths but also onthe other important nocturnal and twilight species. Badock’s Wood is the home of a wide variety ofanimal, bird and plant life, including breeding apex predators - fox, badger, tawny owl andsparrowhawk. The first three of these are nocturnal and will be adversely affected by industrial noiseand light pollution from the David Lloyd site. This will only get worse with the cumulative effects ofthe Spa Garden and the Padel Court applications.

Any permission for this Spa Garden needs to be CONDITIONED to require any lighting to be in thespectrum that would have the least wildlife impact (there is plenty of literature out there for theapplicant to be fully informed) and also to explicitly prohibit floodlighting of any sort.

The David Lloyd site is already the major source of pervasive industrial noise and light pollution tonature on the Badock’s Wood site; these developments can only make that worse.

The industrial noise of plant from the David Lloyd site is very intrusive and constant.

The Noise Impact Assessment would seem to be flawed. The current plant noise is very noisy and canbe heard across a large part of Badock’s Wood and adding additional plant can only increase thisintrusion and impact for humans and wildlife in Badock’s Wood. The noise levels do not seem toaccord with actual experience of our members and other visitors to Badock’s Wood, but in any casethe new plant is anticipated as being 5dB lower than the existing background noise. Given that thisbackground noise includes noisy plant, what we are looking at here is adding an allegedly slightlyquieter SECOND plant which would double the noise. Having one lorry engine running and making anoise then adding a slightly quieter lorry running next to it still makes TWO noise sources. In thecase of this application this will mean the club will have THREE plant rooms operating with 5 noisesources.

The diagram in the Noise Impact Assessment clearly shows that there will be TWO new plant rooms,both adjacent to Badock’s Wood. The “New Main Plant Room” shown is not replacing the existingplant room of the site but is for the extended spa area, along with the Sauna Plant Room, which isplanned to be placed right on the boundary with Badock’s Wood. The new Main Plant Room for thespa part of the leisure centre will have two sound sources – the boiler and the pump. In addition theSauna Plant Room will have three sound sources - 3 side channel blowers. All at an average of 70dBnoise levels when operating.

It is also of great concern that this plant is anticipated to operate at any time during the day or night.The existing intrusive plant runs constantly, i.e.24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

If the City Council is minded to approve this application then the sauna plant room should be movedto a different location so that it is not adjacent to Badock’s Wood and both plant machinery / roomsshould be the quietest available and baffled to prevent any noise being audible outside the plantroom. In 2024, technology exists for modern plant and plant rooms to not emanate noise, it justrequires the will to do so.

4 of 6

Walls are planned for the site between the Spa Garden and Badock’s Wood. These should beconstructed of such materials as to provide a sound barrier to prevent noise emanating from the siteand intruding on the adjacent sites. There are many noise reduction products such as acousticfencing that can and should be used.

So CONDITIONS on the siting of the plant rooms as far from the boundary as possible, on installingthe highest specification quietest plant, soundproofing the plant room to prevent noise escape andconstructing the external site walls from noise reducing materials, need to be added if permission isgiven.

The noise of amplified music will be very intrusive for anyone in Badock’s Wood and should not bepermitted. If this is intended to be a relaxing spa garden the idea of then introducing amplifiedmusic would seem to be contradictory to that proposal.

If the City Council is minded to approve this application please CONDITION it to prevent amplifiedmusic as this will impinge on Badock’s Wood, which as per its Local Green Space designation wasnoted for its tranquillity. There are few places in the City where anyone can find peace and quiet andnotwithstanding the drone of the existing plant at David Lloyd’s site, there is at least no music orother noises to affect people’s quiet enjoyment of the site. It is bad enough having the plant noise,and we are always hopeful that when it is eventually replaced it will be upgraded to something muchquieter. It should never have been allowed to be so intrusive in the first place.

It is particularly worrying that at the end of the NIA the consultant caveats the whole report in thesection entitled Uncertainty, by saying, we precis, that there is a lot of uncertainty and you cannotreally know what noise will be nor what it will be like nor who it will impact upon until it happens.This gives us extremely low confidence in any of the assertions in the report.

If the City Council is minded to approve the application we request that stringent noise conditions beplaced upon David Lloyds. The wood is already adversely impacted by existing plant noise and ratherthan increase the noise levels and intrusion we would look to the Council ensuring that there is noincrease in plant noise, nor amplified music or similar, and we would hope that David Lloyd wouldalso take this opportunity to look at attenuating the existing noise from their plant.

Climate impactsNon-compliance with Local Plan Policies BCS14 and BCS15 and emerging Local Plan Policies BG1and BG2

The applicant is well aware not only of the existing Local Plan policies but also of the details of theemerging Local Plan because they referred to both in their Planning Statement and stated that theemerging Local Plan was a material consideration when preparing this application. The applicantrefers to existing Local Plan Policy BCS15 in the Planning Statement stating that it “requires newdevelopment so (sic) maximise energy efficient (sic) and source sustainable materials, in order tomitigate the impact of new building on the environment and climate change.” Saunas and open airheated pools will consume significant amounts of energy and this has not been addressed in thisapplication. This absence of evidence on the minimisation of energy use and the use of renewableenergy generation is also contrary to policy BCS14 of the existing local plan

Despite this there are a number of non-compliances with the Local Plan in this proposeddevelopment.

Policy BCS14 refers to energy minimisation and renewable energy generation. Whilst we understandthat the club has “deemed approval” from the Planning authority for solar photovoltaic panels, nonehave been installed. It is not clear that there are even any plans to do so in the near future. Even if

5 of 6

they are they will not power any of the buildings’ space or swimming pool heating nor sauna, steamroom, hydro pool etc which all rely upon the use of fossil fuelled gas fired boilers.

This proposal does not meet BCS14.

The use of Artificial Grass which is proposed in this application is contrary to the Local Plan policiesand is not permitted.

Policy BG1: Green infrastructure and biodiversity in new development refers.

The policy text states:“Artificial grassDevelopments should not include artificial grass within their landscape schemes or as part of theprovision of private or communal open space.”

This proposal does not have anything within it that makes a positive contribution to biodiversity nornature conservation. There are none of the suggested additions listed in the policy. No green roofsor green walls, it is unclear if the non artificial grass areas would be sustainable drainage and if sohow this would be achieved.

Policy BG2 : Nature Conservation and RecoveryStates:“Policy textDevelopment in Bristol will be expected to take all available opportunities to connect to or enhancethe integrity of the Nature Recovery Network and wider ecological networks and promote therestoration of priority habitats and the recovery of priority species, including through the provision ofnew and the enhancement of existing green and blue infrastructure.

Development which would be likely to have an impact upon habitats, species or features whichcontribute to nature conservation and recovery in Bristol, including on previously developed land, willbe expected to:

i. Be informed by an appropriate survey and assessment of impacts; and

ii. Be designed and sited to avoid any harm to identified habitats, species and features of importance.

Where loss of nature conservation value is unavoidable to enable development which is inaccordance with the local plan, proposals will be expected to provide mitigation on-site, and wherethis is not possible, provide mitigation off-site. For protected sites and species, this is in addition topolicy requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain.

Development which would fail to take the opportunities available to enhance ecological networks orresult in significant harm to biodiversity which cannot be appropriately mitigated will not bepermitted.”

We see nothing in this proposal that addresses the Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure policies inthe Local Plan. This is particularly surprising from a company which advertises itself as aiming forNet Zero by 2030 https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/david-lloyd-leisure-press/sustainability-release and astated sustainability commitment - https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/news/sustainability-commitment

Despite assertions by David Lloyd that all new boilers will be heat pumps this proposal is to install aStratton Mk2 gas fired boiler not an Air or Ground Source Heat Pump, which is unlikely to contributeeither to the applicant’s or the City’s net zero plans.

6 of 6

If this application is permitted the applicant should install Heat Pump technology in line with theirown sustainability criteria and in line with the City’s Local Plan.

Traffic and Parking issuesIn the Planning Application Form the applicant has ticked “No” in answer to this question:“Vehicle ParkingDoes the site have any existing vehicle/cycle parking spaces or will the proposed developmentadd/remove any parking spaces?”

This is not true and despite being asked for a lot of information and the Council’s TrafficDevelopment Management Response stating:“RecommendationTDM is unable to make a recommendation without the provision of the requested information oncar parking and servicing/deliveries. The applicant must therefore provide:Clarification on the existing use of the land (to be built on) - If the existing use is a car park, theapplicant must provide detail on the users of the car park and the number of parking spaces to belost.Clarification on the total number of existing and proposed parking spaces at the site.Clarification on the number of parking spaces to be allocated to staff and customers/visitors.Submission of a report demonstrating that the sites parking capacity will not be compromised,resulting in overspill.Floor plans showing the location of the deliveries and servicing.Clarification on how often the deliveries/servicing will take place and the type of vehicles to beused.TDM will only be able to make a recommendation once the applicant has provided the requestedInformation”

The applicant has ignored most of this and simply stated, incorrectly:In a document from David Lloyd’s agent dated 12 January 2024 it was stated:“We would like to clarify that the existing site is only informally used as parking from time to time bymembers of staff. It is not used as an official car park and therefore the proposed development willnot result in the loss of any parking spaces. On this basis, it is not necessary to provide the additionalinformation that has been requested.”

This is Not True.In an e-newsletter to Club members dated 7 January 2024 the club advised:“Over flow Car Park - Side access road has been resurfaced and lines will be added to our over flow.”The Club only has one overflow car park as far as we are aware and it is the same space that is thesubject of this planning application and has been flagged as a concern.

The club car park is very often full and the overflow car park is well used and indeed we know it wasfull in the evening of, for example, Tuesday 23 January and this is not a one off. Adding the facilitiesto the premises proposed in this and other current planning applications is clearly intended to makethe Club more attractive to members, whether that be existing or new members and there iscurrently insufficient car parking for existing members and cars are frequently parked on the grassverges within the site and elsewhere around the club locality, e.g. in the car parks and surroundingverges of the Greenway Community Centre and Greenway GP Practice.

The “overflow” car park appears to have previously been some form of sports court so we querywhether it should ever have been used as a car park, but they have brought it into use for members’car parking because they cannot meet existing parking demand, let alone future demand with theaddition of the spa garden and the padel courts. They cannot pretend it is not used as a car park.

Please keep Friends of Badock’s Wood updated on this planning application and ensure that we areconsulted on all planning proposals in the Badock’s Wood area.

Concerns raised about how parking will be managed with the additional guests usingthe facilities

Dear Planning Application Committee,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed spa extension at David Lloyd. While Iunderstand the desire to enhance the facilities, it is crucial that this development takes intoaccount the potential impact on local nature, light levels and noise levels.

Disruptive LightingThe new padel courts are an example of poor lighting having a negative effect for local residence,this is concerning and the design of the new spa needs to account for light pollution rather thancontribute to the problem. David Llloyd is about Health and the evidence of the existing facilitylighting suggests they are not designing for health only utility and profit.

Integration to existing natural habitatThe construction and operation of the extended spa could disrupt local wildlife and alter the naturallandscape. There is little to no replacement for the lost nature space which being removed. I urgethe committee to ensure that any plans include measures to protect and preserve the local floraand fauna. Being adjacent to Baddock's wood the noise (of humans and machine) and light hasnot been considered. This could involve working with environmental consultants to minimize harmand potentially enhance the local ecosystem.

Noise of existing and new technologyAdditionally, increased noise from the spa could disturb local residents and wildlife. Little to limitednatural sound barriers have been created. As this improves the membership proposition thenumber of members is likely to increase. It is important that any plans include adequate noise

mitigation measures. This could involve soundproofing, or other noise reduction strategies. Thebuilding of a new pump room and the facility will increase the requirements of the existing/ new airconditioning units which are already very loud and can be heard locally by humans and animals.Limited to little evidence can be seen in the noise reduction of this technology.

I trust that the committee will consider these objections and work towards a solution that balancesthe needs of David Lloyd with the wellbeing of the local community and environment.Thank you for your attention to these matters.

I object to this development on the following grounds:

1) Car parking spacesThe application states that no car parking spaces will be removed as a result of this development.This is clearly not true: a satellite picture provided in the additional documentation shows severalcars parked at the site. Additionally, parking is already oversubscribed and cars are regularlyparking on the grass in the provided car park.

2) Biodiversity and Geological ConservationThe site backs Badocks wood, which is a Local Nature Reserve. The woodland itself is over 400years old and provides a haven for the local wildlife. The proposed fence is likely to impede localwildlife movements. Furthermore, both the additional noise and light is likely to negatively impactwildlife.

The proposed development is also bordered by an ancient hedge, which carries on around, alongDavid's Lloyd "tennis courts" next to the swimming pool.Contrary to what the supporting documents show, the tennis courts are no more and have beenreplaced by panel courts with flood lights, (any planning application for that?). As part of thisdevelopment, a section of the ancient hedge was removed and cut back drastically in some otherparts. It is feared that both the construction work and the proposed fence will lead to thedestruction of what is left of the hedge, either because it will be purely and simply removed aspreviously done, or due to damage to the root system.

3) Trees

The arboricultural survey lists at least 4 category B trees. The construction work will go almostright up to said trees and the only proposed mitigation solution is some kind of fence (?), which willdo nothing to protect the tree roots. This will lead inevitably lead to the loss of those protectedtrees.

4) NoiseThe National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2023 state planning policies and decisionsshouldb)" Identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and areprized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; "However, the proposed development borders a quiet meadow, which is itself part of Badockswood nature reserve.

The Noise Survey provides only a very rough estimation of the likely noise disturbance that willaffect the neighbouring dwellings.No afternoon or late afternoon data have been provided, nor data obtained during the weekend,which are likely the most popular periods.

The measurements were performed at one location only, which is not even at the closest locationto the site. And how many times were the measurements repeated? One would have thoughtseveral location points would have been used to provides a more accurate picture of the problem.Even more baffling is the location of this unique measurement point: at the front of a house, whenthe proposed development borders the back garden.

The report does not consider the interaction between noise sources. Specifically, the music willhave to be set at a level above the background noise and the plant noise, then people will have toraise their voice above this level to be able able to converse. This will likely result in a higher noiselevel.

Mitigations are proposed in the form of fencing, for which there is no information about whatmaterial it will be made of. An arbitrary 10 dBa sound abatement is however associated with it.This is the same fence that will be cause untold damages to the ancient hedge mentioned above.

But what is surely the most baffling of all is that nobody thought of measuring the actual noisegenerated by similar developments at other David Lloyds branches.

Given all the above, I believe the proposed application will have a negative impact on bothneighbourhood and local wildlife and should be refused.

David Lloyd is a highly successful business currently advertised for sale in the City for 2billion pounds by TDR Capital - a multi billion pound company.There is absolutely no need for DLto build a larger spa in Westbury on Trym to ensure it's survival/ success. It does not lackmembers and it's success has enabled it to rise its membership fees significantly to about £130 -£150 per month for a Platinum member.

Building a spa will actually reduce people access to the existing spa facilities. Once the spa is builtDL will charge circa £200 per month for diamond membership and stop new platinum membersusing the spa - so it will cost far more for new joiners to access a spa.

A spa/ de luxe leisure centre is not a resource needed by your average family to ensure their wellbeing.

No worker is at risk if the spa is not built.

This de luxe spa will add nothing to the economy of the local community as few additional staff willbe required just a spa.The one or two bar staff that are there in the evenings are already under-utilised so DL will be able to accommodate any increase in business without additional staff.

DL makes no references to biodiversity on their web site sustainability page which is highlyunusual.

This application does nothing for the disabled.DL shockingly has no disability page and this alsoreflects in the dearth of steps it has taken to enable the disabled access into the planned facilities.None.The disabled will seemingly not benefit from this development - it's not aimed at them.

The planning statement suggests that it represents an improvement to sports and leisure facilities.Although it's good to improve 'Sports' provisions, it's a struggle to see how a zen garden, fire pit orindeed Himalayan ice room are crucial for 'sports'. The reverse is true. It takes away space thatcould be used for ordinary sports by more people eg children could play on the grass. Years ago,Next Generation ran a children's allotment on that land which met once a week.

Traffic/ Car parking

Passage Road is busy as is the right hand turn to Greystoke Avenue plus the route into WoTvillage. Things will worsen with the housing development works along the A4018 so having moretraffic is not desirable.However, there might be more traffic if there are more attractions eg Forinstance does DL envisage offering spa days to non members etc?

Most people using DL are very high income families or single people with pretty reasonableincomes and shockingly many travel to DL by car from across North West Bristol. Few peoplecycle or walk even those who live close by often drive. Buses number 3 and 4 are very irregular.DL offers no incentives to members that walk or bus there. Instead, it imports cars into the areaeven from close by. People drive 5 minute to exercise.

The car park is full to capacity on weekends and people park on the grass verge and on theaccess lane to DL which in turn impacts the Greenway Centre users. In fact, the original carparking has already been reduced by the creation of a car wash business (without planning ). Thiscar wash was retrospectively allowed by panning so there are now fewer parking spaces for moremembers than originally intended when first built by Next Generation. The capacity or membershiphas increased to 6000 but car parking has decreased?Where does this plan create more parkingspaces - they tick no parking spaces lost - looking at google maps you can see vehicles etcparked exactly where this spa is envisaged. I vaguely recall it being referred to as staff parking oroverflow years ago. More facilities will obviously means that people might stay longer so more carparking is needed. Yet they are actually removing overflow parking.

Disability Facilities

The disabled facilities are inadequate as things stand.The disabled change area shares avestibule with the family changing room. You can see this on the planning statement. Frequentlyfamilies use the disabled change room and/ or change in the vestibule directly outside the

allocated disabled changing area so that older teenager male disabled people have to seetoddlers being changed/ naked as they come out. This can cause anxiety and distress. There is noseparate change area for an adult carer. There is no separate dedicated changing room for anambulant disabled person. There is no unisex toilet - it's the disabled toilet. No further changefacilities will be provided and to me the disabled toilet seems a long long long way from the hydropool, further than the non disabled toilets especially as the wheel chair user will have to navigatecramped corridors and cramped garden seating etc. In fact, can a wheelchair user actually accessthe spa garden? - where do they go?Where is their designated spot in the garden for theirwheelchair in the design/ access or mention of their voice in the noise impact report Will thecorridor even be wide enough? How does a non ambulant person access the hydro pools? Thereis also no thought to people with nuerodiversity as piped music will be played and no quiet seating.

Tree Report

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 40 places a duty on BCC tohave a regard to conserving biodiversity.

The listed trees clearly need to be properly protected including their roots.Horse chestnut rootscan grow up to 25 meters.There can be damage to trees even if construction is done beyond the drip line especially with soilcompaction, stock piling of soil or excavation. Will hand digging be suggested? Surely mechanicaldigging will have to be not permitted or carefully limited if used at all and any exposed rootsprotected with sacking. Will an Arboriculturist be present to supervise? Has advice been soughtfrom the Tree Forum?

Trees T7 T6 and 5 form part of an essential,old and continuous hedgerow that wraps aroundHorses Field which in turn is adjacent to Badock Wood. This should qualify for consideration underthe 1997 Hedgerow Regulations. All these 'unremarkable trees' form an important part of thehedgerow or veritable supermarket for birds. Their location makes them significant. Even the wildcherry provides essential nutrients in Spring. The goat willow is important for butterflies andcatkins produce an early source of pollen and nectar for bees and other insects. Birds use goatwillow to forage for caterpillars and insects. Badock Wood is an essential habitat for wild life or aLNR ( designated 2008) for all the local people and not just a relatively few people privilegedenough to afford DL excessive membership fees. How will having building works eg a wall impactthe soil, nutrients, well being of his hedge.

The feeding needs of wild life in Badock Wood stretches as far to and circles the David Lloyd site.The playing field for instance is 'seen as an opportunity by FOBW to regard it as an extension ofthe site and enhance its biodiversity'. (Badock Wood Management and Action Plan 2017) Thebirds that rely upon the hedgerows/ trees includes house sparrows, starlings, dunoocks,greywagtails, house martins, lesser black headed gulls, swallows etc. I've seen

woodpeckers in the area. This application places the well being of wild life and the hedgerow/trees at risk.

As a priority for Southmead, BCC in their planning strategy aims to "improve parks and greenspace". This application seems to contradict that policy. Moreover many more locals than spausers walk along that lane and into that field so the noise from the spa will impact their 'relaxation'as they do so. This is not thought of in the noise impact assessment report.

The Noise Assessment

1 The data is ridiculously small and insufficient to fully assess the noise impact.why use suchlimited data. TDR Capital value DL at 2 billion they can afford to do a more extensive noiseassessment.

2 Moreover there is no need to try to guess how much noise will be created by the spa. That couldhave been better determined by going up the road to Emerson Green on a warm Summers dayand listening listening. There is also a David Lloyd Emerson Green video that convenientlyillustrates the volume of the piped music and the sound of the outdoor spa pool. It clearly spreadsacross part of the site. Why use assumed data when spas exist up and down the country. Takeone of those spas on a Friday evening on a warm Summers evening in July and there you haveyour data. Friday is currently a busy spa night.

3 How impartial is the noise assessment in reality. Contrary to recommended advice from IEMA ,BCC was seemingly not asked to determine how this noise assessment should be conducted.Instead, David Lloyd seem to have directed how to conduct the noise assessment and where andwhen to make the assessment. Aren't they likely to want the base line noise assessment to beconducted at a busier time of day when there might have been people who had just finished abattle box class or padel tennis both of which should not even be in existence in that I have seenno planning for them.

As DL literally controlled the noise output on the day eg by determining what was happening inclub on the day they asked for the assessment - how is this assessment objective? They couldhave encouraged people to use the tennis courts that day or use the battle box area? Why did theexpert not ask BCC how and when to conduct the assessment. The parameters of the noiseassessment should have been set by BCC. Was the noose assessment impacted by the newlycreated (without planning) padel court or it's construction?

It might be the case that say on a late Saturday afternoon or Sunday the current base line noise isvery low ( less traffic/ no schools open etc) we really don't know because we have been given nodata. A hot Saturdays is likely to be a time when people will most want to use the external spa dueto weekday work commitments.This is also the time when people want to peacefully enjoy theirgardens! The intrusion of noise on a quieter Saturday afternoon when ambient noise levels arelower might be more galling. It would be like a neighbour having an ongoing barbecue. How canwe assess that from this noise impact assessment.

Methodology is debatable : At present the numbers using the outdoor pool are not restricted by thenumber of pool side chairs. There is absolutely no reason why the spa would be any different. Idoubt that the so called number of seats and amount of speech noise generated can be accuratelypredicated on just the official seating capacity in the spa garden. Chairs are not permanent.Theycan be moved easily. I suspect that on a really hot day there will be people on the ground/ on thegrass/ on towels etc all making noise. What about a disabled person - where is their spot in thegarden? If the seating remains as shown are they excluded or do they represent an additionalperson or two to add to the calculations? People also share sun beds as they do by the pool. It'squite naive to think that the number of seats determines the number of people and ergo the noiselevels. Has DL suggested any means of restricting numbers? Frankly its no use suggesting anynumber restrictions as part of planning conditions as DL don't adhere to planning rules - There willbe inevitable slow and creeping slippage of any planning restrictions over the coming decade.

My experience of the current spa is that the demographic is relatively young - people in their late20 or 30s possibly into their 40's. Many are single. There is a robust unofficial single clubcommunity.These current platinum members will automatically be offered free upgrade to use thenew spa as a reward for the inconvenience of the build.This has been done in DL elsewhere. Sothis is the type of company who will be using the spa. We are asked to believe that they will speakat normal speech levels at all times. This is completely unrealistic.They banter, guffaw, joke,shouts funny comments etc. will beer or wine/ alcohol be served in the spa garden or anyfoodstuffs?

A normal voice level is 60 to 70 dbA raised voice is 65 to 75 bdA loud voice is 75 to 85 dbA shout is 85 db

According to the noise assessment report no one will use a loud voice. Probably as likely aseveryone will shower before entering the pool! DL rarely control behaviour.

3 The noise assessment measures seemingly the difference in decibel levels. However as theexpert is aware, noise nuisance is not just a matter of decibel levels. The character of the noise isalso important. For instance faced with ongoing low grade ambient motor noise most people cangrow accustomed to it. However intermittent noise that punctuates the base noise has beenproven to be more annoying and detrimental to health - we all know the type of thing - the highpitched shrieks or the loud laughs that comes out of nowhere but somehow just irritates whilst yousit in your back garden. Will DL forbid joke telling or banter in the spa ?The type of noise that willcome from the spa in the late evening will be hooting, laughter, shrieking and loud chatter. It willannoy the neighbours disproportionately. DL cannot predict the volumes of noise as until the padelcourts were built there was no real outside lighting or outside social life. The staff comments arebased on a hitherto dark outside space. The padel courts with flood lighting were only recentlycompleted in Winter without planning. However anyone who has sat in the garden when aneighbour has had a barbecue knows the type of noise that can emit from a gathering of people inthe sunshine eg the peals of laughter, the shout to a mate, the slightly louder speaking noise aspeople compete to be heard over other voices or the nose of the pool/ music. Even just shoutingout 'get me a beer will you whilst at the bar'. The spa will not be populated by a bunch of sedate 60or 70 year olds - that's not the core membership of the spa on a Friday evening. These people willlike to joke, flirt and have fun. The spa replaces their bar.

These typical clients who are late 20s or early 30s who as things stand usually shout across thepool as they jump straight in from the sauna without showering. Are DL really suggesting thateveryone will behave as if in an upmarket restaurant or library ? Really? Not one single person willshout across the zen garden to their mate? What about the music levels and how will that interactwith voice levels? What about the fact that the more people there are the more people naturallyraise their voices? The more people raise their voices the more others do it.

At present most of the noise is kept indoors in the evening due to a complete lack of lighting etcbut in Summer things will change with the social evenings planned at the new padel courts (floodlit builds without planning permission to include a social area) and the spa group clearly designedto encourage people outdoors into the spa garden. Will drinks or food be allowed in the spagarden or padel court as this will encourage rowdiness? Iced buckets of 6 beers/ pizzas/ burgers.There will be groups of people socialising in the evenings. Will there be a fire pit? Why have one ofthose other than to encourage night time activity and increase profits by selling drink/ food.

4 The noise assessment failed to take into accounts all sensitive areas - not just houses. (NSR)The hedge/ lane and field adjacent to the proposed development is a sensitive area. It forms partof a green corridor that leads to Badock Wood. It is the natural habitat for significant wildlifeincluding mammals eg badgers and insects on which the local birds/ bats feed. The numbers ofinsects have been shown to be affected by noise emissions. Badgers get stressed by noisepollution. This will impact the bird/ bat/ mammals population. Bats might have their foraging hoursimpacted by the additional human activity. They are already disturbed by the hideous flood lighting

from the non planning allowed flood lights. How loud will the noise be adjacent to the hedge/ fieldthat serves as essential green corridor/ bird/ mammal supermarket feeding into Badock Woods?We don't know because the noise assessment has not assessed this. Why not?

Moreover why has the noise assessment not taken into account the volume of noise levels of theactual proposed construction time and also it's impact on the green corridor/ extension of foragingfor Badock Wood. I would imagine that it's impact will be highly disruptive. It doesn't take a greatstretch of imagination to realise that. Wild life has already impacted by the build of the padel courtswithout planning permission.Quite frankly DL conveniently seem to want to forget where they are positioned which is extremelyclose to important meadowland, an old hedgerow all essential for wildlife. The fact that the noiseassessment does not even explore that or deal with it's impact means that it is fundamentallyflawed.

This spa will be closer to protected green space and existing house and it's noise impact willclearly be greater than an overflow car parking area which is there presently.

Lighting - previously there was absolutely no outdoor lighting - looking outdoors from the cafe tothe pool- it was dark. We have been denied an opportunity to comment on the hideous floodlighting from the padel court and it's impact on the bats/ wildlife. We have seen no mitigation policyor frankly any justification for the change of use. All constructed with no planning, What is thelighting policy for the outdoor space of the spa? Will they abide by it after a few years? Will it behighly lit into the evening and create a new evening socialising space along with the fire pits.

Conclusion

Many people walk down the hedgerow edged lane to the meadow/ playing field. Many peoplecannot afford membership of DL spa facilities.This simple walk is their exercise and theirspa.Those neighbours who want to enjoy their own gardens will also be impacted by the irritationof a loud shout now and then or laughter. As one neighbour suggested, they can't afford 'experts'to present the better facts to argue their case. I'm not an expert but careful reading revealsobvious flaws in their expert reports - who provides an expert report for those likely to beimpacted? What about the disabled - these plans make no provision for the disabled.who defendsthe bats, mice and badgers? Who defends the birds' rights to forage from the hedgerow and the'unremarkable trees' that collectively form part of an important green corridor and by extension theBadock wood feeding areas? Once lost that old hedgerow ( it's in the old maps) cannot bereplaced and it will suffer.

What actual value does this spa add to the community? It's just a means of increasing the bookvalue of a 2 billion dollar business. Only the privileged wealthy few and TDR Capital will benefitfrom a £200 per month membership of this spa but at what cost? It cannot be said to benefit manyof the immediate local community, offers little extra employment if at all.There is nothing here to

benefit the local community of Southmead but much to suggest that it will add further to theurbanisation of Southmead which needs desperately to protect its green spaces and wildlife. It iscontrary to the desired planning aims by not protecting green space. So why allow it?

I will object more fully on this application subsequently however I wish first to flag thefollowing points:

This application I believe is defective as it immediately fails to take into account the combinedimpact on the neighbourhood and the environment/ green corridor of the combined developmentsat DL of the outside battle box, flood lighting for the padel courts,the padel courts themselves, thesignificant hedge cutting between Elmfield House and the sports centre the effects of which will becompounded with this new proposed spa.

Clearly all this work is intended to increase turnover and possibly permit larger capacities ofmembers as they disperse into a new spa/ garden.

These development work combined will have a significant impact on the noise levels, wild life,green corridor, lighting levels as well as impacting parking/ traffic at David Lloyd etc and thegreenway centre.

I would ask that the planning committee view these activities as one large development ie battlebox, padel courts, flood lights and now this spa area all looked at combined.

The padel courts were built without planning permission and have already had a significant impactin wild life. The amount of light given out by the flood lights is shocking and will impact the foragingof local bats etc.

As the padel courts were completed in Autumn/ Winter the neighbours are probably not even yetfully aware of the increased noise but it will impact in Summer especially as DL now offer a largeroutdoor seating/ social area now flood lit and even the service of ordering food and drinks online tobe delivered to the padel courts. Outside was hitherto deadly quiet at nights with no flood lightingand few people used the pool in the almost dark. Now it's all brightly lit.

As it happens. the hedge that separates DL from Elmfield House has now been significantly andirretrievably impacted by the creation of the padel courts. This hedge forms one continuous sweepof hedge that then circles the meadowland of horses field which adjoins onto Badock Wood. Theimpact on wildlife was immediately observed as it was being cut down as I saw squirrels trying towork out new routes. Interestingly I think it was a kestrel that decided to perch on one of the floodlights - as if nature is fighting back. The flood lighting is truly hideous and completely alters thenight sky.

Even before this, DL created a discrete car washing business in the car park again withoutplanning permission despite the actual shortage of car parking spaces on a Saturday so that carspark on the grass verges. This was then viewed as a minor planning breach.

Moreover, I'm sure that their opening hours were also meant to be 6.30 to 10.00 and not 6.00 asagreed to in the original planning application made by Next Generation which most likely alsoincluded restrictions on external noise/ hedge work etc. I would ask that the original planningapplication be considered and the restrictions that were originally imposed for good reasons thatare still extant today.

Overall these infringements of planning I would say strongly tells the planning developmentcommittee everything they need to know about the likelihood of DL sticking to any offered planningrestrictions or making promises about hours of use or noise. They have shown their regard forplanning rules now on several occasions so specific specifications in planning eg hours ofoperation or use of music won't I think bother them.

Clearly DL had a planned scheme of work - battle box, padel courts, flood lighting, bigger outdoorsocial area, remove hedging, larger spa, spa garden.They cannot pick and chose which go toplanning and the combined effect of all these developments needs to be looked at in one goespecially given the proximity of Badock Wood which acts as a uniquely critical oasis for wild life.

DL WOT is at maximum capacity almost - it does not need to expand to be successful just to makea few more million. Jobs there are fully secured. The green corridor around Badock Wood is

unique.

Moreover it is unclear if the noise assessment report assessed existing noise based also on noiseemanating from the padel courts built without planning and also the battle box ( no planning) whichalso should not be there. It would be ironic to have a louder pre existing noise level due to theexistence of an unlawful development.

I will comment in more detail on the planning application itself separately but in this instance askthat everything be looked at in the round.

No to this. DL already encroaches and impacts on the nature reserve, and Southmeadgenerally. For instance, parking and traffic around this part of Southmead is already an issue and Ithink this will only be exacerbated further if the centre is attracting even more guests :(.

On the face of it, this Application appears to be based purely on commercial greed, with little or noconsideration for the disturbance and noise inflicted on the club's near neighbours.

The existing air conditioning units are noisy - especially when working hard during the hot summermonths - and this continual droning noise is an inconvenient distraction to near neighbours tryingto enjoy the peace and tranquillity of their gardens on warm sunny days.

The club's latest proposals include additional unspecified "plant" facilities that will generate noise -plus spa garden, hydro pool and sauna which will be a source of more noise generated by thethose indulging themselves with the new amenities, including the new garden relaxation areas.

Will members' access be restricted to certain times of the day, or will it be "open house" at allhours for 12 months of the year?

Therefore, as proposed, this Application should be rejected - for the sake of the near neighbours.

Unfortunately, large commercial concerns, such as David Lloyds, are like giants with expertise andmoney to spend on planning consultants, lobbyists, lawyers and public-relations experts. Just lookat the weighty 18-page "Design and Access Statement" and the 18-page "Planning Statement"submitted with this Application - just stuffed full of ingratiating weasel words attempting to pull thewool over the eyes of BCC's Planning Officers.

Consequently, if opponents do manage to persuade our Council's Planners to reject this

development, the developers will appeal (something local residents can't do) and if that fails, theywill simply put in a new, modified application. It's a war of attrition!

Therefore, if Planning Officers are so minded to approve this Application, it should be conditionednot only to cover the management of the trees and green infrastructure, it should also includeconditions restricting when the facilities can be used and proscriptive restrictions on noise levels -both from "plant" and people's activities.

We wish to strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:

1) NOISE:The proposal contains new plant in additional to that which already exits to the rear aspect of theClub. Over the years this has already created substantial noise within continuous pumping,whirring and alarms even in the middle of the night. The new plant in both the spa extension andspa garden will only exasperate the noise. If either of the new plant have venting in the direction ofthe nature path, communal fields and to the nearby neighbours this will have a cummulative levelhighly likely to exceed the original ambent noise level prior to when the club was built.With the open garden aspect of the proposal social noise can also be expected to emanate intothe surrounding area. In pervious years there have already been numerous complaints for loudamplified music, announcements over the PA system and shouting and screaming from people,etc. In addition the immediate area beyond the south east aspect of the club is a nature path andcommunal fields for public use, dog walking, etc. and should be naturally a quite area for thepublic away from the surrounding urban environment.

2) NATURE & CONVERSATION:The immediate area beyond the south east aspect of the property is a nature path with a tree linethen communal fields forming a refuge aspect with Badocks wood from the surrounding urbanenvironment. They are is frequented by wildlife; owls, bats, woodpeckers, other birds, badgers,foxes seen and heard in the evening and nightime - especially in summer months. Theintroduction of additional plant and social noise could only prove to be disruptive to their santuaryin this urban enironment..

We can always hear the noise from the existing plant room. The proposed additionalplant room is closer to our house so please specify a limit on the potential noise.