Roger Moses Friends of Badocks Wood (FOBW) deputy chairConducts monthly Bird Survey in BW

Wildlife does not recognise any human boundaries, and that includes the wildlife in the BadocksWood Local Nature Reserve and the associated Local Green Space forming the AcknowledgedWildlife Corridor in the Trym Valley - all this land is used for transit and foraging, as well asresidence, and will be detrimented by this development. Particularly affected are moths, bats,badgers and tawny owls, all local breeding species, largely from increased light and soundpollution, reducing the available foraging area.I find it difficult to understand how an external ecological survey based on one site visit, is givenmore consideration than the records of many local observers, based in a variety of natureconservation organisations, over many years - dismissed as "anecdotal" evidence.Badocks Wood is one of only 11 sites in Bristol which satisfy all the criteria for conservationquality, and deserves all the consideration and protection it can get from developments of thisnature. It is essential that Planning decisions take more account of the natural world and its needsI would like the planning approval to be deferred, pending a serious consideration of the realeffects on local wildlife , especially nocturnal.

With regard to the committee report posted online against planning application24/00137/F on 11th Septemer 2024. There is an incomplete sentence under "Key Issue 1" in thereport. The sentence reads "The fact that the application is retr". Please could an updated versionof the report be submitted contained a complete version of the officer's thought andrecommendations? Many thanks.

Badocks Wood is such a special local amenity - I was delighted to discover it after I'dmoved here and we often enjoy walking there, in all seasons. As a designated Local NatureReserve and Site of Nature Conservation Interest, managed for wildlife and within a designatedwildlife corridor running alongside the River Trym, it should surely have clear protection via theplanning department of the council to make sure that no applications have an adverse effect on it!

I am concerned about the affect of this particular application on Badocks Wood and the localcommunity for a number of reasons. I think that the wildlife currently thriving on the site will beadversely affected by noise and light. A number of important species, some threatened, are to befound on the site, including bats, birds including tawny owls, badgers and invertebrates. It'simportant to maintain (and hopefully increase) the biodiversity that currently exists on the site -and, if I understand it correctly, the Bristol Local Plan includes policies on the use of artificialgrass, outdoor heaters and increasing biodiversity rather than reducing it. This application shouldtherefore be subject to those policies.

I'm surprised at the amount of time that is suggested for use of the padel court and outside socialarea. Given that it will be noisy (from the sound of the rackets and from people talking andsocializing and from the outdoor TV screen - particularly if the TV were to be showing a footballgame, for instance), to have the time set from 6am till 10pm, 7 days a week sounds unreasonablefor local people too. These facilities at David Lloyd will be only available to those who can afford topay the membership (a higher level of membership than for the rest of the facilities), whereasBadocks Wood is a very Important community amenity for the population in a large surroundingarea, many of whom would never be able to afford that kind of money. The noise will affect peoplewalking and enjoying the natural surroundings of Badocks Wood - plus the people in the housesthat are adjacent. If the noise was from builders/developers, there would be a shorter amount of

time allowed for their work and it would not include Sundays. Has a proper noise assessmentbeen made that takes into account all of the above? The noise from individuals using padelrackets, drinking, socializing and watching England play football could be considerable - so it'simportant that any noise assessment takes all of that into account.

Light pollution in the winter particularly will also be an issue - I would like to know if anyassessment of the amount of light pollution was measured in the winter evenings or earlymornings. I understand that the Friends of Badock Wood have been reporting pollution of theRiver Trym for some years, to no avail. I also heard (I've only lived here three years) that DavidLloyd promised at the time of their original planning application that local people would have someaccess to their facilities. This promise has obviously not been kept - so all of that rather calls intoquestion any agreements they might make for this application!I do hope this application will be refused.

I know the woods well and the changes at David Lloyd are minimal and I cannot seehow they will significantly affect the woods. The benefits to health of the club are clear and therewas already a court there

I object on the grounds of environmental and wildlife impact.

I certainly object to this on the grounds that David Lloyd run rough shod over the localCommunity.The lights and the noise impacts on the environment. . Where there are numerous bats / wildlifewho will be impacted.David Lloyd promised to support the community but this has not happened . They encroach on theenvironment. We certainly object to this retrospective planning application .

This should not have been allowed and shouldn't be given retrospectively, a paid biggiant corporation taking away from a local deprived area and impacting on space. The club is NOTaccessible to any local residents due to costs

The increased light pollution and noise pollution so close to an important wildlife corridorand area is detrimental to the local environment. Proper sound impact assessments clearlyhaven't been made. Sound and light pollution will interfere with the travel of Bats and otherspecies that make their homes and use the hedgerows as shelter in the area. Removal of hedgingreduces habitat, noise reduction and air cleaning.

It is clear that neighbours actually living nearby were not properly consulted. Retrospectiveplanning should not be granted, partucularly when it can be demonstrated that this is a pattern ofbehaviour by the David Lloyd group whose legal team will have been more than aware thatplanning consent should have been sought.

Page 2 of 6

InvertebratesThe field behind David Lloyd site is important for a wide range of invertebrates.

This summer alone several nests of Spindle Ermine Moth (Yponomeuta cagnagella) caterpillars wererecorded in the field behind David Lloyd Club. The hedges around the field have a lot of trees and shrubswhich provide a home and food for many moth species. The ermine moths are just one species of manynight time moth species that live in Badock’s Wood that may be affected by this intrusive floodlighting.

BirdsA variety of birds visit and nest in the trees and shrubs around the field behind the David Lloyd Club.

Page 3 of 6

NoiseThe Noise Impact Assessment does not cover the proposed hours of operation as suggested by the CityCouncil – i.e. from 06.00. The Noise Impact Assessment didn’t assess the impact of noise for 18 hours a dayfrom 06.00 it simply did a few spot tests and on some occasions didn’t even know if the padel courts werebeing used or not.

There is no mention of the noise from the “social area” including the noise of the outdoor TV screen which isused as a sports bar. It is noted that at the time of the noise assessment the social area was unused and theoutdoor furniture packed away. However, the intentional use of the social area as a loud sports bar wasclear in their promotional video for its use for the Six Nations Rugby Tournamenthttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/2a83_wdQO5c This does not fit with the assumption in the report thatthe area will not be used much and not late into the evening. In their promotional video launching the padelcourts they included music and dancing in the area. This was most likely audible off site which is incontravention of their planning permission to operate the Health and Fitness Centre.

The report also noted that the padel courts were not well used. At the time of the assessment David Lloydhas stated in a press release dated 31st October 2023 that they are “Intent on becoming the nation’s largestprovider of the sport”. It is not intended to be an occasional activity for some of their members.

The location of the sound monitor in Holmwood Gardens, at the front of the homes, is well away from thesite, indeed it is the other side of the buildings to the source – i.e. the padel courts and outdoor sports bar.The noise that would be received by the houses in their gardens and rear living and bedrooms has not beenassessed at all, which is unacceptable. The buildings themselves would block the noise from the site to thesound monitor, we assume.

No assessment has been made at all of the impact of the noise from the David Lloyd site on Badock’s Wood.

The Pollution Control Officer’s suggestion that the noise and lighting impacts would be acceptable from06.00 until 22.00 every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, is astonishing and totally unacceptable. Thesuggestion is that local residents may only sleep between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. – the idea that thisprivate club can dictate to residents their bedtime is outrageous.

The City Council often conditions building sites to only work between 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and08:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or bank holidays. This was done, for example, forSouthmead Hospital and for many smaller shorter term building developments.

If the City Council officers consider that a building site, which after all is only temporary, should only operateduring those hours, why would something that would not just go on for months or a couple of years, beacceptable. Surely the Council should not permit a private club to emit noise and light pollution for 18 hoursa day every single day.

The sound of the church bells mentioned in the report is notable in so far as it serves to demonstrate thatthere is a big difference between sounds and noise. A few hours a week of church bell ringing 500 metresaway may well be audible sound but is unlikely to be considered a noise nuisance, whereas the loudwhacking of balls by hard plastic racquets against hard surfaces for potentially up to 18 hours a day a fewmetres from people’s homes and a valuable wildlife open space would be.

Other DL sites in the UK have had more restrictions imposed on their hours of usage by the local planningauthorities, including shorter operating hours for their floodlit padel courts due to noise and lighting impacton neighbours.

Page 4 of 6

If the padel courts were allowed to operate all day and evening every day, then the lighting would beneeded every evening as there is no date in the calendar year when sunset is after 22.00 hours so it willalways be dark in the evenings / night, and similarly there are few dates when sunrise is before 06.00 hours.This should not be permitted.

The residents who are living closest for whom the light and noise has already proved untenable, haveobjected and explained this and yet there is no mention of the fact that because this is a retrospectiveapplication then real time assessments could be made.

We would reiterate the point that there is a big difference between sound and noise, with the latter causingnoise nuisance.

LightingThe light spill information is inadequate given that the lighting was in situ for months prior to theapplication. Rather than predictive modelling and given that residents are clear that it is lighting up theirbedrooms, actual lighting levels and light spill should be assessed. They should have assessed it in the winterwhen the lighting will be in use from when the site opens in the dark and on darker days for most of the dayand then from late afternoon onwards.

The path immediately to the west is an enclosed dark corridor that is likely to be used byIt should be standard practice for them to install modern

luminaires that can illuminate the courts but not illuminate the surrounding area. We are advised thatcutting out any glare will dramatically improve the experience of people using the courts and using the rightlighting will improve perception of detail and reduce eye strain. Modern lighting technology is remarkablycontrollable - you just have to pay for it.

The colour temperature of lights is given at 4000 K, so not compliant with ‘GN08/23 Bats and ArtificialLighting at Night’ by Institution of Lighting Professionals’ lighting to have colour temperature of 2700 K orlower, with peak wavelengths greater than 550nm.

No assessment has been provided of the actual light spill and also the predicted light spill were they to usethe wildlife friendly lighting which they should have installed and could easily retrofit.

Water pollutionThe application lacks any neither drainage information nor an assessment of the proposal’s impact on theRiver Trym and River Avon due to microplastics pollution from the site.

David Lloyd site already pollutes the River Trym because their drainage from surface drains goes into a pipeunder Badock’s Wood and directly down an artificial waterfall – essentially a drain outfall – into the RiverTrym in Badock’s Wood.

We have been reporting pollution issues from the David Lloyd site since at leastSeptember 2011 – for 13 years. They have a car wash in their car park thatregularly released detergents into the River Trym down the outfall. After somerepeated complaints to the Environment Agency and the StreamClean Project,the car wash was supposed to be connected to the site’s foul drain to ensure thatthe detergent and other chemicals went into the sewers and not into the surfacedrains and into the river. However, it seems that they do not always managetheir drainage correctly.

We have had occasion over the years to report breaches and this photograph,taken in March 2024, is of foam coming down the artificial waterfall that onlycomes from discharges from a pipe from the David Lloyd site.

Pollution from David Lloydsurface drainage - March 2024

Page 5 of 6

In 2019, a water quality survey of the River Trym found spikes in levels of ammonia and phosphates found atthis outfall as well as algal growth on the artificial waterfall, all considered indicative of detergent / chemicalpollution, quite likely associated with emissions from the car wash at David Lloyd site.

Microplastics are a known and worrying pollutant in water courses. David Lloyd’s use of artificial grass onthe two padel courts and the surrounding social area has been completely ignored by their EcologicalAppraisal, as has the use of outdoor patio heat lamps.

Both artificial grass and outdoor heat lamps are listed as being contrary to the Bristol Local Plan – see ourprevious objection - so should not be installed.

Having a plastic surface (the artificial grass) draining into the river will be bringing with it microplasticpollution as there will be small amounts of the artificial grass released when people are walking or playing onthe site, and as a result of rainfall. The impact of macro and micro plastic pollution on the wider aquaticecology is well documented. The River Trym flows into the River Avon at Sea Mills which then flows on intothe sea via the Bristol Channel. A scientific study published in October 2023 concluded that “AT [artificialturf] fibers [sic] may contribute significantly to plastic pollution” from water run-off and that there is“increasing knowledge that artificial turfs not only contributes to other known impacts, such as climatechange, chemical leaching or local biodiversity loss, but is also is a major source of plastic pollution in theaquatic environment” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123010965

The impact of microplastic pollutants from artificial sports surfaces was well known prior to the constructionof this site at David Lloyd’s in Southmead and not only has the EU introduced plans to restrict their usage butSport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (previous government) and GroundsMaintenance Association etc. issued a joint statement on it in 2023 and advise “the adoption ofcontainment measures is an important and responsible approach to prevent the migration of microplastics.The Football Foundation has followed European Technical Guidance since 2020, installing containmentmeasures on all its funded pitches.”https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport/position-statement-on-3g-pitches

There is nothing in any of the documentation provided by David Lloyd to the planning authority regardingthe use of artificial grass, containment measures, nor the fact that it is contrary to Council planning policies.

Planning protection for wildlife sites and wildlife corridorsThe Local Planning Authority needs to take into account these environmental harms, and assess somemeasure of their effect should be made otherwise the designations of Local Nature Reserve and WildlifeCorridor become meaningless.

It is unacceptable that the only “receptors” considered by David Lloyd and the Council’s pollution controlteam are human, despite there being species of conservation concern living on the site, and indeed thriving,at least for now, because we and the local community take care of them and the site.

Even then the large numbers of humans who visit and enjoy Badock’s Wood are seemingly ignored in favourof a small number of paying members of a private club. Those who can afford to pay to be a member ofDavid Lloyd Club probably rely much less on being able to walk to a green open space such as Badock’sWood in order to have peace and quiet, enjoy the natural environment and take their exercise in a publicopen space free of charge. For many people in Southmead this is their gym, their fitness centre, theirgarden. It is the only one they can afford.

Page 6 of 6

Biodiversity Net GainThere is no mention of the requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain and how David Lloyd intends to deliverthis.

BNG legislation applies to small developments and we consider this development clearly is required tocomply and that they need to follow the law and the associated guidance. However David Lloyd has failed toeven mention BNG here - it's one of the most important bits of recent environmental legislation.

BNG requires a 10 % gain in biodiversity units - a measurable improvement for biodiversity by creating orenhancing habitats. It can be delivered on-site or off-site or a combination of both. At present David Lloyd isnot compliant as they haven't provided any evidence around BNG (or even mentioned it).

Only after we objected to their selection of non-native, and potentially invasive species, have they nowspecified in a revised planting plan that they will be planting native species.

David Lloyd company was quoted recently in Bristol24/7 as stating that they are committed to “making apositive contribution in the communities and environment in which we operate” and that the “The impacton the local environment is a key consideration”

This is clearly a nonsense since no Ecological Appraisal was even undertaken until after we complained andthis club makes no positive contribution to the local community nor to the local environment. They have notundertaken any environmental impact assessment. They are a private club which does nothing with or forthe local community, local residents, nor the local environment and no amount of them saying they do, willactually make that so. Their padel courts are not even open to all of their members, only their higher payinglevels of membership, so this is a private development that may benefit only some of their members andthat takes none of their neighbours into consideration – be they human or wildlife.

The extra noise and light pollution caused to the local environment bu the use of thesecourts during the day and night and the impact on local wildlife make this an unsuitable location forthese courts

I write to object to this application for development impinging on a site which is a Naturereserve, a site of Nature Conservation Interest and one of only 11 Local Green Spaces in BristolLocal Plan. As Bristol is a city that has recognized there is a climate and ecological emergencythese matters should be one of the primary considerations.The David Lloyd organization appears to acknowledge that their operation already affects localpeople and the environment in terms of noise and light pollution. The organization has furtherdamaged the environment by going ahead with this development during which it damaged andremoved local shrubs and trees. It is relevant that it did so without planning permission.In particular the development will adversely affect the local area in the following ways over most ofthe day due to extensive operating hours- Local residents will be affected by noise, light, extra traffic and increased problems with parking- Local people using the Badock's wood for recreation will also experience noise and light pollution- The activity will generate the dispersal or microplastics which may adversely affect people, thewater course, and the local wildlife and environment- The noise and light pollution will adversely affect local wildlife including endangered species andwill disrupt the insect life species that animals such as bats rely on. It is also likely to restrict theactivities of other shy endangered species such as badgers and hedgehogs. There has alreadybeen damage to local shrubs and trees.This is a damaging development which may explain why it has been put in place withoutpermission presumably hoping to circumvent the planning process. I hope it will be rejected.

I'm writing to strongly object to the David Lloyd development application near BadockWoods. As someone about to move into the area with a young family and a dog, I'm deeplyconcerned about the impact this project will have on our new home and the surroundingenvironment.

Badock Woods is a vital part of the local community-it's one of only 11 Local Green Spaces inBristol, recognized for its ecological and conservation importance.

The David Lloyd organization has already caused problems with noise and light pollution, andthey've further damaged the environment by removing local shrubs and trees without properplanning permission. Their development plans, which include extensive operating hours, are likelyto make things worse in several ways:

Noise and Light Pollution: Increased noise, bright light from floodlights, and traffic will disrupt localresidents and make the area less enjoyable for everyone.Impact on Recreation: People who use Badock Woods for leisure will experience moredisturbances, affecting their enjoyment of the space.Environmental Damage: The project could lead to more pollution, including microplastics, whichcould harm people, wildlife, and the local watercourse.Wildlife Disruption: Noise and light pollution will affect local wildlife, including endangered species.It could disrupt insect populations vital to animals like bats and impact shy species such asbadgers and hedgehogs.Given that the development seems to be proceeding without proper permissions and withdisregard for these important issues, I hope that the planners will take these concerns into accountand reject the application.

I am a resident with a young family and a dog living nearby to Badock Woods. We lovewalking in the woods and learning about the wildlife there. It is so important in the city for ourchildren to learn about protecting and the importance of our environment and natural spaces suchas Baddock woods are a vital resource for this. Our dog and son also love to paddle (and in thecase of the dog, drink from) the water there.I am deeply concerned about the impact of David Lloyd on this ecosystem and the safety of mypets and son. We regularly now see the water polluted with soapy cleaning chemicals and Iunderstand that the new courts will require regular washing which must only exacerbate thisproblem. I am sure many parents and dog walkers will be reluctant to visit as a result and there isof course negative impact on the wildlife and ecosystem there. Fewer responsible visitors is alsobound to lead to an increase in undesirable visitors such as drug dealing, anti-social behaviourand so on which has a negative impact on all of us who live nearby. As a result I strongly object tothe retrospective application and hope the planners will take these concerns into account whenconsidering it.

I object to the Council's apparent support for an 18 hour operation causingunacceptable light and noise pollution with no respite for neighbours human or wildlife, every dayof the year.

I have particular concerns about the loss of tranquillity in Badock's Wood and the impact on thewildlife, particularly the night time wildlife.

Impacts of the lighting and the noise on moths, bats, owls and night time mammals are all ofconcern as well. The Ecological Appraisal David Lloyd has produced appears flawed.

The courts, floodlighting, etc have been constructed without planning permission and I demandthat the Council to refuse this permission and to enforce the removal of the courts and associatedlighting etc.

This is poor business practice and an unacceptable attempt to ride roughshod over the democraticplanning process. The importance of the Badock's Wood site - one of only 11 meeting all thecriteria for the highest protection in the Bristol Local Plan - should be recognised as moreimportant than converting one tennis court into 2 noisy padel courts which constitute a highlyintrusive pre-dawn to late night 24/7 floodlit development in a Wildlidfe Corridor.

I have been living in this area since I was six months old, and have come to Badock'sWood most days since then (I am now nearly fifteen). It is a beautiful wood and I know every inchof it, from the gate at the Lakewood entrance to the mosaics at the Doncaster one. David Lloydhas built their floodlights, their speakers, all the new infrastructure without adequately assessingwhat damage will happen to the animals who depend on the woods. They don't know where thegoldcrests live, or where the magpie is nesting, or where the crows go shrimping, or where themice forage. I know all of those because I've spent hundreds of hours in the woods watching theanimals. And yet, somehow David Lloyd seems to have more power to damage the woods than Ihave to protect them.

The padel courts are a huge source of noise and light pollution. Padel is an extremely loud game;the Netherlands have drawn up guidance for padel courts which includes the courts being 100meters away from residential areas. This noise will impact sound hunters-namely the tawny owls,who are an amber listed species of conservation concern, and the six species of bats recorded inBadock's wood, including the soprano pipistrelle and the brown long eared bat. All of these haveacute hearing and will struggle to hunt with the increased noise. This will probably lead toincreased numbers of deaths for their babies.

The floodlights are very tall, and extremely bright LEDs. The residents have reported theirbedrooms being so lit up that they don't even need to turn on lights to see after dark, and manyhave been forced to change which room they sleep in. And these floodlights aren't just stoppinganimals sleeping-they're harming the night animals' ability to hunt. There is a badger sett justmetres from David Lloyd, as well as the afore mentioned tawny owls and bats. Our tawny owlshave always fledged near David Lloyd, but this year they fledged at the other end of the wood,even though it makes them much nearer to the big, loud road. Street lighting has disastrous

effects on insects-one study found moth caterpillars were reduced by 47% in hedgerows and 33%in grass margins. This big of a drop in food will unquestionably be very bad for the bats, as mothsare one of their staple foods-as well as songbirds, whose young feed almost exclusively on softinsects.

Something we all need to take into account is that this decision isn't just for 2024-this is for thefuture of Badock's too. If permission is granted, even if in a couple of decades the noise and lightpollution cease, the damage it causes to the animals will be irreversible. You can never bring backthat tawny owl chick that starved to death because its parents' hunting grounds were diminished,or that badger that got hit by a car because it had to go further afield to find food. In fifty years,David Lloyd could have moved on, the building dark and silent every night or maybe even torndown-but that damage to the animals will still exist as much as it ever did. The ancient woods willstill have fewer of our already precious animals, and it will be difficult, expensive, and maybeimpossible to increase their numbers again. Is it really worth giving people one more place to playpadel into the late hours of the night, when it does all that damage? Is our priority really to let onemore sports bar come into existence, even when the cost is so high? Surely we cannot havegotten our sense of values so twisted as to allow that? David Lloyd isn't in a rich area, and it's veryunlikely that many locals even have the lowest level of membership-which is already over £1000annually-much less the platinum membership needed for access to the new additions. One of themain, if not the only reason why this development is happening is money. I ask you, what is moreimportant: giving more money to already well-lined pockets, or the saving lives of imperilledanimals? David Lloyd has given factually incorrect information about the nearby prevalence ofendangered species, it has said that there is "extensive vegetation on the site's western boundary"after much of said vegetation had been destroyed, and it has built these structures withoutpermission. We cannot let this kind of behaviour set a precedent for others, by just allowing it tohappen. If David Lloyd gets planning permission it will send the message that the government'spolicies about protecting wildlife don't really mean anything, which will almost certainly urge manyothers to similarly disregard nature.

In the ecological survey, the ancient hedgerow is described as "scrub", and its importance to birdsdismissed because there are other "more suitable" places for nesting and foraging in thewoodland. Hedgerows are probably the most biodiverse biosphere in Badock's Wood. Theyprovide: sheltered opportunities for nesting; nuts, berries, and leaves for food; camouflage forburrows; everything necessary for insects; and much more. Hedgerows are one of the mostimportant things we can conserve, and casually dismissing them is very strange. It also seemspeculiar that David Lloyd is attempting to justify their new extensions by saying that they arealready creating noise and light pollution-"the levels of noise, lighting and human activity which[already] would have been present around the habitat due to the existing tennis courts and outdoorswimming pool." It's as if they're trying to justify making their pollution worse by admitting that itwas already happening, and therefore the animals have already been to some extent damaged.However there is still certainly life in that hedgerow, and it had already seen a decline since thenew extensions have been put in. We can undo the damage, now. But if permission is granted the

future for this part, and probably eventually all of Badock's Wood is bleak.

David Lloyd states that none of the vegetation is old enough for bats to roost in, and that the areathey're damaging isn't used by bats for commuting. These are both true, though the latter partleaves out the fact that this is because it's already part of the wood the bats use. However there isa third legal criteria to protect bats-and that is feeding grounds. Badock's Wood bats do use thisarea for feeding, as there is a significant insect population both in the hedgerow and the meadow.David Lloyd has said that "there are no statutory designated sites of nature conservation interestwithin or adjacent to the application site. The closest statutory site is Badocks Wood Local NatureReserve (LNR) which lies approximately 0.2km to the southeast of the application site... Betweenthe application site and this LNR are areas of existing vegetation including mixed scrub, woodlandbelts, and a large area of open grassland." This is extremely disingenuous-even though themeadow or hedgerow isn't technically part of the designated local nature reserve, it's still part ofthe land that was left by Mr Badock to be part of the wood, and more importantly it's part of thewood's ecology. The hedgerow between the field and David Lloyd's is ancient and supports manysmall birds, mammals (including bats) and insects, as does the meadow with its rising biodiversity.However we have already seen numbers dropping after the new structures have been implanted.Even from 200 metres away, the amount of light and noise produced would still affect the animals.Tawny owls hunt by listening for the movements that mice, and other small mammals make-blaring music, screaming sports fans, and the sound of padel balls will hardly be conducive to this.The ecological report says that "the existing hardstanding and amenity grassland providing few, ifany, opportunities for faunal species" which is in some measure true-however there is an ancienthedgerow even closer to David Lloyd's which does certainly support life. The meadow may nothave any protected species, but its biodiversity is extremely promising for a meadow that wasmanaged for sports only eight years ago. Meadow is a very important habitat for manyendangered species, from butterflies to flowers to ground nesting birds. The amount of meadowwe have in the UK is quickly dwindling, giving all the more reason to protect what little we have.

The argument has been made that there have been no bird records directly adjacent to the site.There may be no official records, but based on my extensive local experience of and interactionwith this area I can say I've seen nearly every songbird that we have in Badock's Wood in thehedgerow next to David Lloyd-including blackcaps, greenfinches, and long tailed tits.After making these poor excuses, David Lloyd has said that "in view of this it can be seen thatthere is no loss or diminution of habitat within any of the designated sites as a result of theapplication proposals, neither is it considered that indirect effects such as dust deposition orlighting would cause an adverse impact on these sites or the species for which they aredesignated during the construction phase." If David Lloyd genuinely doesn't believe that increasedlevels of noise, light, dust, and micro-plastic pollution won't adversely affect the wildlife, then theymust have no conception of the basic necessities of life for the animals they are discussing. If theycan't hunt, or sleep, or hide, or have clean water, this will decimate populations-which is especiallybad as we know both amber and red listed species to use this area. Every animal near DavidLloyd will suffer greatly from the noise and light emitted from these changes. As a local nature

reserve, the council has a duty to protect Badock's Wood. If the word of the council meansanything, then they must put a stop to this.

There are already padel courts, the addition of 2 further courts will add even morepollution into the local river when the courts are cleaned affecting the local area with the run offfrom this action will effect both wildlife, pets and the community.

The Flood lighting will effect people who sleep, it will upset the natural light that birds follow toroost, the bright lights are detriment to both surrounding neighbours, aswell as all wild life in thisarea.

I object on the following grounds:

Noise pollution: the area is supposed to be woodland enjoyable for all including as a wildlife refugewhich includes bats which are present in this corner of Badock's wood.

Light Pollution: to immediate neighbouring properties and the area is supposed to be woodlandenjoyable for all including a wildlife refuge which includes bats which are present in this corner ofBadock's wood.

Water pollution: the new outside facility will no doubt be cleaned regularly probably usingchemicals to avoid the build up of alage etc. which will leach into the soild and water tabel down tothe lower Trym river. The area is supposed to be woodland enjoyable for all including wildlife.

I completely object to this proposal. As a dog walker and regular user of Badock'sWoods, I regularly see run off from the DL site which is from the company cleaning using soapywater. I also bring my great grand nephews and nieces to play in the steam but this isn't possiblewhen DL run off is present. The building of Padel Courts etc will only increase the pollution in ourlocal woods.

The addition of the courts will add pollution into the local river from when the courts arecleaned - the local area will become polluted affecting both wildlife, pets and the community

As a user of Badock Woods both for walking by myself and frequently with my grandsonI wish to object to this proposal. I am worried about the inevitable extra discharges into the Trymwhich will make it toxic not only for my grandson to play in but also for wildlife. The woods aresteadily becoming a no go area with drug dealing and fire setting so we don't need any moreadverse conditions for the general public otherwise it will become a wasteland dominated only bythe criminal element in the community.

Badock's Wood is a very precious green space in the city with wildlife including bats inthe area. The noise and light pollution from this development will have a negative impact.

I have serious concerns about the water run off from the site that has not beenaddressed which the new courts have only made worse. The river trym is frequently polluted withrun off and soapy water.

Hi I very strongly object to this clearly dodgy venture of this gym group. Seekingretrospective approval is not how things are properly done and they obviously don't care aboutlocal residents views but most importantly about the wildlife! (just profits!). My main concern issince they have opened those courts the run off from the courts and pollution into the river hasbeen terrible- there is always white soapy/scum in the river which is horrific for the wildlife andconservation of the area- they should be ashamed of themselves! I now don't bring my dog downthe river due to pollution concerns.Moreover the noisy games & floodlighting will be terrible for nocturnal/shy animals.Dear Bristol city council - Please, please, please reject this application if you care anything aboutnature and the environment- in a climate emergency everyone that destroys or harms wildlifeshould be held accountable!Many thanks

I am concerned about the impact of noise and flood lighting on wildlife here

As a dog walker in Badock's woods I have witnessed pollution clearly coming from theDavid Lloyd run off channel, pouring foamy polluted water into the river Trym. Earlier this year, Isent videos and made a complaint to Wessex Water and The Environment Agency.

I object to the retrospective planning application submitted by David Lloyd on twocounts.

Firstly, and most importantly, the creation of these facilities has and will further exacerbate thepollution into the River Trym in Badocks Wood, already regularly filled with what appears to becleaning fluids seemingly discharged from the club. Additional outdoor facilities require additionalcleaning and David Lloyd does not appear to have made provision for the safe disposal of any byproducts of their cleaning processes. Wildlife, families and dogs being walked in the woods are allat risk from contaminated water.

Secondly, to build the facilities without having firstly received planning consent shows a flagrantdisregard for the appropriate procedures. Something that a business on this scale should be wellaware.

I would like to object to the courts opened by David Lloyd, due to concerns about noise,chemical and light pollution on the local environment. The Badock's woods have been adverselyaffected by the opening of the courts, particularly the water quality. The Trym river is a habitat forwildlife and there is a forest nursery school based at Westbury wildlife park further downstreamwhich could also be affected. For our children and animals please can you seek to rectify thisharmful situation which has been done without regard for local residents- animals and human.

Applying in retrospect is as good as them admitting that they knew planning wouldn't beapproved. The wash off and out fall directly feed into Baddocks wood an area used by dogWalkers, children and a haven for wildlife. It's simply not acceptable.

I'm worried about the impact on local wildlife especially pollution of the river Trym inBadocks Wood that the site backs on to. Washing the new courts with chemicals will run offdirectly into the river and pollute it further.The floodlighting will also cause further light pollution over what is a rare spot on dark area overthe woods in an urban environment.The UK is one of the world's worst ranked for natural species extinction. If we continue to say yesto these corporate driven developments then where is the space for any of the nature and future ofour natural world.The gym is big enough and turns enough of a profit. They are already redeveloping Horfieldleisure centre. The adverse sequelae for the local population and wildlife outweighs the financialbenefits to the shareholders of the David Lloyd group.

I object to the retrospective application for permission for the paddel courts construction.The courts are noisier than the tennis courts and I am concerned about the impact of the noiseand light pollution on the surrounding wildlife. I understand there is artificial turf which will causemicroplastics and soapy water to be washed into the stream causing the pollution we are seeingmore often in Badocks Wood. This is a well used and much loved area of nature. David Lloydhave shown disregard for the local community and the neighbouring wildlife area in building thiswithout planning permission.

Dear Kayna,A heartfelt plea to please reconsider David Lloyds paddle court plans. I have lived near the woodsfor 60 years and am seeing the result of man's inconsideration for what remains of our dwindlingwildlife habitats and its inhabitants. Cuckoos used to stop over in the woods. I've seen a snipe,Golden Oriole, ( rare visitor here), owls, willow warbler ( from sub Saharan Africa, which is trulyamazing) and many nighttime creatures . Please research how moths are affected byinappropriate lighting. It needs to be understood. This year is the worst I have seen in respect ofthe reduced amount of bird and insect life. It is very depressing . Please don't let profit from largeorganisations take precedence over our precious Nature Reserve.Yours sincerely and hopefullyJo West

I am a local resident who has walked my dogs in Badock's Wood and around the formerplaying field adjacent to the David Lloyd site for the past 45 years.

I strongly object to the retrospective application regarding this padel court on the followinggrounds:

- Noise pollution. The courts are adjacent to an important wildlife corridor, namely the ancienthedgerow next to the large open field. This area was left to the council to form an area of quietrecreation. The constant noise from the use of the courts is a disturbance to both wildlife andpeople. The use should be curtailed from 8pm to 8pm rather than the current suggested hours of10pm to 6pm.

- Light pollution. The lights are already causing disturbance to creatures that rely on dusk anddarkness for their feeding habits. Bats will be disturbed both by light and noise. Badgers will alsobe disturbed.

- Water pollution. The Trym already suffers from soapy run off down the gulley into the Trym fromthe pipe from David Lloyd. Despite frequent complains nothing has been done about this. Theaddition of the artificial grass will make this worse as this will require cleaning, and will also be asource of microsplastics leading into the Trym.

I have spoken to former users of the woods who are now avoiding the area due to such pollutionincidents and associated problems for children and dogs. If this continues, there will be a declinein footfall that will allow the current phase of antisocial behaviour such as the recent burnings ofescooters and ebikes.

I fully support all the detailed comments made by Friends of Badock's Woods, and urge therejection of this application, or at the very least, the imposition of more stringent conditions. Pleaserefer this application to the full committee rather than determining by officers alone.

Please do not succumb to the standard big business approach of 'build now, ask permission later'as they are fully aware that this strategy gives them a higher chance of being able to keep whatthey have done without conditions as there is a natural reluctance to order time and buildings to berolled back to their former state. Please take the only correct stand here which is to protect thelocal amenity for all users of a beautiful natural space, rather than erring on the site of theprivileged few who can afford a large sum of money to play a noisy game which just happens to bethe latest fad. Please put the interests of local wildlife (who cannot speak for themselves or lodgeobjections) above the demands of a large business who are simply seeking to maximise theiralready large revenue.

On principle this retrospective application for an intrusion into a sensitive natural area ofpublic space should be subject to a high bar of public good, and only approve if correspondingrestitution to the environment is demonstrated.This appears not to be the case, therefore the application should be refused.

I strongly object to the panel courts construction.Baddocks wood is an oasis of calm in this busy urban area.Thr padded courts are noisy during to the balls hitting the glass. There is light pollution from thefloodlights.Artificial grass produces microfibers into the atmosphere.So many volunteers have strived to keep this area for birds and wildlife, as well as for people.David Lloyd's sports centre want to destroy all of this. Please withdraw planning permission.

I am a frequent user of the Woods. Like many people in the area I walk my dog therebefore and after work, averaging 1.5 hrs per day.

I object to the application due to the increased pollution of light and noise and the disruption of thewildlife, and our enjoyment of this precious space.

The woods are home to bats, owls, badgers, rabbits, foxes, and numerous songbirds.

They are a major contributor to the health and wellbeing of people in the local area.

The David Lloyd gym is the main source of noise pollution already with its cooling system.

Please don't allow them to add to this. This little island of nature is virtual for my mental health.

I strongly object to the proposal of the application for the said two padel courts,socialarea and associated flood lighting.The reason being is that it would cause more problems for all the residents living along

side of the David Lloyd property.The noise ,loud sounds and light pollution is bad enough now and with what is

happening at this point now.When David Lloyd first applied for permission to build the sports complex they

promised to be good neighbours to the nearby residents and caused no problemswhatsoeverThey have in my opinion gone back on their word, they even have allowed a car wash

company to set up a business washing cars right along the boundaries of the car parkright in front of residential housing.David Lloyd are NOT good neighbours and should not be allowed to cause any more

damage or harm to neighbours, me being one of them

Your sincerely

I am again objecting to this planning application because organisations such as DavidLloyd knew full well that they were trying to bulldoze through a retrospective decision in theirfavour. As others have commented, the proximity to Badocks cannot be changed and themiserable extra lighting they propose as well as the late night noise should not be encouraged inan area where it will affect so many people close by. The effect on wild life that is so important inan area that is largely buildings and tarmac has not been respected. Lloyd's already have theirsports centre for those who wish to engage in healthy sport and exercise and they are trying toweasel their way through hoping that a planning committee will just roll over. I am all for sensibleplans and not just a tree hugger but am against rich organisations lack of respect andconsideration. Lloyds should not bleat that they didn't know the rules on planning (!) and shouldn'tget away with it.

There are a number of issues with the Ecological Report submitted by David Lloyd withregards to the Badock's Wood site.

The Ecological Report states that the Badock's Wood LNR is 200 metres from the David Lloydsite. While it is true that the LNR starts further away from the David Lloyd site, the meadow (theformer playing field) and the ancient hedgerows are part of the original Badock's bequest and area part of Badock's Wood. Therefore Badock's Wood is not 200 metres away, but is immediatelyadjacent to the David Lloyd site. The ecological report misleadingly refers to the ancient hedgerowand recently developed meadow as "scrub and existing vegetation," as a "vegetation bandconnecting to Badock's Wood," and a "corridor of trees connecting to Badock's Wood," rather thanacknowledging that they are an integral part of Badock's Wood and the original Badock's bequest.A look at a map of Badock's Wood or a satellite photo of it will easily dispel the misconceptioncreated by this terminology.

Noise and light pollution will affect this part of Badock's Wood, which has been developed forwildlife in recent years with the council's approval, including planting a tree copse and plantingnative wild plug plants in the meadow space, helping the meadow to move away from its previoushistoric use as a playing field.

While the report correctly states that this part of Badock's Wood is not a roosting site for bats, itdoes not take into account the affect of light pollution on the insect population of the meadow andhedgerows. Light pollution can be devastating for insect populations and both bats and songbirds,as insect predators, will be affected. Although the ecological survey correctly notes that the site isnot a roosting site for bats, the hedgerow is a foraging habitat for bats, and is thus equallyprotected with roosting habitats.

The damage to the insect population will also have an impact on the songbird population. Manyamber-listed bird species (and two red-listed bird species) are known to use Badock's Wood. Anumber of these are found in the hedgerow or meadow habitat immediately adjacent to DavidLloyd. Songbird chicks depend almost exclusively on insect food, even when the adults can eatother foods, and the decrease in insect populations will negatively impact the ability of thesongbirds to successfully rear and fledge their chicks, decreasing the songbird population.

Furthermore, the ecological report does not address the issue of the impact of microplastics fromthe new padel court surfacing running into the Trym, which may impact the critically endangeredEuropean eel which lives in its waters.

The ecological report correctly states that "Any assessment should not judge sites in isolation fromothers, since several habitats may combine to make it worthy of importance to natureconservation." However the report does not appear to abide by this guideline, since it considersthe part of Badock's Wood adjacent to the site as if it were in isolation from that part of Badock'sWood which is a designated LNR.

Thus it is my opinion that the ecological report commissioned by David Lloyd does not giveadequate weight to several impacts of the new padel courts on the Badock's Wood site in itsentirety.

It is thus my opinion that the improvement to that fraction of the community which can afford theplatinum membership required to access the padel courts (rather than the previously existingtennis courts) is outweighed by the damage to Badock's Wood and its inhabitants, including manydeclining species.

I am very concerned about this retrospective application. It is at best bad practice not toseek approval ahead of a development that may attract valid objection. In this case, this includesfelling mature trees, grubbing out hedges, installing objectionable levels and extended times oflighting, and installing facilities creating extra noise in the area, especially late in the evening. Atworst it is a deliberate attempt to override the proper planning processes and opportunities forconsultation by building first and seeking approval later, in the hope of a fait accompli.

Badocks Wood, adjoining the David Lloyd site, is not just a beautiful area of trees, which somemay see as a pleasant but unimportant optional feature, but a piece of something now rare -ancient woodland - a home for a wide variety of wildlife, much of it nocturnal and sensitive. It istreasured by many of us in the local community, and the development of enhanced facilities formembers of the Leisure Club has not taken account of the needs of the wider community whoreside in or near the wood, whether human or wild.

The padel courts have been built with strong and intrusive lighting, which disturbs neighbours andwildlife alike, who all require darkness in the night hours, for adequate sleep in the case of humansand hunting for food by many other species.

I sincerely hope the Committee will feel able to use its powers to turn down an application madewith such disregard to the wider good, in its manner and its detail.

On the face of it, this retrospective Application appears to be based purely on commercial greed,with little or no consideration for the light pollution and noise inflicted on the Club's near-neighbours and the local wildlife.

Unfortunately, large commercial concerns, such as David Lloyd Clubs have "deep pockets" andvast sums of money to spend on planning consultants, lobbyists, lawyers and public-relationsexperts.

Just look at the weighty 12-page "Design and Access Statement" and the 20-page "PlanningStatement" submitted with this Application. Both are stuffed full of ingratiating weasel wordsattempting to pull the wool over the eyes of BCC's Planning Officers by way of justifying anapplication by the back door, ie it is for work already completed without planning permission.

However, if opponents do manage to persuade our Council's Planners to refuse this application,the developers will appeal (something local residents can't do if it is approved) and if that fails,they will simply put in a new, modified application.

It's a war of attrition!

Therefore, this RETROSPECTIVE Application should be refused - for the sake of the near-neighbours and, perhaps far more importantly, the disastrous effects on the local wildlife.

However, if Planning Officers are minded to approve this Application, it should be conditioned tonot only cover the management of the trees and associated green infrastructure, it should also

include conditions restricting when the facilities can be used, plus proscriptive - enforceable -restrictions on noise and light pollution.

2 of 2

Friends of Badock’s Wood has been removing this plant from Badock’s Wood for years to prevent it impacting on native species. It is listed in the Badock’s Wood Management Plan as an invasive non-native species which should be removed, and we continue to do so. A recent work party in early 2024 had to remove some Wilson’s Honeysuckle from the woodland as it was starting to encroach on native species again. We have more to remove and strongly object to David Lloyd’s planting plan including this species. Viburnum Daviddii This is yet another non-native plant from China. It too spreads from gardens into the wild and should not be planted where it might seed into wildlife sites. The berries it forms are likely to be attractive to birds which would then transfer the seeds in Badock’s Wood and we will have yet another task to control this plant and it should not be in the planting plan. Elaeagnus x ebbengei This is a garden hybrid with its origins in Korea and Japan. Again this is not suitable for planting in this wildlife area. The fruits would be eaten by birds and likely to spread this plant into Badock’s Wood. This plant produces a seed and it is not sterile and therefore its seeds could be transferred to Badock’s Wood. Furthermore, since it is a hybrid we do not know what the progeny of those seeds would be like and whether they have their own invasive characteristics. Any replacement planting of the trees and shrubs removed by David Lloyd should be native plants only to make a positive contribution to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

David Lloyd has destroyed metres of established trees and hedges to build the padelcourts, with no plan to replant or address the damage to wildlife or to collaborate with Friends ofBadocks Wood.

I back Friends of Badocks Wood's objection to this plan - please see their submission. I endorse it.

The padel courts are an amazing addition to the only sports and health facilities in thearea. The social and wellbeing opportunities which are also provided cannot be under estimated.

There was already a court on this space, and the tiny amount of bramble that was removed wouldhave insignificant impact on wildlife given the high level of existing activity in that area.

Any potential concerns about light pollution could easily be addressed with timers fitted to the floodlights and hoods around the fixings; but I notice that the flood lights are already relatively short, sowould imagine impact is low.

I feel the Paddle courts should stay so the younger generation can have the opportunityto play the game locally

Dear Bristol Planning Committee,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed extension of Padel courts and Spafacilities at David Lloyd Westbury, Bristol. Following the updated application, I raise a concern forthe choice of non-native plants for the landscaping of the proposed.

This choice of planting has a ripple effect throughout the ecosystem, affecting not just plant life,but also the insects, birds, and other wildlife that rely on native plants for food and habitat. Theycan alter soil chemistry and can often be more resistant to local pests and diseases, giving theman unfair advantage over native species. Due to this choice the urban areas are turning to a monoculture of Viburnum Davidii and Lonicera Nitida; reducing overall biodiversity.

The choice of non-native plants (of which two are chosen only) is in direct contradiction to themany concerns expressed by local residents about the impact of the proposed extension on localnature and demonstrates David Lloyd's and Bristol City Council's distain for opinions, concernsand the green city we all call home.This is consistent with ignoring BCC's own Biodiversity Action Plan under the to "Promotebiodiversity conservation as an essential element of sustainable development".

I urge the planning committee to reconsider the landscaping plans for the proposed extension -why is Bristol not inspiring the UK or world with a commitment to preserving and enhancing localbiodiversity just has it has with other important social and cultural topics.

Thank you for considering my objection.

I have received your letter dated 14 March and immediately checked your website toview the revised details of this application.I am concerned that there is not any revised details concerning the flood lighting on these padelcourts.These flood lights still shine very brightly into our windows at night and this has been worse by thecutting back of the trees surrounding these courts.There has been some objections regarding the extra traffic using this leisure club, but no mentionthat the bus service that could reduce some of this traffic has been removed.

I have read the "Supporting Document" entitled Ground Level Tree Assessment and it isnot about trees as such - it is about bat roosts.My comments' following the recently submitted documents remain - it is clear that the David Lloydcompany removed trees that they owned, and allegedly some that they did not own, to facilitatethis development. The number of trees they removed should be assessed and mitigation for theirloss insisted upon. Their actions show a flagrant disregard for planning regulation and a disregardfor the amenity provided by the local green infrastructure. The Friends of Badock Wood havewritten eloquently on this Application. Despite the length of their submission there is not a wastedword. If ever there was a case for the enforcement of planning regulation then this is it. There is afeeling of a creeping destruction of the quality of life for those who have the misfortune to liveclose by this establishment, be they human or animal.

This is already a very busy are now. More traffic congestion, noise pollution and morenoise from the leisure facility. This will cause further disturbance to my residence. Cars are alreadyparking on the curbs around the facility.

I understand that trees have already been cut down before Retrospective PlanningPermission was sought. I am extremely concerned about the impact of noise and light pollution onthe nocturnal wildlife of Badock's Wood. This small Gem of a wood should be cherished andprotected by The City Council. The Woods survival and development is remarkable and increasingDavid Lloyds profits must not be allowed to diminish this wonderful habitat in anyway.

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

I am concerned about the impact on the environment and the residents living in the areaof the site. I have read about the wildlife which lives in the nearby area, Badocks wood and theneighbouring vegetation and I cannot agreevwith David Lloyd that they can keep the disturbanceto a minimum, with flood lighting and increased use of this space. Whilst I sympathise with DavidLloyd rhat they want offer their members greater facilities I cannot support their application.

The courts are well hidden and very popular. Bristol is becoming a top venue for thisnew sport. As a 62 year old man it is fantastic for health of over 50s being smaller than tennis. Isupport the courts.

The floodlighting adds to the already heavy light pollution affecting Badock's Woods.Songbirds are singing late at night when they should be sleeping; this will affect their ability tosurvive the winter and to reproduce in the spring. It is also disturbing the many other species wholive in the woods, reducing their survival and contributing to biodiversity loss. Therefore the lightsshould not be used on these courts.

The removal of trees and vegetation have also contributed to the damage done to this LocalGreen Space and its wildlife. At the very least there should be a replanting scheme which includesthe replacement of the trees lost.

Noise and lighting levels from this development are having a negative impact on thesurrounding environment and the wildlife present in Badocks Wood .

Please keep the padel courts!

Padel is a game that has exploded in popularity across the UK with many centresopening up around Bristol. However, there are non available in the immediate area. It is importantthat the resource be kept for use.I support placing restrictions on the hours of use and lighting, but there is no reason for thewithdrawal of the facilities.

The Padel courts are very good and shouldn't be removed

Very good use of space! No neighbours close! Lights not facing houses! No noise!Amazing for our members and local community!

Friends of Badock's Wood OBJECTS strongly to this proposal and has submitted adetailed objection to the proposal including a lot of wildlife information.This is just to clarify forother readers of the planning documents, that the City Council has advised us that "the publicversion has been redacted to protect information about the protected species, such as sightingsand habitat locations etc." This is why there are large areas of black in the document!

The paddle courts are very popular and many people are enjoying it! Great use of space

The light pollution coming from the flood lights at the David Lloyd ctr is appalling - ourgarden backs on to baddocks wood at the Doncaster road end of lake road, and the garden is nowbathed in light all night, the back bedroom is flooded with light and it is disturbing everyone's rest!

Our garden is now bathed in light all night from the flood lighting that is never turned off- we have had to move from the back bedroom because it is so disturbing

I Support the Padel courts at David Lloyd Westbury

2 of 14

Summary of our OBJECTIONS

1. Adverse Impact on local wildlife and no ecological survey of any sort2. Adverse Impact on enjoyment of Badock’s Wood site by the local community (impact on Amenity)3. Lighting impacts4. Noise impacts5. Contrary to Local Plan Policies BG1, BG2, BG3, BG4 and NZC16. Increased traffic and parking issues

If planning permission is to be given CONDITIONS need to be added:

Proposed CONDITIONS1. Lighting to be in the wildlife friendly spectrum not standard LED2. Lighting to be reduced in height to prevent external off-site spillage by using more columns at a lower

height.3. Lighting not to operate outside of operating hours of David Lloyd Club4. Restrict hours of play on the padel courts to limit noise impacts on neighbouring sites, particularly at

the start and end of the Club’s opening hours.5. Restrict maximum permitted dB at different times of the day to reflect the low dB ambient noise

levels.6. No amplified music that can be heard beyond the curtilage of the site7. Proposal needs to comply with Local Plan policies BCS14 and BCS15 and BG1, BG2, BG3, BG48. Proposal needs to comply with Local Plan policies on Net Zero and Climate Change, NZC1 and David

Lloyd’s own sustainability policies – including removal of electric patio heaters. We note that theapplicant themselves has referred to this Local Plan accepting that it has weight prior to its adoption.

9. Proposal needs to comply with BG1 which does not permit artificial grass10. Acoustic roof and walls need to be installed in order to significantly reduce any sound escape from the

site11. Proposal needs to comply with BG1 and add green infrastructure such as green walls, roofs,

sustainable urban drainage, etc.

3 of 14

Wildlife Impacts, Nature Recovery and the Ecological EmergencyBadock’s Wood is the immediate neighbour of David Lloyd Greystoke Avenue to the South.

Badock’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 new Local Planas Local Green Space. The whole of the site is Local Green Space of the highest quality because it meets all 5criteria 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 one of just 11 sites across the whole of Bristol that scored on all of these criteria. Bristolhas hundreds of Green Open Spaces listed for protection in the Local Plan so to be one of only 11 to meet all5 criteria is an indication of just how special this site is.

Badock’s Wood and the green spaces around it all form part of a wildlife corridor and these provideprotection and a buffer for the wildlife in the SNCI. Hedgerows are key natural features that provideimportant habitat, nesting and foraging sites and are particularly important in wildlife corridors.

The David Lloyd site is already the major source of pervasive industrial noise and light pollution to nature onthe BW site; these developments can only make that worse. The industrial noise of plant from the DavidLloyd site is very intrusive and constant.

The applicant has failed to undertake any form of environmental or ecological impact assessment. Thereforewe, Friends of Badock’s Wood, will provide wildlife and other environmental information to put their site andthis application into the appropriate context for its location.

Starting with the applicant’s Planning Application Form.

The applicant has answered “no” on the Planning application Form to the question “Are there trees orhedges on the proposed development site?” That being the case one has to question why David Lloyd hasremoved trees and hedges from the area if they were none within the development site? The applicant hastherefore removed trees from outside of the development site in order to facilitate the development.Similarly the application for the spa garden on the same David Lloyd site a few metres from this proposeddevelopment, has been criticised strongly by the Council’s arboricultural representative who feels that, thatapplication has an inadequate tree protection plan. This disregard for the nature both within and withoutthe site is of concern. If the spa garden proposal was to go ahead as proposed, the likely harm to the on sitetrees, or even extensive pruning which is suggested by the Council’s response as something that might be anundesirable outcome, could increase the intrusion of the activities from both developments in terms ofnoise, light etc without the trees acting as buffers.

We can see NO mention in this application of the site being adjacent to an important public open space andwildlife habitat. There is no ecological impact report and this needs to be properly assessed before anyplanning permissions are determined.

The field adjacent to the David Lloyd site is managed for wildlife andis not in use as a playing field, identified by the City Council in 2022as a site for greater management for wildlife under their Managingfor Nature project. An update of the Badock’s Wood ManagementPlan is being finalised and should include the nature managementregime. However, a casual visitor to the site can immediately seethat this is clearly not a playing field and would not be suitable forsports use. See photo – which also clearly shows a nest site in a treeadjacent to the proposed spa garden site (the subject of anotherseparate application for this site which together with thisapplication will have a negative effect on the wellbeing of both thewildlife and the human users of Badock’s Wood.

11 of 14

Climate ImpactsThe use of Artificial Grass which is proposed in this application is contrary to the Local Plan policies and is notpermitted. Not only are the padel courts covered in blue artificial grass , but we understand a large socialarea has also been covered in white artificial grass as part of the development, in an area not being used forsport.

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 the provision ofprivate or communal open space.”

SustainabilityOutdoor Heating

The Planning Statement makes no mention of patio heater lamps in its description of the social area nor inthe Design and Access Statement (though they are shown in the indicative photos) and no mention is madeof them anywhere in the application.

Installation of patio heaters is completely unsustainable, inappropriate and contrary to the Local Plan Policyon Net Zero and Climate change, such as NZC1: Climate change, sustainable design and construction.

There is nothing about the energy and carbon cost of these and these heaters contradict the applicant’sSustainability policies and assertion that David Lloyd will achieve Net Zero by 2030. Patio heaters are not theway to do that, especially with no on site renewables.

These heat lamps are completely unsustainable and unethical in the current climate emergency. Theseshould not be on any part of the site and if members want to sit outside, the current thinking in sustainablebusinesses is to provide throws and hot drinks to keep people warm, not climate busting electric patioheaters and alcohol. That would be the sustainable thing to do and would be in line with the company’savowed intention to achieve Net Zero by 2030. See https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/david-lloyd-leisure-press/sustainability-release and David Lloyd company’s stated sustainability commitment- https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/news/sustainability-commitment

If the padel courts were indoor courts – either replacing other existing indoor courts as has been the case atother David Lloyd sites, or constructing an acoustic box around the new padel courts, then there would be noneed for either artificial grass nor floodlighting and the impacts on the neighbours and the wildlife habitatswould be minimised.

Site DrainageThe planning application form states that surface water will be disposed of through “sustainable drainagesystem” but there is nothing in their plans or associated documents relating to site drainage.

Currently run off from the David Lloyd car park, and presumably other outdoor areas, drain into the surfacedrains. The run off is channelled through a pipe underneath Badock’s Wood and down an outfall (an artificialwaterfall) into the River Trym, close to where it leaves Badock’s Wood and enters the Westbury Wildlife Parksite. This channel has been the cause of a number of pollution incidents, particularly related to the car washdischarges. There are still water quality issues from the run off from the David Lloyd site – with one surveyrecording “the runoff channel itself was heavily covered in algae and contained a soapy solution” and “[thewaterfall was] heavily covered in algae suggesting high nutrient concentrations promoting algal growth, thiscould pose future issues of eutrophication and deoxygenation”. The algae on the outfall is clearly visible as itis a brighter green than any of the other areas and is often remarked upon by visitors. Anything whichincreases this pollution of the River Trym would not be acceptable. Having a plastic surface (the artificialgrass) draining into the river would bring with it micro plastic pollution as there will be small amounts of the

13 of 14

Planning ContextThe applicant chooses to highlight the following points in their Planning Statement:“Principle of Development6.2 The NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] recognises the importance of sports and recreationfacilities as key mechanisms which can promote ‘healthy and safe communities’ (Chapter 8). The Frameworkstates that planning policies should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which:“enable andsupport healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs –for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops,access to healthier food, allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling.”6.3 Chapter 8 of the NPPF continues to highlight the importance of having “access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity” for the well-being and health ofcommunities.

6.4 At the local level, Core Strategy Policy BCS12 (Community Facilities) supports the retention andenhancement of recreation and sports facilities. Policy DM14 (The Health Impacts of Development) promotesdevelopment which will enable healthy lifestyles and good access to health facilities, in turn, improving thehealth and wellbeing of the local population.

6.5 Core Strategy Policy BCS20 (Effective and Efficient Use of Land) seeks to maximise pportunities toreuse previously developed land.”

However, whilst Friends of Badock’s Wood would strongly support the concept of healthy lifestyles, especiallyin an outdoor environment, the club is promoting the “social area” next to the padel courts as a sports barwhere they will offer burgers and half price beer – a far cry from healthy lifestyles. The applicant may seek toargue that the sale of alcohol supports the sporting activities and is necessary for their business. David Lloydis not a struggling business and their own reports show strong financial viability:https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/-/media/david-lloyd/files/accounts/david-lloyd-clubs-half-year-trading-statement-sept-2023.pdf?la=en&hash=BD4DA804D219CE73632157F153E484F9ED9FA263

Similarly they refer to the importance of having access to a network of high quality open spaces, with whichwe concur. But David Lloyd’s club does not offer this nor propose anything which would improve anyone’saccess to high quality open spaces. Moreover, their proposal has in fact walled in open space with glasswalls, it is not a high quality open space and as a private members club which draws very few of itsmembership from Southmead it is not providing any significant improvement for the health and well being ofthe local population. Not causing a detriment to the free enjoyment of the adjacent public open green spacethrough the undoubted impacts of the padel courts, music and external TV and socialising area wouldachieve far more for the local population, both human and wildlife.

The references to “accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food,allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling” is baffling. The cost of being a member of theDavid Lloyd private members club does not make it “accessible”, allotments and local shops are irrelevantand especially given that members are not primarily drawn from the local community of Southmead

In addition only the highest price membership categories will have padel access included in the membershipcosts. The basic membership levels that start at around £1000 a year do not even include access to anyracquets facilities on offer within the clubs. https://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/memberships/

The Planning Statement states this development is “in response to Members’ needs” however it has beenwidely reported in the press that the David Lloyd company wants to position itself in the UK as a majorprovider of padel courts and to that end have even been replacing squash courts in some of its sites withpadel courts.

14 of 14

Their Statement says:“6.8 Furthermore, the proposal site currently represents significantly under-utilised land within theapplicant’s ownership. Paragraph 119 of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy BCS20 outlines that planningdecisions should promote an effective use of land, making as much use as possible of previously developedland. This proposal seeks to enhance the use of an already developed site and makes efficient use of land byreplacing an underused tennis court with two padel courts.

6.9 Considering the national and local policy position above, the proposal for enhancing and increasingthe sports and recreational facilities at this site via the development increases Members’ access to a varietyof sport and recreational uses and therefore, is supported in principle and accords with the requirements ofthe NPPF, Local Plan and emerging Local Plan.”

They are really stretching credulity here. The site they refer to, absolutely does not represent “significantlyunder-utilised land”. What they have done is place the two courts on the site of the tennis court andextended it by cutting down some of the trees / hedges next to the court and the outdoor swimming pool.They have also taken some of the width of the tennis court area to build a heated outdoor bar with widescreen TV for drinking, eating and usage as a sports bar. A cursory look at their submitted site plans make itobvious that there was not, and never has been, a significant area of land there not being used.

In paragraph 6.15 they state “The facilities fall within the existing club boundary and are screenedby extensive vegetation on the site’s western boundary.” Given that this document was created after theclub had already cut down a number of trees and hedges that constituted “extensive vegetation” around thecourt it really very disingenuous to say this. Of course what needs to happen, as other objectors andcomments on this application have also stated, is for the trees and hedges to be reinstated as soon aspossible.

The objection from Westbury on Trym Society hasincluded these photos taken from the public footpathto illustrate this point.

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.

It is unbelievable that DL did not know they had to get planning permission forfloodlighting. Also for altering the premises by installing padel courts. The planning committee isurged to show they have teeth and are willing to insist on the rules. This company is flagrantlydisregarding neighbouring residents. If they had applied for planning permission then anenvironmental investigation would be done which would have included the consideration of theproximity of Badocks Wood. I presume this is what they wished to avoid and hope that theplanning committee would just roll over and give the retrospective permission. Local governmentdoesn't or shouldn't work like that. The committees are there for a purpose for everyone'swellbeing. Maybe they could consider making the company totally dismantle what they haveillegally built?

It has now transpired that DL have also forgotten to apply for planning for 5 Padelcourts, social area and floodlighting at Ellemere Port. see local news report. I am reallyworried that this will not be all.

They say that too was a mistake

* DL have the use of highly knowledgeable and reputable Lichfield agents up and downthe country for their spa applications. Clearly it would have cost next to nothingrelatively speaking to make one simple call to them to ask before embarking on ahundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds project to install padel courts up anddown the country.

* It really beggars belief that such a large organisation with its extensively used planningagents did not think it just might be a good idea to make that relatively cheap and quickcall to their professional and reputable agents before embarking on this programme ofpadel courts. If nothing else it's gross incompetence and given the level of expenditure itmust be quite high up incompetence, Padel courts are not cheap. Reputable Lichfield'swould have immediately been able to say yes it's needed in what would have been arelatively short call - it's not a complex area of planning.

* Moreover, a simple google search tells them that planning is needed for padel.

* Even the man on the street knows that flood lights require planning in a hitherto darkarea.

* Are we really meant to believe that directors of a multi billion pound SPORTScompany are that incompetent? They don't know planning laws around flood lights?They run a sports club. If they are that incompetent they should get new jobs and not bein charge of sports landholdings.

Is it a national embarrassment, wilful ignorance or a deliberate ploy for the so calledpremier sports club. Which on is it?

However given that they had I think hithero close associations with the LTA (via an exdirector Lloyd himself) and in general it seems even harder to believe. Thisorganisation itself provides clear advice that planning is required it is even harder tocomprehend how they did this. They could have called the LTA for goodness sake. Oram I mistaken and they have little to do with the LTA.

What we do know I believe is that DL's proudly announced determination to become theforemost padel provider in the UK.

Planning really need to give consideration as to why they did this without planning andwhether it was deliberate.

To that ends, a really pertinent question is this, having been told by BCC planning thatplanning was needed, what did they do? Did they act with due diligence and integritythereafter and checked their entire land estate and made retrospective planningapplications in all other areas where this might have occurred as soon as informed byLichfields that planning was indeed required. This points to probity and integrity. I assertthat It points to the question of whether this might have been a deliberate acts. If theykept quiet about all their other padel courts assuming they were also built withoutplanning. this says it all in my mind. So what have they done to 'regularise' the situationsince December or are they waiting to be caught out and keeping quiet?

It's not fair to the public impacted by this.

The average non business person might be aware of the inconvenience of havingnoise, lights but they won't know that DL should have or did not apply for planning. It'sup to DL to act with integrity so how long has it been since they discovered theiralleged mistake and what have they done about it? Are they acting now with integrityand 'regularising' the position everywhere. For some people it's not regularising- if Ilived 85 meters away I would be hacked off.

Put simply - have they obtained planning for all their external padel courts. If they have -then why not for Westbury and if they have not, why? They dismiss it as a simplemistake. Whichever way it it - it's really really bad to not care about their communitieslike this.

Given the possible nationwide scale of this a simple 'it was a mistake but after a call tothem … ' it's not good enough. DL should have said we will check each and everypadel court and obtain planning permission if they were not obtained and come clean.There is no way I think to spin this either they got planning for all the other externalpadel courts just not Westbury/ Ellesmere Port - if so why not - or they did not botherwith any of them.

One more point. One would assume that any international padel provider would beaware of developments elsewhere in Europe especially in the Netherlands. I suspectthat this is likely to be a rule that would be adopted elsewhere. The Netherlands haveengaged with truly independent experts in padel noise which are available to be lookedat by BCC planning especially as no doubt DL will engage their noise expert to say nodoubt there is no issues. This was a special task force initiated by Dutch TennisAssociation KNLTB and therefore highly reputable. There were several noise expertsengaged with this guidance. They estimate that padel matches are 20 db louder thantennis matches and in this instance there is double the effect as one tennis court wasreplaced with 2 padel courts. So we have several experts telling us this . TheNetherlands now forbids any padel courts within 100 - 150 meters of housing.The planis to encourage a healthy coexistence between communities and padel.

These padel courts are well within 100- 150 meters of housing.Not nice for those houses yet alone the wildlife and insects they forage on who areimpacted by noise.

My own view is that when a reputable government and authorities such as theNetherlands have done extensive work on the sound of padel using world class expertsin noise this needs to be considered here over any individual noise expert with his basicequipment.

Incidentally DL is also in the Netherlands so must be aware, one assumes/ suspects ofthose rules as well as the increasing need to use methods to silence the court. Thisincludes sound absorbing barriers or different surfaces eg fibre glass instead of iron thatvibrates less etc. That rule can into effect I think in October 2023 but we're beingdeliberated for some time beforehand.

The statement made to the newspapers that a tennis court would require more lightingis I believe a disgrace and shows more contempt I think. I I suspect that there wasnever any flood lighting there for tennis hitherto it was a dark area. I have photos of thepre existing tennis court if required lifted from social media . I can't see any floodlights.It's a complete nonsense of a statement. Again to me, it suggests a lack of integrityeven seeking to spin the reality - it appears to me, in my opinion.

The whole thing is one big shambles.

I have already commentated but wish to add that It has now transpired that DL have also forgottento apply for planning for 5 Padel courts, social area and floodlighting at Ellemere Port. Insusoecrthat this is not the only one. They have been opening up padel courts as quickly as possible.

Are they really suggesting it was a 'mistake?'

* DL have the use of Lichfield agents up and down the country for their spa applications.

* Clearly it would have cost next to nothing to make one simple call to them to ask beforeembarking on a hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds project to install padel courts upand down the country. It really beggars belief that such a large organisation with its extensivelyused planning agents did not make that one call to them.

* Moreover, a simple google search tells them that planning is needed for padel.

* Even the man on the street (yet alone a billion pound organisation with even bigger organisationbehind it - TDR Capital that I believe runs Asda) knows that flood lights require planning in ahitherto dark area. Are we really meant to believe that directors of a multi billion pound companyare that incompetent?

* However given that they had very close associations with the LTA (via an ex director Lloydhimself) this makes it even harder to believe. This organisation ( LTA) itself provides clear advice

that planning is required it is even harder to comprehend how they did this. DL have this closeassociation with the LTA they literally could have run a mate!

It's a national embarrassment or a deliberate ploy for the so called premier sports club.

What we do know is that DL's proudly announced determination to become the foremost padelprovider in the UK. It's easy to become that if you flout planning. In the meantime oddly it appearsthat their competitors seem to have dutifully made planning applications - some rejected . It easyto beat them when they abide by the rules,

Consideration has to be given as to why they did this without planning and whether it wasdeliberate. This puts a different view in this retrospective application.

They have made a mockery of the planning system in the UK and the head of DL should be madeto explain himself to the Minister responsible for planning. How can the public have any faith inplanning if DL get away with this lightly?

One more salient point: One would assume that any international padel provider would be awareof developments elsewhere in Europe especially in the Netherlands. I suspect that this is likely tobe a rule that would be adopted elsewhere. The Netherlands have engaged with severalindependent leading experts in padel noise which are available to be looked at by BCC planningespecially as no doubt DL will engage their noise expert to say no doubt there is no issues. Thiswas a special task force initiated by Dutch Tennis Association KNLTB and therefore highlyreputable. There were several noise experts engaged with this guidance as well as other experts.They estimate that each padel match is 20 db louder than tennis matches and in this instancethere is double the effect as one tennis court was replaced with 2 padel courts. As I understandmatters, the Netherlands now forbids any padel courts within 100 - 150 meters of housing.Theplan is to encourage a healthy coexistence between communities and padel.

These padel courts are well within 100- 150 meters of housing.Not nice for those houses yet alone the wildlife and insects they forage on who are impacted bynoise.

My own view is that when a government and authorities as reputable as the Netherlands havedone extensive work on the sound of padel this needs to be considered here over any individual

noise expert with his basic equipment.

Incidentally DL is also in the Netherlands so must be aware, one assumes of those rules as wellas the increasing need to use methods to silence the court. This includes sound absorbing barriersor different surfaces eg fibre glass instead of iron that vibrates less etc. That rule can into effect Ithink in October 2023.Although maybe they can say they had no idea a bit like planning for flood lights.

Finally , the statement made to the newspapers that a tennis court would require more lighting is Ibelieve a disgrace when I suspect that there was never any flood lighting there for tennis hitherto itwas a dark area. I have photos of the pre existing tennis court if required. I can't see anyfloodlights...? What was the point of that daft statement -along the lines of if we had had tennisfloodlights they would have been brighter? It's treating the public like fools and wrong.It is about aswholesome a statement as the DL suggestion that the car park proposed to be used for a spa wasonly infrequently used by staff.

As owner of a property on Lakewood Crescent , my objection is related to the negativeimpact such an extension would have on the environment of Badock's Wood, which is one of only11 parks and green spaces across the whole of Bristol (out of hundreds) which has beenassessed as meeting all 5 of these Local Green Space criteria;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

Living close to David Lloyd Westbury, it's disappointing that a company that describesits self as "Europe's Premier health company" sort to install these paddle courts without obtainingthe necessary planning permission. It is also disappointing that whilst the site plans indicate localroads, they do not show local footpaths and in particular the footpath which runs along the SouthEast Boundary of the David Lloyd site, which had a line of trees and foliage, some of which hasbeen removed by David Lloyd during the installation of the Paddle Courts.The removal of the trees and foliage from this footpath has had an impact on the noiseexperienced by those walking along the footpath and the lighting is dazzling when walking alongthe path.There is no reference to the trees and foliage that has been removed in the planning statement, noindication that any survey was carried out to establish if any wildlife was habiting these trees andthe lighting survey does not appear to show the impact of the high power lighting on the publicfootpath and wildlife in the area.

The courts have been requested by members to be incorporated into the existing club;The padel courts provide significant enhancements to the existing sporting facilities on-site andsupport health and wellbeing;The Courts don't generate any noise over and above what would normally be expected throughthe use of the tennis courtThe new padel facilities are well located adjacent to the existing Club which provides ease ofaccess for members who are keen on accessing the new facilities; andIn terms of noise, Members tend to be conscientious and are aware of their surroundings.

It is clear from Google Earth imaging and from Google Landscape mapping that therewere/are trees, and a hedge, in very close association with the "new" boundary of this alreadycompleted development.The Westbury on Trym Society has submitted photographs of the situation showing severedbranches.I ask the Planning Officer to consult with the planning department's Tree Officers about the workthat was done to trees without planning consent, so that suitable mitigation can be enforced. Hadplanning consent been requested, one never knows, but maybe Bristol's planning policies onretaining green infrastructure might have been brought in to play, so that the damage caused bythe encroachment on green infrastructure need never have happened. Thank you

Dear All

Amazingly I see that planning have sent out notices to the care home residents andsupported living residents to the front of DL.Many will probably be too frail to comment but the numbers make it seem that peoplehave been notified.

However all the residents in the following cul de sac have not been notified. I attachmeasurement for illustration purposes. Some are just over 300 - 400 feet from thenoise!

I would suggest they they are told before there are complaints about nuisance inSummer

Also - the immediate neighbour have received nothing.

I strongly object to the proposal from DL club on the following groundsI would be affected as my house and garden backs on to the club, the existing noise from theplants is extremely excessive.In the summer months been on many occasions I have unable to enjoy peace in my garden fromthe social events.It would also devalue my property if I were to sell.It would create substantial noise and the quality of my life particularly from the garden. There hasbeen already many complaints made by the residents about the noise level and this extension willmake the noise worse.Communal fields will no longer a peaceful haven for people who go for walks.The nature path with the tree line from the south east of the property would be spoilt and disruptthe sanctuary of the wild life such as badgers bats etc.

As regular visitors to Badock's Wood and users of the pathway running alongside David Lloyd, wethoroughly object to retrospective permission being granted for this development.

David Lloyd, Westbury-on-Trym, sits next to Badock's wood, an ancient woodland and part of theQueens Green Canopy. The woodland extends along various corridors including along the side ofthe David Lloyd site. It is clear that when the original leisure centre development was givenplanning permission this green boundary was considered important and to be maintained. Theunlicensed development of the padel courts has broken this boundary and destroyed an area ofmixed native woodland. Native species of birds, bats and the local badger and fox population havehad part of their habitat destroyed. The once green wall is now an ugly patch of mud with thecorner of a padel court jutting into it and a piece of cheap fencing. The users of the path and localresidents have not been considered in this development.

Local nocturnal wildlife is also affected by the light pollution from the strong flood lights that havebeen installed.

The retrospective nature of their building application is hugely disappointing and sets a dangerousprecedent for construction and development more generally. Organisations should not be grantedpermission for their damaging building work AFTER they have completed it. To do so makes amockery of everything responsible companies and individuals are doing to nurture and protect thenatural world and the quality of our built environment.

We very strongly object to the new proposals from David Lloyd club, as immediateneighbours the existing noise from the industrial plant is already excessive and with additionalfeatures being built the collective noise pollution would be catastrophic for all neighbouringresidential properties and wildlife.

We have bats frequenting our garden and Baddocks wood all year round, the effect of the socialnoise and proposed led lighting would have a grave impact for the bats.

Badgers which have a free run in our gardens as well as the path alongside the David Lloyd cluband Baddocks wood. The proposal will create a massive potential problem for them, they areprotected species under the Wildlife country side act.

The Ecological impact of all the additional LED lights, paddle courts and spa would be a tragedyfor the animals and people for this area.

As immediate neighbours we have already dealt with the club for the noise pollution from socialevent countless of times and if Bristol City does grant them planning permission the noise and

serenity to the public, Baddocks woods as well as the neighbours would have a disastrous affectus all.

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.ukRegistered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 4

Photo 1: view of the south eastern end of the site where vegetation has been cut back

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.ukRegistered Charity Number 265486

Page 3 of 4

Photo2: another view of the south eastern end of the site with tree stump evident.

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.ukRegistered Charity Number 265486

Page 4 of 4

Photo 3: Cleared area on the footpath boundary taken from the public footpath leading toBadocks Wood

Before these padel courts were built the outside space beyond the cafe and bar wasdark and quiet at night times. There was very little lighting and little noise. In essence, it was awildlife sanctuary at night time with just the hum of a generator and the occasional splash from theswimming pool and the few adults swimming in semi darkness. The rear and sides of David Lloydhas a rural feel and bird song was prominent.

DL decided that padel courts were needed. The agent asserts that people at this DL the proposalsaims to address the request of members. This may be true ( I've seen no evidence) but a quicklook at DL complaints suggests that existing members are more concerned about DL being 'oversubscribed' and the impact it has had on parking at DL across the county. For instance, a DaleCurtis complained about this specific Westbury site 'this particular DL is always busy and it wasdifficult to find a parking space in the car park.' That was said months ago before the padel courtswere even built. It's in the DL reviews. DL just thanked him for his review. Without doubt parking isa huge issue for members (source DL complaints on Facebook). People generically complain thatDL is always full but still they 'cram' more members in. As one person said at Northwood theyhave 10,000 members but certainly don't have 10,000 car parking spaces. The car park at Dundeeis also disgraceful, cars parked dangerously. Newbury has had to introduce car park marshalling.Several people I know have personally complained to me about parking at DL Westbury. Onemember said she was thinking of parking at her work place next door but decided it would bewrong. She waited for a space. Another one said that she parked at the Greenway Centre. Thatwas 2 Fridays ago. Is this right and fair?

Members are also upset about the poor infrastructure and cold showers they complain about thatweekly.

People are also concerned and indeed have complained this week on Facebook - 'DL Complaints'about tennis courts being taken away and replaced with padel courts - 'after all it is a tennis clubnot a padel court club' some upset member remarked in Trafford. Someone was upset about whathad happened in Heston. In Exeter one person complained about losing their 'show courts'. YetDL have asserted in all planning applications that the members want these padel courts? Isn't thetruth they want to use them to attract even more members in a corporate greedy way to turn sellDL to the highest bidder? It is for sale.

DL did not make a planning application for these padel courts until forced to. However, I'm notentirely sure that DL have made application for padel across the UK - for instance was one evenmade for Southampton West End? Yet padel courts and flood lights are there? This is wrong verywrong to ignore planning like this. It seems to indicate a break down in planning awareness from amultibillion pound company who would have known better. It's not like they had had no previousenforcement issues before eg with a non planned car wash business in the car park etc. I firmlybelieve that this was no oversight given that they have Lichfields Agents working for them all overthe UK and had issues with planning hitherto! This was a deliberate policy I believe to get thr padelcourts installed speedily and hope to wing it.

If they get planning due to fait accompli, in essence this action has rewarded them as they havechopped down hedging and imposed lights in a way that I doubt would have been allowed hadthey not been erected beforehand. It will now be a brave planning office who disallows thisapplication as the padel courts are there.

Also only a few houses were notified yet this impacts more Southmead/ WOT as the lights can beseen from a distance. Why was that?

My objections are

* Lack of parking and traffic. I asset that David Lloyd has developed beyond the capacity of thecurrent site.

David Lloyd WOT already has insufficient parking spaces for existing membership use. Over thelast few years it has increased its membership from about 6000 to at least 7400. ( Source thegeneral managers bio) Members are parking on the grass verges, under trees and on the doubleyellow lines in the car park. This has been evidenced by photographs. Some people have evenbeen parking at the Greenway Centre. This situation has been caused due to the exponentialgrowth of memberships and loss of some parking spaces to a car wash business. It has also beencaused by DL's own business model in which it loudly and proudly proclaims to would be investorsand land investors that it wants to encourage a longer 'dwell time'. It's a life style club and it wantsits members to not only exercise there but remain to work and eat there. More dwell ensures more

loyalty to the club as well as more sales of food/ drink. Thus, several car parking spaces areoccupied by people on laptops all day. Tens of parking spaces occupied by people bedding in forthe day to do a bit of gym, spa and then hang around the cafe. Also DL loudly proclaim toinvestors how members once made 1.1 visit per week but one make 1.6 visits per week in manylocations and hence they have had to add in more classes in many locations. They encourage thisas it adds to food and beverage sales.

Given the number of members and their number of expected visits there is not enough carparking.

Members tend to drive and not to walk or cycle so there are a lot of cars.

*The ongoing existence of the padel courts have made a bad situation a dire situation. This isbecause the padel courts will act an additional attraction that will increase the membership,increase the flow of people and cars daily into the club. People will also be encouraged to stay ordwell longer and this will reduce the number of car parking spaces available to others. Moreoverthe padel courts have a social area that encourages people to arrive early and stay later to watchother people playing. They have even organised a social padel court group event. This is theirdetermined plan to expand the social area into the outside at night, Again this will significantlyimpact parking spaces available to other members and cause stress and endanger other membersespecially the disabled and young children with their inconsiderate parking eg in double yellowlines. Members park on the double yellow lines around the car park restricting visibility. Things willworsen in Summer when people cluster around the courts and stay for longer drinking beer etc.

Things will be extremely unmanageable/ dangerous to road users if DL was to hold padel courttournaments. This can never be allowed.

I believe that the padel courts should not be allowed unless more parking is found - if anything arear tennis court should have become a parking area for all the extra 'dwell time' they havecreated and loudly proclaim with pride and this particular tennis court remained as that. It is notright or fitting that a public community area acts as a DL overflow car park ( the Greenway Centre).

To members I would say don't even try to park on a Friday morning as things stand as you mightbe on the yellow lines or worse still in the Greenway Centre or just circling the car park.

*Detriment to health: The padel courts are actually detrimental to health. They have flood lightsthat create a light nuisance for the neighbours and impacts their sleep. They create or add to an

ugly urban environment in an area which had hitherto had a dark night sky and had a rear gardencharm. This is unpleasant for the neighbours and those walking in the area. The lights can beseen front the front and the rear. Moreover the flood lights also shine over the outside swimmingpool which is not pleasant for swimmers to have to swim in a neon glow. Neighbours in theircomments complain that they glare into their houses. It's not fair that an affluent social clubimpacts Southmead like this and further urbanises it.

Detrimental to the well being of young children The padel courts are also detrimental to the wellbeing of the young members of David Lloyd. David Lloyd has no non ' organised children's club'outdoor space. There is no playground and kids would use the tennis court to let off steams andrunaround. I believe that at least some 20% of members are children and there is no outdoorspace for them. - that's 1500 children approximately with no out door freely available space. Theyare not even allowed into the outdoor pool for many days in Spring and Summer but cooped up toplay inside.whilst their parents sip coffee and eat outside. Another area once used by kids is nearwhere the proposed spa is. That was once a children's allotment. As things stand, there is a tinyindoor kids soft play and that is it. It's not enough and kids literally run amok in the cafe with hotcoffees being transported. David Lloyd have this schizophrenic personality trying to be a familiesclub but then trying to appease adults and the result is a bit of a mess. The area would be betterused as a playground and if anything that would then not require nighttime lighting but that wouldnot attract the evening/ drinking/ socialising crowd.

* Wildlife: The padel courts have an adverse impact on the wildlife that surrounds David Lloyd. Thehedge that swept along the tennis court and past the swimming pool before going around HorsesField has been cut back and in places dug/ cut out. This hedge serves as an essentials extensionof the larder of Badock Wood. Friends of Badock Wood mention how the local widllife/ birdsextended their foraging immediately beyond. The flood lights will be detrimental to the habits andforaging of the local wildlife eg the bats. Even insects will be impacted as light impacts them andthis in turn will impact birds. There might be no crested newts but that's not what is at stake here.It's the encroaching urbanisation and loss of green corridor as evidenced by looking at googleearth photos of the pre existing tennis court.

*Noise: Considerably more noise is being created from 2 padel courts than from the pre existingtennis court. padel tennis is far noisier as the ball hits various surfaces far faster and ricochetsaround. There is a gun fire like noise which will be detrimental to wild life. Moreover the playerstend to grunt and shout in quite an excited manner. People play mainly in doubles so it's twice asmany people per court and twice as many courts. As DL's own literature states "if you even foundyourself wishing that your tennis game was more actioned packed ...." So they acknowledge thatpadel is far more action packed and I assert that with that naturally comes lots more noise.

There is also a social waiting area that will be occupied by people waiting to play or people who

have finished playing. I believe that the plan is to serve food and drink out there. This will createconsiderably more noise. Hitherto this area at night was dark and quiet. ( See above). In fact Ihave a copy of the padel court menu ( delivery only) how convenient for the players with their'padel favourites' and their cans of beer. Clearly by creating this social padel area and setting upweekly 'social padel' as they call it and it's on their app and doing padel food delivery they areencouraging people to congregate and they will not be doing it in silence especially with buckets of6 beers and beef-burgers etc.

The padel courts will not serve to help the local community. They will create no or few jobs as thebar staff can cope with the additional work as they are under-utilised at night. They will make thearea ugly / urban. The presence of padel courts will only make membership more expensive as it'sanother investment/ attractions that needs to be paid for by yet again increasing membership feesand will make access to DL less obtainable to the immediate local community. The Southmeadcommunity is within the 10% most deprived and 19 % received a means tested benefit . Incontrast, DL is doing very well loudly proclaiming its revenue growth up to £372.9 million.

Will planning conditions mitigate matters eg a condition that lights go off at a certain time? I don'tbelieve that planning conditions will help restrict noise or lights. Why... because BCC lack theinclination or will to enforce any. They don't enforce even breaches of planning like this veryeasily. Eventually with any planning conditions there will be lethargy creep and the lights will stayon longer and there will be drinking or party like activities in the social area. . Can planning insiston no food or drink to limit the area just to the game? No again there is no one available to enforcethis. The social area will increasingly encourage outside noise and the entire area will change.Why do I say this? Had DL not persistently breached planning rules it might be one thing. But DLclearly cannot be trusted to abide by rules. What organisation with all their on tap advisors builds 2padel courts, flood lights and a social area plus weird roof like canopy without planning. One thatfeels powerful and doesn't care two hoots about planning or one that is extremely and ridiculouslyinept to the point of stupidity, I know which one I think given past behaviour. It's a 2 billion poundcompany and it would have taken one phone call to check.

Conclusion

For years DL have been there and there were no lights allowed on the tennis court or anywherebut the front and a few to the rear. This development is a significant game changer along with theproposed spa to entirely alter and transform the nature of DL at night time from an internal nighttime area to an external area during nighttime as well. The thing is there was a reason why NextGeneration was built the way it was at the time with little light and nighttime noise disturbance.Those reasons still exist. DL I would suggest have flouted the rules or been highly highly negligentti spend tens of thousands of pound if not more and not to make a simple call to their planning

agents before building padel court/ flood lights etc.

Without doubt the site is too small for the attractions and number of members. It's literally burstingat the seams with members parking elsewhere.

DL cannot make the site bigger but it is clearly no longer suitable for them.DL are trying to pleasetoo many people, provide too many attractions, increase its dwell times and expand the clubbeyond it's natural limits. This impacts the neighbouring organisations with people even parking inthe Greenway Centre. That is simply appalling. The site is not suitable for padel courts. It is toosmall for their plans. For this reason enforcement action should be taken against DL.

Poor behaviour should not be rewarded

I object on the following ground:

- Noise and lightsThe flood lights and noise generated by the padel court will be a nuisance to neighbours as well asdetrimental to wild life.

- Parking spaceThere is already a lack of parking space, with people parking on the grass at peak time. Thisscheme is bound to make things even worth

Additionally, this planning application comes retrospectively, after David Lloyd went ahead withbuilding padel courts, cutting back and destroying an ancient hedge, which backs into a naturereserve.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed lighting for the outdoorpadel court as outlined in the recent planning application - albeit retrospective.

Disruptive LightingWhile I understand the need for adequate lighting for safety and visibility during play, it is crucialthat the brightness of these lights does not negatively impact the surrounding environment andlocal residents. The excessive lighting is leading to light pollution, disturbing local wildlife andcausing discomfort for nearby residents, particularly during evening hours. To make this clear I donot need to put any lights on in the bedroom to see what I need to do because the lights are sobright.

I kindly request that the committee ensures the lighting adheres to appropriate standards foroutdoor recreational facilities, balancing the needs of players with the wellbeing of the localcommunity and environment. Currently it is disturbing my quality of life. This is most prevalentwhen the lights are left on beyond 10pm (when the club closes) and my bedroom for sleeping is litfrom these powerful lamps.

PrivacyThe removal of plants and trees for the construction of the courts has lead to increased noiselevels and a lack of privacy. These green barriers not only provide a natural sound buffer but alsoenhance the privacy of the pool area adjacent.

I strongly urge the committee to consider incorporating a landscaping plan that includes thereplacement of any removed vegetation. This could involve planting mature trees and shrubsaround the pool area to help mitigate noise and maintain privacy - for those using the courts and

the pools. This is not simply because it is winter and the trees have lost their leaves becausevegetation has been removed.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. I trust that the committee will address theseconcerns in a manner that respects the balance between recreational development and thepreservation of our local environment and community comfort.

I am concerned that this is retrospective planning when this work was carried outwithout correct planning permission obtained.Even though my house is on the neighbour notification list I have not received any notification ofthis retrospective planning application.Although I do not have any objection to the extra courts, I am concerned with the social area aswe have had problems with excessive noise in the past.My main objection is in regard to the lighting, it is very bright and is on from dusk until sunriseevery day. Not only is this very annoying to my family to have a bright light shining through thebedroom window all night long, but also the waste of energy required to power these lights.We are also concerned with the light pollution aspect these lights cause.