Summary
- Hallen Marsh lies approximately 270 metres from the proposed Avonmouth site and was not adequately assessed for noise disturbance.
- Natural England recommends withholding permission until sufficient evidence is provided; it has not issued a final refusal.
- Developer Rivington Energy maintains that the project would provide a 43% biodiversity net gain, which is separate from the unresolved protected-habitat assessment.
Natural England has advised Bristol City Council not to grant permission at this stage for a proposed Avonmouth data centre, citing insufficient evidence about potential noise disturbance affecting protected wetland birds.
The statutory adviser identified a gap in the environmental assessment for the proposed development at a former plastics recycling facility on Severn Road.
Hallen Marsh, an approximately 80-hectare wetland habitat, lies about 270 metres from the site. Natural England says habitats within a 500-metre noise assessment zone should be screened for potential effects, but that the submitted material did not adequately account for the marsh.
The nearby Severn Estuary Special Protection Area is designated for important bird populations. Noise disturbance can affect the use of feeding or resting habitat, making the relationship between the proposed development and nearby protected areas a relevant planning consideration.
Natural England's advice is that the available evidence does not provide sufficient certainty to exclude likely significant effects. It has therefore recommended that the council withhold permission on the information currently submitted.
The recommendation is not a final planning decision. Bristol City Council remains responsible for determining the application, and further information could allow the assessment to be reconsidered.
The proposed facility is being developed by Rivington Energy in partnership with Viridor Energy. It would involve converting an existing industrial building into a data centre, with additional external plant and supporting infrastructure.
Noise assessment requires site-specific evidence
Data centres can produce noise from mechanical cooling systems, ventilation equipment, generators, and construction activity. The effect at a nearby habitat depends on equipment selection, operating conditions, screening, distance, and the sensitivity of the species present.
Assessing those impacts is different from measuring disturbance at nearby homes. A location may comply with residential noise expectations while still requiring specific investigation of ecological effects.
Natural England has not concluded that the development will necessarily damage the protected habitats. Its objection is that the existing material does not demonstrate that the relevant impacts can be excluded.
That distinction makes further assessment important. The developer could provide additional modelling, ecological evidence, design alterations, or mitigation proposals to address the questions raised.
The council has also identified uncertainty surrounding water consumption, lighting, and wider environmental effects. Those issues require separate consideration from noise disturbance and may influence the final planning assessment.
Rivington Energy says its development would deliver a long-term biodiversity net gain of approximately 43%, using measures such as habitat improvements and landscaping.
However, a biodiversity net gain calculation does not automatically resolve the requirements applying to designated wildlife sites. The two assessments examine different environmental questions.
The proposal would repurpose an existing industrial location, potentially allowing some previously developed infrastructure to be reused. Changing a building's use can nevertheless introduce different electricity, cooling, acoustic, and operational requirements.
The developer's proposed electricity and cooling arrangements must therefore be assessed alongside the ecological effects of the new activity.
DataCentral has previously reported on objections to the Avonmouth development. Natural England's latest intervention adds a specific statutory concern about the adequacy of the evidence supporting the application.
The planning process will need to establish whether the missing information can be supplied and whether any identified risks can be addressed through design, mitigation, or enforceable conditions.
Until then, the project has not received the relevant permission, and Natural England's position remains a recommendation against approval at this stage rather than a decision to reject the development.
