Agenda item

The Head of Development Management, Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for retrospective planning permission concerning two padel courts with ancillary social area with proposed acoustic barriers and lighting upgrades, on land at David Lloyd Harrogate, Oakdale Place, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG1 2LA.

 

The application had been reported to the Committee due to there being significant local public interest in the application such that it was appropriate for it to be considered by the Committee.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the location, site description and the proposed mitigation measures including the addition of acoustic barriers, upgrades to the existing lighting and a reduction in the operating hours.  The Chair thanked the officer for organising the site visit held earlier that day, which Members had found informative.

 

Patrick Fitzgerald, spoke as Chairperson on behalf of Oak Beck Valley Residents Association, objecting to the application.

 

Councillor Josie Caven spoke on behalf of Harrogate Town Council, objecting to the application.

 

Division Councillor Monika Slater spoke, objecting to the application.

 

The agent, Ian Anderson spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.

 

During consideration of the application, the Committee discussed the following issues

 

· Members considered the noise information in the committee report to be comprehensive but noted that padel was a relatively new sport. While officers had applied relevant criteria in their assessment, Members queried whether there was established national experience, guidance, or case law, noting an apparent lack of consistency or objective standards.

· It was noted that the tennis courts had been in place for a number of years and Members queried whether the Council had received any noise complaints in relation to their use, and further if there had been any complaints in relation to use of the padel courts.

· The Chair highlighted that, although not part of this application, David Lloyd had been operating Battlebox classes which involved amplified music and queried whether the Council had received any complaints from residents in relation to this. 

· While Members welcomed the proposed lighting upgrade, concerns remained regarding noise.  It was suggested that noise levels could be around 70 decibels from balls striking the glass and up to 90 decibels from player shouting, and clarification was sought as to whether this was a reasonable assessment.

· Members queried why officers appeared to have focused on average noise levels rather than LAMax.

· Concerns were expressed about potential sleep disturbance from intermittent noise during evening play and it was queried whether the agreed mitigation measures would adequately address this.

· Members noted the limited real‑world experience in this situation and queried whether this could increase the potential impact or challenge for nearby residents.

· Clarification was sought on, if planning permission were approved, the Council would continue to monitor noise levels once the padel courts were back in operation.

· Members noted that padel was a highly social sport and queried whether the Environmental Health Officer’s (EHO) inspection had taken place only during matches or also during evening periods when players were socialising.

· The Chair stated that, from the two matches monitored by the EHO, higher noise levels were recorded during play by more experienced players and queried whether padel championship matches were intended to be held at the site.

· It was queried whether the applicant had agreed to the proposed new opening hours and how long a typical padel game lasted.

· Clarification was sought on how long the tennis courts had been in operation and whether, if the application were not approved, the courts would revert to tennis use.

· The committee report stated that the proposal did not pass the sequential test in relation to flood risk and Members queried whether there was a risk of flooding at the site.

· Members queried whether, in light of seasonal variation, different time restrictions for ambient noise should apply during the winter months, and if so, could a condition be added to impose a differential between summer and winter months.

· Members agreed that padel was a faster and noisier sport and did not consider tennis to be an appropriate benchmark or that the use could be treated as tennis.  It was queried whether a condition could be imposed to require breaks in use to prevent operation seven days a week.

 

During the debate, Members acknowledged that the report was technically competent but emphasised that padel was distinct from tennis and remained an evolving sport and therefore there was a level of uncertainty.  Members were not satisfied that the proposed mitigation would sufficiently address noise impacts and considered that the use would result in a loss of amenity due to noise from prolonged play, ball strike, glass rebound, player shouting and associated social activity, affecting residents’ enjoyment of their gardens and potentially sleep.

 

The officer recommendation was for approval; however, the motion did not receive a proposer, and therefore the motion fell.

The Senior Solicitor queried whether any amendments to the substantive recommendation were proposed, noting that the potential for additional conditions had been raised during the debate, this was not pursued.

 

Councillor Windass proposed, and Councillor Lacey seconded, that the application be REFUSED and reasons were given for the refusal.

 

The decision

 

That planning permission be REFUSED for the reason set out below:

 

· That the proposed mitigation was not considered to be sufficient to overcome the adverse impacts upon residential amenity including the cumulative impact of noise resulting from rackets striking balls and rebounding from the glass enclosure as well as social activity. There were neighbouring residential dwellings with associated private amenity spaces which would be negatively impacted by the noise generated.  The proposal therefore conflicted with Local Plan Policy HP4, criteria v of Policy HP7 and Paragraph 198 of the NPPF which all required development proposals to be designed to ensure that they would not result in significant adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity with considerations for noise pollution.

 

Voting record

 

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.