Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the conversion of one outdoor natural grass tennis court to one outdoor porous asphalt tennis courts with the installation of LED floodlighting and associated works.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Julian Tedder (to object);

·         Mr Andrew Strawson (to object);

·         Mr Adrian Rees (in support) (Chairman of Merrow Lawn Tennis Club) and;

·         Mr David Clegg (in support)

The Committee received a presentation from Sakina Khanbhai, Specialist Development Management (Applications).  The Committee noted that the application site comprised a parcel of land within the tennis club grounds.  The site was located within the Green Belt and within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was located to residential development, recreational fields and a golf club.

The site was proposed to have chain link fencing measuring 3.6 metres in height connected by rectangular posts which would surround the tennis court and included the installation of 6 x 6-metre-high lighting columns.  There was also 3.5-metre-high hedging on the side boundary which provided screening however the 6-metre-high floodlights would be visible above the hedge line.  The technical drawings demonstrated the lighting overspill beyond the site boundaries.  Of particular concern was the 14.6 lux level overspill of light to the rear garden of number 3 Abbot’s Way which would cause material harm to residential amenities.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had also raised concerns to the proposed lighting scheme on this basis. 

In summary, the additional lighting in the proposal location would result in adverse harm to the visual amenities of the rural character of the wider landscape.  The proposed lighting scheme would result in overspill in number 3 Abbot’s Way’s Garden.  Furthermore, the creation of an additional tennis court in close proximity to the residential properties would result in noise activity at an intensity that would be harmful to neighbouring amenity which the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had objected to.

The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that whilst they were supportive of refusing the application on the basis of the intrusive lighting, the potential noise impact was questionable given another court could be put there now. 

The Committee also noted comments regarding the importance of physical exercise and yet there was already a redundant outdoor tennis court.

With regard to noise, the Committee also appreciated that the use of asphalt would make it noisier overall.

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger also confirmed that it was not just about the use of the tennis courts but the increased intensity of the site as a whole alongside the additional lighting, which would increase the noise throughout the day and was supported by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/00630 for the reasons as outlined in the report.