Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed change of disused sports area to provide 2 padel courts with associated fencing and new path.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)  That the committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:

Conditions

1. Time Limit

2 Approved Plans

3 Materials

4. Arboricultural Method Statement, Impact Assessment and Tree Protection

5. Opening Hours

Informative

1. Building near a boundary

2. Fire Safety

(2)  That the Head of Planning and Development Services is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee's decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager, Brent Council) introduced the application, sought the use of a disused sports area to provide 2 padel courts with associated fencing and new path. The application site related to an area of land to the northwestern corner of the Willesden Sports Centre as well an area to the south to form a proposed pathway to join up with an existing pathway within the site. The site was located on the south side of Donnington Road.

The Chair raised clarifying questions around whether the 2 padel courts were proposed to be built on the disused tennis courts in an area formed of hardstanding. Confirmation was provided that that the proposed courts were on a large tarmacked, hardstanding area of land. Additional questions were raised around the necessity of constructing a path in the area, noting that when tennis was previously played there, no path existed. Officers explained that, upon review, a path might also have been beneficial for the tennis courts, as it would prevent people from tracking dirt and mud onto the court from the grass, which could create a slippery surface. Access would be improved to the area.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report, and then invited Mr Pambakian (who had registered to speak in objection to the application) to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

·                The proposal was submitted a year ago and an appeal had been filed. Mr Pambakian had petitioned a number of residents from the neighbourhood who were concerned that the development would occur in their quiet neighbourhood.

·                The original plans for constructing a canopy had been revised to enhance its appeal by opting for single-glazed panels.

·                Most of the houses in the area were residential and included lofts. He felt that the glass panels would not effectively reduce the high noise levels from padel sports, which would continue until 11 PM.

·                Previously, there was a bike school, and at the time the Council had received a surge of noise complaint calls from local residents. Similarly, it was felt that the padel sport at the application site was not suitable for the location. Citing the location plan, Mr Pambakian highlighted that the padel courts would be situated in the most densely residential part of the sports centre. The continuous noise would also be difficult for residents with special educational needs and disabilities to cope with.

The Chair thanked Mr Pambakian for addressing the Committee and then invited questions and comments from Members in relation to the information heard. 

·                In response to Mr Pambakian’s concerns about the sporting activities operating until 23:00 pm, it was clarified that the latest closing time for the courts would be 21:30 pm. Members then asked whether this clarification offered any reassurance. Mr Pambakian felt that the change in operating hours would have little impact, as residents would still experience frequent noise throughout the day.

The Chair then welcomed Mr Cody Burridge (who had also registered to speak in objection to the application) and invited him to address the Committee. The following key points were highlighted:

·       In addressing the Committee, Cody Burridge shared that he was a huge fan of sport in the local area and had been a coach at Queens Park Harriers for 15 years at Willesden Running Track. However, he believed the proposal needed to be adjusted so that it was respectful to the nearest and most affected residents of Donnington Road.

·       He felt there was a lack of awareness, with little contact or communication with the residents that this proposal directly affected. Cody Burridge lived in close proximity to the proposed site and had received no communication about the proposal until a neighbour alerted him to the plans a week ago.

·               Working from home, including meetings, was cited to be a challenge, as sports noise could be heard from inside the home.

·               Outside of work, residents believed family life and relaxation time would be disrupted by the level of noise.

·               Persistent noise would be difficult to live with not only during the week but also on weekends.

·               He suggested that for the welfare of the residents in the nearby area, the padel courts should be enclosed and potentially sound proofed so as not to disturb the residents of Donnington Road living closest to the proposal site.

·               Cody Burridge concluded that he was not opposed to the Padel Court plans, but strongly urged the Committee to listen to the concerns of residents nearest to the proposal site.

The Chair thanked Cody Burridge for addressing the Committee. As no specific questions were raised in relation to the information presented, the Chair then moved on to invite Kai Woodgate (who had registered to speak as an applicant / agent) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·               Kai Woodgate shared that he was one of the Operations Managers for Padel United and had been working at the company over the past three years. He had also been a player at the company’s venues for six years. The company had originally brought him on as a junior apprentice which had enabled him to progress to a senior position.

·               He emphasised that the company was always trying to be as inclusive as possible and was proud to offer prices below the average rate for padel at all of their venues, enabling as many people as possible within the community to get involved.

·               Across the country, the company had eight venues which consisted of 25 courts, with over 7,000 active padel players and a wide demographic from younger children all the way up to more senior players. Across their venues, the company also worked with 12 different schools who used the facilities to allow children to get involved with the sport and learn vital skills. In addition to their partnership with local schools, the company also had over 1000 under 16 players who played at their venues annually. The company also offered a free junior membership, encouraging young people to enjoy the sport.

·               For their project in Willesden, the company was looking to transform an underused area of tennis courts by adding two padel courts on top of the existing area. The location of the proposed padel courts would be within the boundaries of the leisure centre, who the company were looking forward to working in partnership with, in order to offer extra activities to the community.

·               After listening to the original feedback, the company had applied for the club to have no floodlighting to reduce the light pollution to the residents nearby, which in turn would decrease the amount of playable time to players, especially during the winter months.

·               Kai Woodgate shared that padel was an exciting sport and one of the fastest-growing sports globally, primarily due to its appealing Unique Selling Point  and accessibility for people of all backgrounds and skill levels. This inclusivity helped make the sport and its clubs central to communities, serving as fantastic venues for socialising, staying active, and enhancing the mental and physical well-being of diverse demographics across communities and the country.

·                Kai Woodgate expressed the hope that padel would serve as a valuable addition to the leisure centre and also benefit the wider community.

The Chair thanked Kai Woodgate for addressing the Committee and invited Members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

·               In clarifying the position regarding mitigations within the design area to address noise concerns from residents, the Committee were advised that the sport was somewhat louder than tennis. Though the balls used were identical to tennis balls in terms of pressure and softness, the rackets were slightly harder. Noise assessments had been conducted at other venues similar to the proposed build near residential areas, and no complaints regarding regular noise had been received. As for mitigation measures, the amount of playable time would be decreasing during the winter months to around 4pm and would not be continuing through the evening.

·               In response to concerns regarding noise, Kai Woodgate confirmed that the company would consider any further noise mitigations to soften the sound and reduce its noise impact on local residents.

The Chair then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application.

• The Chair sought details on what scientifically backed noise evidence existed to assist the Committee in making a decision. Officers explained that a noise acoustic report had been submitted as part of the application. An important consideration regarding noise was that perceived sound depended on the background noise levels. The background noise levels measured in the survey were reportedly high enough for the noise generated by the padel court during a 6-minute match, falling below that when measured from the nearest sensitive receptor, which was the window of the closest residential property. This provided a basic measurement of what the nearest resident would experience inside their home, which was lower than the background noise. It was confirmed that the information was assessed by Environmental Health Officers.

·                Following on from the previous question, details were sought by the Chair about the weight an already well-used, noisy sports centre venue held in the Committee’s judgment of noise pollution. Officers confirmed this was considered in the process. The sports centre venue was an appropriate place to hold an additional type of sport.  Officers did not have the details of any noise complaints relating to the existing sports centre site but confirmed that these would be dealt with by the Environmental Health Team. The noise information available to the Committee was the impact the proposal would have by itself.

·                Members sought clarity on the maximum dB recorded for the source sound pressure level of two padel tennis courts at full capacity. Although the report indicated that the level was 63 dB, it had mentioned instances where it could be louder without providing specific details. Members further highlighted that difference in sound levels between tennis and padel was approximately 20dB and questioned the possibility of whether one padel court could be in use at any one time as opposed to two courts to reduce the noise. Officers responded that Environmental Health Officers determined that the initial noise assessment conducted did not exceed the permitted level of noise and had also considered unusual or higher peaks than the average noise levels in their assessment. As there was not a direct objection to the two padel courts, officers did not see a benefit in reducing the use of both courts to one. Officers then confirmed that the maximum noise level during a 6-minute game of padel tennis in 2 courts measured 3 meters away from the rear of the court was 71dB. Further to this, Members heard from officers that the noise level at the nearest receptor was 52 dB, which was 3.6 dB below the existing ambient noise level of 55.6 dB. Environmental Health Officers had reviewed the proposal and found the level of noise to be acceptable. Statutory noise nuisance was covered through Environmental Health legislation.

·                In relation to Environmental Health, officers highlighted that without the use of floodlighting, the amount of time that the courts could be used was limited. Therefore, playable time of the sport and the sound emitting from padel was naturally limited to daytime hours.

·                Members cited a similar application relating to the build of a sports centre around Queens Park School and questioned whether glass panes reduced noise levels. The response confirmed that the glass panels were not built for noise but was rather an enclosure for the court. It was added that measures to minimise noise consisted of management arrangements and reminders for players to keep their noise levels down.

·                Members inquired whether discussions had occurred regarding alternative locations for the courts, suggesting that the site could potentially be moved to the back of residents' gardens, away from their homes. Officers responded that discussions had not taken place regarding this, with focus on the proposed location area because of the existing hardstanding. It was added that there were no plans for lighting based on consultative feedback.

As there were no further questions from Members, the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 5, Against 1, Abstention 1)