Agenda item

24/01435/FUL - East Gloucestershire Club, Old Bath Road, GL53 7DF

Minutes:

The senior planning officer introduced the report as published.

 

There were four public speakers on the item; two objectors, a supporter and a Ward Member.

 

The objectors addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         On visiting Bicester Padel Club they were horrified by the scale and imposition on the landscape of these very large courts.

·         The council has a stated duty to ensure all developments respect the important views within, into and from the College Character Area. The proposed structures are higher than a two storey house and will have a significant impact of the view over the Cotswold escarpment.

·         In a public meeting the East Glos club said that they will discontinue the pay and play scheme as soon as contractural obligations allow, and operate as a private members club in an affluent area. This will reduce the impact of the benefits claimed for sport participation, health and wellbeing.

·         The public consultation was carried out as a public announcement activity with little opportunity to impact the decisions that had already been made.

·         In a public meeting it was suggested that both East Glos and the Planning Department believed it would be problematic to cover the courts in the centre of the club and in site of the club house. Shifting the covered courts to the perimeter shifts the issues raised to neighbouring properties instead.

·         The technical noise report does not match the lived experience of the club’s neighbours who find that they can’t sit with doors or windows open on a summer evening due to the low frequencies involved. On the 16 November the Financial Times described the “cacophonous wallop” of Padel being played. There have also been significant discussions online about the ineffectiveness of acoustic padels.

·         It is a prime responsibility of Planning that developments do not cause unacceptable harm to adjoining land owners or to living conditions in the locality.

·         The Croquet Club and East Glos Club have occupied their respective sites for over 100 years as amicable neighbours.

·         The proposed structures are 8.5m high and 24m long with no architectural merit and will sit on the boundary of the two clubs, obscuring the view from the Croquet Club towards the Cotswold escarpment.

·         The Cheltenham Local Development Framework (July 2008) and Cheltenham Plan (July 2020) set out the measures that Planning must take into account, when considering planning applications within the Central Conservation Area – and in particular the College Character Area – within which both the East Glos and the Croquet Club reside.  These both emphasise the importance to Cheltenham of preventing erosion of visual amenity within the Conservation Area.  One particular emphasis being on the views out of the area towards the Cotswolds. These are called “Key Views, or Vistas”.  One of these, shown in the 2008 document, is “View of the Cotswold escarpment over Cox’s Meadow with Croquet Club in the foreground”. This is the same view as that currently enjoyed from the Croquet Club’s club house. This view would be obscured by the erection of the proposed Padel court covers.

·         The computer-generated image included within the East Glos application underplays the height of the structure, by taking an elevated viewpoint from the far end of the croquet club’s land, looking towards the East Glos club house. This is in the opposite direction to the Key View in the Local Development Framework. The Croquet Club has prepared an image taken from the club house towards the Cotswolds which illustrates the visual impact of the proposal.  This image can be found near the very end of the document “Representations”.

 

The supporter addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         The East Glos Club has been in existence since 1883 and has always played a prominent part in the sporting life of Cheltenham. It hosts major racket sports at a county, regional and national level. The Club has over 2,100 members aged between 3 years and 91 years. It is open 362 days a year.

·         The club is non-profit making and makes significant contributions to local communities, including outreach work with local primary schools, hosting disability sports, providing coaching on behalf of Tennis in the Park and assisting them with fundraising.

·         The club offers discounted membership for those on low incomes and non-members can pay and play any sport and take part in all coaching activities. The pay to play offer is not being reduced or removed.

·         Padel was introduced in 2021 and provides an easy introduction to racket sports whilst being very sociable and suitable for all ages and abilities. It is particularly well suited for families. No other courts in Gloucestershire offer an affordable offer to play Padel.

·         Whilst Padel can be played outside in all weathers virtually all new courts include some element of cover and this is essential for high level competition.

·         The East Glos club tries to be a good neighbour and supports the Croquet Club with car parking and catering at major events, grounds maintenance and allows members to be honourary members of East Glos.

·         Two consultation events were carried out with the Croquet Club and two were carried out with local resident associations before the first application was submitted. Designs were adjusted in this application to address the concerns raised around noise and the height of the canopy. Further adjustments were made to reorient the canopy and reduce the height of the structure following objections to the first application.

·         The canopy is now at the minimum height required by the sport’s governing body.

·         Since the introduction of Padel one noise complaint has been received by the club after members began playing before the 8am start time, this has now been resolved. Environmental Health Officers’ have received no complaints about the noise. The canopy will reduce noise from existing courts, new courts in the centre of the site are further away from neighbours and acoustic barriers have been added. The Environmental Health Officer’s assessment say there will be no increase in current noise levels for the Croquet Club or other neighbours.

·         The Conservation Officer and Architect Panel feel the design, shape and height of proposals are in keeping with a sports complex in an urban area and feel it will have little impact on the surrounding area.

·         There are benefits for participants of playing sport in a social environment for both physical health and mental wellbeing. It will not just be club members that enjoy this benefit but anyone who plays Padel in Cheltenham.

 

Councillor Baker as Ward Member addressed the committee and made the following points:

·         Both the East Glos Club and Croquet Club are much respected and have a significant history in Cheltenham. It is a shame that a proposal could not be developed working together that would satisfy both.

·         I accept the applicant did carry out some engagement and that as result some material mitigations have been incorporated to their credit, in particular the reduction of the height of the canopy from 10.8m to 8.5m.

·         The proposed construction can only be described as obtrusive and out of keeping with the conservation area, which is afforded additional protections. It will significantly impact the setting, ambience and enjoyment of the Croquet Club users and impact views into and out of the Cotswold escarpment.

·         This is in conflict with a number of policies including:

o   L1 Landscape and Setting – ‘the council is mindful of the need to protect views into or out of areas of acknowledged importance such as conservation areas’.

o   D1 Design – “development will only be permitted where it complements and respects neighbouring development and the character of the locality and/or landscape”.

o   SD4 – “new development should respond positively to, and respect the character of the site and its surrounding”.

o   NPPF, paragraph 130 – “developments should be visually attractive and add to the overall quality of the area”.

o   SL1 – “development not causing unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining landowners”.

o   SD14 – says development must not cause unacceptable harm to local amenity including the amenity of neighbouring occupants.

o   SD8 Historic Environment – “new developments should complement and relate to its surrounding, not only in terms of its appearance”.

·         Accept the need for the club to diversity its offer and respond to modern sporting demands but it is a shame that this development could not be accommodated well within the site reducing the impact on its neighbours.

·         Padel is a far more intrusive sport than tennis generating a greater level of noise due to the hard bats and pressurised balls. The replacement of one grass tennis court with 4 Padel courts is a considerable intensification of the current site use. On average during a game a ball is struck every 2 seconds and the Dutch Lawn Tennis Association estimates that typical noise levels reach 91db (the World Health Organisation recommends up to 50db of noise to avoid moderate annoyance).

·         This development is likely to have a detrimental impact upon local residents ability to enjoy their homes and gardens. Whilst I respect the Environmental Health’s judgement it will be impossible to understand the true impact until the scheme is built. I suggest that if permitted a condition is applied to reduce the operating hours of the 4 new courts to ensure neighbours can enjoy their gardens in peace.

 

Councillor Baker left the meeting.

 

The matter then went to Member questions and the responses were as follows:

·         Private views and long distance views aren’t protected. Public views have been identified as a concern in the character area appraisal. The primary view affected in this instance is from the Croquet Club which is not considered a public view.

·         East Glos Club commissioned a noise report to be undertaken which involved the assessment of an hour long Padel game. This found that the LA Equivalent Continuous Level averaged at 54db, with the LA Max peak level reaching 80db. There is significant variation in noise in any sport depending on the intensity of the game and the level of the people playing, so it is difficult to provide a general picture. Environmental Health were satisfied that the data in the report was sufficient to calculate the noise that would be heard from the nearby noise sensitive receptors. The World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline of 50db relates to a 1m distance from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The distance between the new courts and residents is around 70m which has been accounted for in the modelling, in addition to mitigation and acoustic barriers being put in place.

·         No discussion of alternative locations for the canopied courts was discussed with the Planning Team.

·         As no objection has been raised by the Environmental Health Team it would be difficult to justify reducing the hours for the new courts to a different level than those of the existing courts.

 

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

·         Both the Croquet Club and East Glos Club make a significant contribution to the community and to the mental and physical wellbeing of residents. Padel, as a sport that is more interactive and family friendly, brings a significant opportunity to boost mental health through continual physical exercise and by introducing groups who may not have initially been interested in racket sports.

·         The nature of the sport means that it would be impractical and dangerous to lower the canopy further.

·         Amendments made to the scheme seem reasoned and necessary to continue playing and growing the sport, increasing amenity to members in Cheltenham, and improving residents wellbeing.

·         The noise experienced by Members whilst visiting the East Glos Club were not significant whilst stood directly next to the court.

·         The designs are not particularly beautiful but this needs to be weighed against the benefit provided to the public in general.

·         Members felt it would have been possible to come up with a better proposal for the location of the covered courts.

·         Concern was raised that this could lead to additional applications in future years for the addition of more covered courts.

 

Officers offered the following responses to the Member’s debate:

·         The Environmental Health Officer reported that noise levels from padel games averaged 54 decibels, with peaks up to 80 decibels. She clarified that WHO guidelines refer to noise levels 1 metre from nearby buildings, not at the source, and that the 70 metre distance to residents was accounted for in modelling

·         The materials used are fairly standard for all Padel courts and include similar noise attenuation mesh and canopy cover. It would not be appropriate to specify a condition on the materials without confirmation of alternative options.

·         There is not sufficient space to require significant landscaping on the boundary of the Croquet Club and courts.

·         Whilst an initial preference was stated by Planning for the canopy to be green this was not possible as it would prevent daylight reaching the courts and require a reliance on flood lighting during the daytime. The eye-level side and end panels will be green to mitigate the impact.

·         It is important that the decision made by the Committee is on the proposal submitted and should not be impacted on potential alternatives or concern over future proposals.

 

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to conditions:

 

For: 5

Against: 4

Abstentions: 1

 

Voted to permit subject to conditions.

 

Councillor Baker re-joined the meeting. Councillor Allen left the meeting.

Supporting documents: