Three covered padel courts at Rear Of Southbury Leisure Centre, Enfield

What was proposed

Three covered padel courts, a canopy and 12 floodlights were proposed, with cycle parking and two additional Blue Badge spaces.

“Noted that the site is within an Archaeological Priority Area, however Historic England confirmed that current draft plans for the area around Southbury Leisure centre will be excluded from the new Tier 2 APA as previous investigations in the area have proved negative. (From written correspondence with GLAAS on 02/02/26). Proposal 5.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 3 new padel courts with a canopy, together with installation of 12no.”

“The proposal would also include 3no. of new Sheffield Stands for cycle parking and 2no. additional blue badge spaces. The car parking area is currently leased to Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The facility would occupy unused back land between the leisure centre and football pitches, partly within Metropolitan Open Land.

“The site is to the rear of Southbury Leisure Centre and it is located between the 3G football pitches and the Leisure centre and is unused back land.”

“To the north of the boundary is a Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Space. The northern square of the application site falls within this MOL and local open space. The site is not located within a conservation area and the property is not listed.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a leisure centre and entrance extension, while pre-application advice considered the rear padel-court location preferable.

“25/03521/LBEPRE - Proposed installation of padel courts 2 (Category D includes assessment, telephone meeting and written advice). Advice given on 23.12.2025”

“Pre app consultation: 25/03521/LBEPRE proposed installation of padel courts. Two sites were presented, one to the front of the leisure centre, one to the rear. The site to the rear was preferred. Conclusion: Acceptable in principle as leisure use, main issue is MOL harm and canopy/ build form, must be subordinate in scale to the existing leisure centre.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would expand recreation, preserve the wider open land’s function and manage impacts through conditions.

“A detailed assessment of the proposals has been undertaken, taking account of the relevant policies and legislation and the response to the public consultation. Officers are satisfied that the principle, design, sustainability, transport, ecology and amenity impacts of the proposals are acceptable, or can be appropriately mitigated through planning conditions.”

“Part of the site lies within Metropolitan Open Land. The proposed development constitutes an outdoor sporting facility associated with an existing leisure use and is considered to be an appropriate facility for outdoor sport.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The public consultation recorded strong support, and consultees raised no objections, subject to conditions including noise, tree protection and ecology measures.

“Between 16-26th March, a total of 162 people responded to a public consultation in Southbury Leisure Centre, of those 94% were in support of the proposition of padel courts and 96% of responders thought that padel courts would be a good addition to local leisure facilities at Southbury Leisure Centre.”

“Historic England (GLAAS): No objection. • Tree Officer: No objection. Arboricultural report and tree protection plan compliance condition recommended. • Environmental Health: No objection subject to a noise report to demonstrate noise levels at the nearest residential property. • Urban Design: No comments • Sustainable Drainage (SuDS): No objection. • Sport England: No comments received to date, however they are not a statutory consultee. • Transport Planning: No objection…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Edith Leung, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application and highlighted its key aspects.

Members’ questions

Members asked whether the courts were permanent or temporary; officers said the canopies were semi-permanent and the facility could operate year-round.

“In response to Members’ questions relating to whether the courts were permanent or temporary structures, officers advised that the ground would be resurfaced, the courts were not fully enclosed as the canopies were semi- permanent, but they could be used all year round.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted unanimously in favour, with no votes against and no abstentions.

“The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee agreed that the Director of Planning and Growth could grant consent subject to conditions and amend the recommended conditions.

“1) That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 the Director of Planning and Growth be authorised to GRANT consent subject to conditions. 2) That the Director of Planning and Growth be authorised to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions as set out in this report.”

Minutes