Two padel courts at Alderley Edge Cricket Club, Alderley Edge

What was proposed

The application proposed converting one tennis court into two padel courts with lighting, pedestrian access, acoustic fencing, landscaping and other works.

“This planning application proposes to create three padel courts at Alderley Edge Cricket Club, along with the addition of associated floodlighting. The description of the proposals is misleading as it implies that they are limited to the replacement of one tennis court with three padel courts occupying the same footprint; whereas, in fact the proposed padel courts will extend significantly into the remaining open green space, taking them much closer to adjacent residential…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The established cricket and tennis club covers about 2.3 hectares, has parking from Moss Lane, and adjoins homes and the conservation area.

“The application site comprises Alderley Edge Cricket Club (AECC), a well-established recreational facility located within the defined settlement boundary of Alderley Edge. The site extends to approximately 2.3 hectares and currently accommodates a range of sporting uses, including a cricket pitch, tennis courts, and a clubhouse pavilion. A designated car parking area is situated in the north-eastern corner of the site, with vehicular access taken from Moss Lane.”

“The site is bounded to the south by Mottram Road, which lies at a slightly elevated level and falls within the Alderley Edge Conservation Area. This elevated position allows for views across the cricket grounds.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

The site has a history of approved applications concerning tennis-court floodlighting and its control.

“21/5369M - Variation of condition 5 on application 19/4918M - Variation of conditions relating to flood lights on approved applications 17/0346M & 18/3727M - Installation of 9 x 8m high floodlight columns and lights, to serve 4 tennis courts. Installation of 4 x 6.7m high floodlight columns and lights to serve 1 tennis court. Lights to be installed on 2 existing columns to 1 adjacent court – Approved 15-May-2023”

“19/1918M - Variation of conditions relating to floor lights on approved applications 17/0346M & 18/3727M - Installation of 9 x 8m high floodlight columns and lights, to serve 4 tennis courts. Installation of 4 x 6.7m high floodlight columns and lights to serve 1 tennis court. Lights to be installed on 2 existing columns to 1 adjacent court – Approved 11-Feb-2020”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the proposal supported sports facilities and would have no significant adverse impacts subject to conditions.

“The proposal involves replacing an existing tennis court with two padel courts, including fencing and lighting, within an established outdoor sports venue. The development is considered compliant with policies supporting the enhancement of existing open space and sports facilities. Subject to planning conditions securing detailed matters, there are no significant adverse impacts on design, amenity, highways, accessibility, ecology, or residential amenity.”

“Approve subject to the following conditions:”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, Sport England and flood-risk officers raised no objections, while environmental protection supported the scheme subject to lighting and noise conditions.

“Environmental Protection: no objections subject to conditions relating to lighting and noise mitigation.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Most representations objected, citing noise, lighting, fencing, outlook, parking, traffic, overdevelopment, conservation-area effects and inadequate mitigation.

“Would lead to increased noise impacts to neighbouring residential properties – the noise from padel is significantly worse than tennis with the constant banging on the walls. • Increased fencing (up to 3.2m high) and structures create overbearing and intrusive development and a significant loss of outlook for nearby homes • Highway and Parking Concerns - intensification (1 court → 3 courts) could triple usage.”

“The proposal abuts the conservation area and would cause harm. • Guidelines in other countries state that padel courts should not be positioned within 100m of residential properties. The proposal would be within 50m of 12no. properties. • The mitigation measures need to be robust. • There is sufficient padel provision in the area. • The NIA has failed to acknowledge the dominant sound in padel is the ball strikes. • Fantastic amenity for the village community.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The speakers included a ward councillor, a parish councillor, an objector and the agent.

The committee debate

Members noted the update report before considering a motion to refuse the application.

“Members noted the content of the update report.”

“A motion was put to the committee to refuse the application. This motion was lost.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to refuse the application was lost, and the committee approved it subject to conditions.

“That for the reasons set out in the report, the application be APPROVED subject to conditions as detailed below;”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was approved for the reasons in the report, with conditions covering plans, landscaping, lighting, noise, operating hours, drainage and biodiversity.

“3-year Time Limit 2. Development in accord with approved plans 3. Materials to be submitted 4. Bird nesting season avoidance 5. Biodiversity enhancement scheme to be submitted 6. BNG condition 7. Landscaping scheme to be submitted including boundary treatments 8. Landscaping details and maintenance to be submitted 9. Drainage scheme to be implemented 10. Reporting of unexpected contamination 11. Details of lighting to be submitted 12.”

Minutes