Six padel courts and canopy at Southgate Hockey Centre, Barnet

What was proposed

Six padel courts, a clubhouse and a canopy were proposed on existing grassed land beside the hockey fields.

“The proposal is for the development of six padel courts on an existing grassed area adjacent to the hockey fields. The scheme also includes a clubhouse and a canopy structure to cover the courts, enabling play in all weather conditions.”

“The courts will be covered by a canopy structure measuring 25 metres in width, 80 metres in length, and approximately 10.5 metres in height. The total area of the proposed development is 1,976.5 sqm. The canopy is designed to provide protection from the elements, allowing for year- round use. It will be constructed from pressurised canvas supported by a robust steel framework and finished in green to blend with the surrounding environment.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is within a sports centre, the Green Belt and Trent Park Conservation Area, surrounded by woodland and existing sports infrastructure.

“The proposal is located within Southgate Hockey Centre, Barnet (approx. 15 ha) and lies within the Trent Park Conservation Area and Metropolitan Green Belt. Surrounded by mature woodland and visually enclosed; set back from Snakes Lane. Nearby heritage assets include the Grade II listed Mansion House and the Trent Park Registered Park and Garden, though these are visually and physically separated from the site.”

“The proposed padel courts are located within the Southgate Hockey Centre site in Barnet, which spans approximately 15 hectares. The Hockey Centre, along with other nearby facilities, is situated within the Trent Park Conservation Area, which covers around 380 hectares.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a replacement window and an additional car park at the hockey centre.

“Relevant Planning History • 20/00245/FUL – Enlargement and replacement of timber-framed window to south elevation, including installation of metal grill. Decision: Permission Granted with Conditions – 16 April 2020 • 16/05472/FUL – Formation of additional car park for up to 134 cars, including 7 disabled parking spaces, with lighting columns and associated barriers, low-level fencing, and bollards. Decision: Permission Granted with Conditions – 19 April 2017”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection or provided comments, while the Conservation Team and Environmental Health raised objections.

“Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees • Historic England: No objection – comments provided • Urban Design: No objection – comments provided • Sustainable Drainage (SuDS): Comments provided • Transport Planning: Comments provided • Conservation Team: Objection raised • London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust: Comments provided • Environmental Health: Objection raised • Sport England: Comments provided • Planning Policy Team: No objection • Transport for London (TfL):…”

“GLA’s comment was received and raised concerns regarding impact on Green Belt, heritage assets, transport and energy. Responses are detailed throughout this report and a specific subsection.”

Officer report

Public views

One objection cited conflict with the Local Plan and area character, while six submissions supported the facility and its community benefits.

“Summary of Objection • Conflict with the Local Plan • Out of keeping with the character of the area…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior planning officer introduced the application, and the applicants’ agents clarified proposed discounts and school access.

Committee discussion

Members asked about local discounts, employment, dismantling the structure and reporting a community use agreement back to the committee.

“The Committee discussed the application and asked for clarifications on issues including discounts and jobs for local people, and how easily & in what circumstance the structure would be dismantled.”

“Members asked that a community use agreement would be noted and come back to Committee for an update.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted eight in favour, two against and none abstaining.

“The officer’s recommendation for the application was put to the vote; Members voted:”

Minutes