Padel and pickle courts at Ipswich Sports Club, Henley Road, Ipswich

The site and surroundings

The sports club includes indoor and outdoor courts, with homes nearby, a public footpath, wildlife corridor and protected eastern boundary trees.

“The application site is located within the Castle Hill, Whitehouse and Whitton Character Area of Ipswich, as defined by the Urban Character SPD. It comprises land associated with a wider sports club use including a principal building, internal and external courts, former hockey pitch and vehicular areas, with separate access from Henley Road. One of the external courts is in use as a Padel court with a glass enclosure to its sides.”

“Surrounding the wider sports club site there are residential properties within Vere Gardens, Valley Close, Valley Road and Henley Road, with a public footpath and wildlife corridor (Fonnereau Way) to the east. There are several protected trees on the eastern boundary and the site is within a green corridor, as identified within the Local Plan.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and use

The existing courts date from the 1990s, floodlights allow use until 10pm, and work has not started on the previously approved expansion.

“The courts, the subject of the above application, are sited approx. 20 metres from the western boundary of the wider site with neighbouring dwellings that front onto Henley Road. The approved plans show 4 padel courts and a single pickle court on an extended surface area, resulting in the loss of a non-native hedge adjacent to the existing courts. The existing tennis and padel courts in their current configuration will be removed as part of this permission.”

“Planning permission was granted in 2008 for the installation of 9 x 8 metre high floodlights in relation to the tennis courts, subject to mitigation in the form of baffles and louvres, and that they be turned off between 22:00 hours and 08:00 hours (refers IP/09/00671/FUL). This allows the current courts to be used between the hours of 8am until 10pm.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the smaller canopy and proposed controls acceptable, finding no unacceptable loss of amenity and no reason for refusal.

“The variation seeks to alter the appearance of the proposal. The canopy would now be smaller when compared with that approved and would also be designed so that it can be rolled down to ground level. When in situ the canopy would be just under 10 metres in height.”

“As before, the canopy would be comparable to the existing indoor tennis courts in terms of its height and whilst it would be a visible addition to the surrounding area, Officers consider that the varied development would still sit comfortably on the site and would be acceptable having regard to policy DM12.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Urban Design and Environmental Health raised no objections, Highways raised no safety concerns, and noise monitoring and limits were proposed.

“IBC Environmental Health – No objection. Air Quality and Contaminated Land: No objections. Noise: Confirmation that no noise abatement notice has been served although 6 noise complaints have been received none of these have been substantiated. An assessment has been undertaken with a game in progress at a complainants property and found that the predominant noise source was road traffic. There was occasional but faint music from the main building.”

“IBC Environmental Health consider that installing and using the monitor will enable the applicant to monitor noise levels and action can be taken immediately to ensure that the individuals responsible are dealt with in accordance with their Code of Conduct. The logging feature of the monitor will allow any complaints to be investigated by checking the log reports.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Representations objected to noise, lighting, antisocial behaviour, inadequate mitigation, alleged planning breaches and the supporting noise assessment.

“The following representations were received against the proposal:-”

“[name withheld], 92 Henley Road, IP1 4NQ received 5.10.25 3. [name withheld], 110 Henley Road, received 6.10.25 Issues Raised:- • Anti-social behaviour, noise and floodlighting generated by use, including late evening noise. • Mitigation attempted by club has failed. • The noise assessment relied upon is out of date and does not properly assess the revised proposal. • Inadequate management proposals put forward.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and answered questions about the canopy, noise controls and floodlights.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the benefits of longer opening hours, previous resident concerns, noise evidence, monitoring and whether the facility should open before hours changed.

“Councillor Rae commented that the hours of operation of the previous application had been discussed extensively in April 2025 when a significant number of representations from residents had been received, and it was considered that 8pm was appropriate given these concerns; no new evidence had been presented to justify the extension of hours.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was proposed without a seconder, while an amendment retaining an 8pm closing time was agreed.

“Councillor Lankester proposed the recommendation in the report but there was no seconder.”

“Councillor Rae proposed that Condition 3 be amended to retain an 8.00pm closing time, and Condition 4 be amended to remove the noise limits for 8pm to 10pm, and this was agreed.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was granted with the revised drawings, an 8am to 8pm use limit and conditions covering materials, lighting, management and noise.

“Grant planning permission subject to the following planning conditions (briefly):”

“Development to be in accordance with approved drawings. For the avoidance of doubt, the permission does not extend to the development shown on existing tennis courts under ‘Phases 1 or 2’ of the submitted phases plan. 2.”

Minutes