Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Park

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2011/0914 and elaborated thereon.

Mrs Walters, a neighbour who had lived in Church Way since 1958, noted that the noise standard BS1412 that had been used was for industrial noise in a residential area and queried its appropriateness. She also queried that if the background noise level would almost double by virtue of the generator necessary to power the fans to keep the bubble inflated, then how could this not be seen as “significant”. She also asked why it was necessary for the bubble to be in place for six months when the courts would only be used for a short period of this time. Mrs Walters believed that the bubble would dominate the view from her property and also believed that once erected it would be difficult to prevent it being there permanently. She commented that there had been no consultation by the tennis club with residents who had been made aware of the proposal by the Chronicle and Echo and the Council.

Mr Needham, a neighbour who lived in Church Way, stated that the bubble would be located on the highest part of the site and would be visible from much of the Conservation Area and would be lit up as well. He believed that at one point it would be only seven feet from one person’s back garden fence putting a large area of garden in the shade. Mr Needham believed that the light spillage assessment referred to the wrong pair of courts and did not take account of the bubble. He believed that an expert study should have been undertaken. The applicants had said that there would be no noise from the generator however the experts said that there would be: he was concerned that there would be a constant drone from it. The tennis club had said that they wanted good relations with their neighbours but they had not consulted residents. Mr Needham indicated that he appreciated that the club wanted to improve its facilities but queried why courts six and seven, further to the west of the site, had not been considered more appropriate 

Mr Cole, the Agent, commented that he wished to address the technical issues that had been raised. The tennis club had been in being for 80 years and had served the area well. The club was trying to improve its facilities for young people and this included an all weather facility. The convex design of the bubble would not bounce light back towards the neighbours. The bubble at its highest point would be nine metres and was designed to merge in with the sky. The noise issues had been designed out. There would be no impact on residents and the bubble would not be visible from Church Way. The planning application had been accompanied by a variety of assessments and the pre application advice given in July 2010 had raised no objection in principle. Mr Cole hoped that the application could move forward. In answer to questions Mr Cole commented that the bubble was not being located on the highest part of the site; that other combinations of courts had been considered but had not given sufficient off court space; and that there not been a deliberate decision not to consult beforehand with residents and noted that some would object to anything that the tennis club tried to do.

Mr Searle, as Chairman of the Northampton Tennis League, commented that when he first started playing tennis 50 years previously it was a summer game sport but now it was played all year round. Nationally there was a move to covered courts: the Council had done so itself on the Racecourse. Indoor facilities in Northampton and the County were far behind other places. There were four indoor courts in Northampton and eight in Corby. There were now extensive junior programmes but they could not operate in bad weather. Facilities had to be improved for clubs to be sustainable. The Club tried to be a good neighbour. The London 2012 Olympics gave sport a high profile this year and the health benefits of participating were well known. In answer to questions Mr Searle commented that he was not representing the tennis club specifically and could not deal with matters relating to the application in particular but believed that the club had tried to be a good neighbour.

The Head of Planning indicated to the Committee the location of where objections and support of the application had come from and the location of the Conservation Area boundary; noted that noise could be controlled by condition; and confirmed that the Council had notified neighbours of the application. In answer to a question he noted that pre application advice was given on a non-prejudice basis and without the benefit of any consultation.    

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused as due to its siting, scale, height and massing the proposed bubble would result in a visually intrusive form of development which would significantly impact on the living conditions of existing neighbouring dwellings on Church Way contrary to Policy E20 of the Northampton Local Plan and the aims of PPS1.

Councillor Hallam rejoined the meeting.