| Condition Details / Information Notes |
| Drawing no/s:
Drg no. WHB-MA(20)0002 P00 – Padel Court Elevations
Drg no. WHB-MA(20)0001 P00 – Plan of Padel Courts
Drg no. WHB-SA(20)0100 P01 – Site Plan as Existing
Drg no. WHB-SA(20)0102 P01 – Site Location and Block Plan
Drg no. WHB-SA(20)0103 P00 – Site Sections
Drg no. 2326 – 2 Rev 0 – Landscape and Ecological Enhancement Scheme
Drg no. WHB-SA(20)0101 P03 – Site Plan as Proposed
|
| No Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has been submitted to assess the noise likely to arise from the proposed padel courts. As such, the application fails to assess the existing background-noise environment, the anticipated character and level of noise resulting from the proposals, the proposed hours, frequency and intensity of use, the cumulative effects alongside the existing tennis courts, or the effectiveness of any necessary mitigation or operational restrictions upon these levels. In addition, taking into account the proximity of nearby residential properties, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development would avoid unacceptable adverse effects upon the health and amenity of nearby occupiers.
The proposed development therefore conflicts with criteria C and D of Policy SWDPR35 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review and Policies P3(1) and P3(2)(a), (b) and (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| No site-specific Lighting Assessment has been submitted to accompany the application. The limited information provided fails to establish the existing lighting baseline, predicted light spill or glare at neighbouring properties, compliance with the recommended limitations for an E2 environmental zone, cumulative effects alongside the existing floodlighting, proposed hours of illumination or the effectiveness of any necessary mitigation.
It has also not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed lighting would avoid the illumination of any retained trees, boundary vegetation and adjoining gardens used by foraging and commuting bats and other nocturnal wildlife.
As such, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed lighting represents the minimum necessary or would avoid unacceptable effects upon residential amenity, ecological receptors and the wider rural environment.
The proposal is therefore considered to conflict with Policy SWDPR29 and criteria E(i), E(ii) and F of Policy SWDPR35 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, together with Policies P3(1), P3(2)(b) and (e) and N2(1)(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| The submitted Water Management Statement states only that the playing surfaces would be formed upon a free-draining sub-base. The statement fails to address drainage from the additional hard-surfaced areas surrounding the courts or identify how water passing through the playing surfaces would ultimately be managed or discharged.
No drainage layout, drainage hierarchy, infiltration testing, pre- and post-development run-off calculations, climate-change allowance, attenuation measures, discharge arrangements, exceedance routes or long-term maintenance arrangements have been provided to accompany the application. Additionally, the proposals fail to demonstrate that the scheme has utilised a SuDS management train or how the four pillars of Sustainable Drainage Systems would be achieved on site.
As such, it has not been demonstrated that surface-water run-off would be managed sustainably, that post-development run-off rates and volumes would not exceed the existing greenfield position, or that the development would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SWDPR38 and SWDPR39, specifically criteria A(i) and (ii), B, C, D, E(i), (ii) and (iii), and F of Policy SWDPR39, together with Policies F7 and F8 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| Positive and Proactive Statement. In dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following ways:
- providing pre-application advice;
- seeking further information following receipt of the application;
- considering the imposition of conditions.
In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application. This is in accordance with Decision Making Policy DM3 Paragraph 1 of the NPPF. Despite these efforts, the Council still consider that planning permission should be refused for the reasons set out above. |