Tennis club wins fight to build second junior court in Harpenden
- Credit: Archant
A Harpenden tennis club has aced a planning appeal, allowing it to build another junior tennis court.
Netting success with the planning inspectorate was Elliswick Lawn Tennis Club, Elliswick Road, which challenged the district council’s rejection of its expansion bid.
The club has seven artificial courts, two of which are floodlit, along with one junior court and a clubhouse.
It had proposed an enlargement and repositioning of junior court facilities, along with an extension to the junior tennis court perimeter fence.
The council had rejected the scheme because of its scale, proximity to the site boundary and loss of screen planting, as it would result in a “detrimental visual impact and loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos. 20 and 22 Sauncey Avenue.
You may also want to watch:
But planning inspector Christa Masters overturned the rejection and granted planning permission.
Describing the appeal site as an established tennis club on a large corner plot in a largely residential area of Harpenden, Ms Masters said that a dense six-metre-high leylandii hedge between the club and No. 20 would be removed to allow for construction of an additional court.
- 1 Harpenden retailers call on county to end town centre road closures
- 2 Harpenden man charged after journalist chased through Whitehall
- 3 Freedom Day delay is a financial blow to local businesses
- 4 It's showtime at Rothamsted with West End stars performing in 'Musicals at the Manor'
- 5 Freedom Day: More than half of Herts residents welcome delay to lockdown easing
- 6 Schoolgirl donates hair to Little Princess Trust
- 7 Property Spotlight: A penthouse apartment at St Albans' Gabriel Square
- 8 Village's first scarecrow trail raises £700 for school
- 9 All aboard the Blue Tangerine Café for vital work experience
- 10 Resident accused of 'land-grab' over bid to annexe amenity space
The club said it would plant conifer hedge plants along the boundary to make up for the loss of greenery.
Ms Masters said she was “satisfied that the addition of one further junior court would not result in undue visual impact or loss of privacy to No. 20.”
Although neighbours had raised concerns about noise and disturbance from the use of an additional junior court and practice wall, the planning inspector said: “the site is already used for tennis and this has been an established situation for some time.
“However, in my view junior tennis is unlikely to be played on an open air court in poor weather or when light is inadequate.”
She included a condition to restrict the hours of use, to ‘protect’ the living conditions of those living nearby.