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 14 of the best places for a curry in Hertfordshire according to readers
- 2 11 of the prettiest streets in St Albans
- 3 Campaign to save Harpenden pub which teamed up with Wheathampstead Indian restaurant
- 4 Man in his 80s dies after collision between lorry and mobility scooter
- 5 Remembering one of Hertfordshire's best-known estate agents
- 6 St Albans Charter Market meeting to be held in public
- 7 University of Hertfordshire paedophile caught with more than 500 child abuse images
- 8 Planning permission granted for 45-home London Colney development
- 9 Classic cars raise money for three Harpenden charities
- 10 Nightmare return for Joe Newton as own-goal gives St Albans City victory over Havant
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.