Planning application · Hammersmith And Fulham
2020/01261/FUL.
Bishop's Park Tennis Courts Bishop's Avenue London
Full / Other Planning at Bishop's Park Tennis Courts Bishop's Avenue London, received 22 May 2020 — refused on 3 Aug 2020 (delegated, James Carleton).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHammersmith And Fulham profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 Aug 2020
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Hammersmith And Fulham planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Retention of fencing and glass surrounds within the existing tennis court area to create 3no. padel/mini tennis courts.
Reference
2020/01261/FUL
Type
Full Planning Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
22 May 2020
Validated
26 May 2020
Target date
3 Aug 2023
Decision date
3 Aug 2020
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Reference
2020/01261/FUL
Type
Full Planning Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
22 May 2020
Validated
26 May 2020
Target date
3 Aug 2023
Decision date
3 Aug 2020
Decision route
Not recorded
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Hammersmith And Fulham portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 3 Aug 2020, delegated decision by James Carleton — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 May 2020
Application received
26 May 2020
Application validated
3 Aug 2023
Statutory target date
3 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · James Carleton
22 May 2020
Application received
26 May 2020
Application validated
3 Aug 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
3 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · James Carleton
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal is considered unacceptable on the grounds of visual amenity. More
particularly, the addition of enclosures to the padel court perimeter fence by virtue of
their design, scale, obscure materials with advertisement signage introduce a
discordant feature which has an adverse impact on the visual permeability of this open
space (Metropolitan Open Land) and would fail to preserve or enhance the Bishops
Park Conservation Area. In this respect, the proposal is contrary to Policies DC1, DC8,
OS1, OS2, RTC3, of the Local Plan (2018) and Key Principles AH1, AH2 and CAG3 of
the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Chief Planning Officer of The Economy
Department : Joanne Woodward
2
The proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity. The application
site is in close proximity to nearby residential properties at Bishops Mansions in Bishop
Park Road and it is considered that the existing use has a harmful impact in terms of
nuisance, noise and disturbance. The Noise Impact Assessment does not not include
sufficient information to draw robust conclusions regarding the regular use of the padel
courts. The proposal is contrary to Policies DC1, CF3, CC11, CC13 of the Local Plan
(2018) and Key Principle NN1 and NN2 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary
Planning Document (2018).
Joanne Woodward, Chief Planning Officer of The Economy Department
Duly authorised by the Council to sign this notice.
Note:
Refer to the Statement of Applicants’ Rights and general information enclosed.
Page 2 2020/01261/FUL
LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
STATEMENT OF APPLICANTS’ RIGHTS
arising from the refusal of planning permission
1 An applicant aggrieved by the accompanying decision may
1
The proposal is considered unacceptable on the grounds of visual amenity. More
particularly, the addition of enclosures to the padel court perimeter fence by virtue of
their design, scale, obscure materials with advertisement signage introduce a
discordant feature which has an adverse impact on the visual permeability of this open
space (Metropolitan Open Land) and would fail to preserve or enhance the Bishops
Park Conservation Area. In this respect, the proposal is contrary to Policies DC1, DC8,
OS1, OS2, RTC3, of the Local Plan (2018) and Key Principles AH1, AH2 and CAG3 of
the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
Chief Planning Officer of The Economy
Department : Joanne Woodward
2
The proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity. The application
site is in close proximity to nearby residential properties at Bishops Mansions in Bishop
Park Road and it is considered that the existing use has a harmful impact in terms of
nuisance, noise and disturbance. The Noise Impact Assessment does not not include
sufficient information to draw robust conclusions regarding the regular use of the padel
courts. The proposal is contrary to Policies DC1, CF3, CC11, CC13 of the Local Plan
(2018) and Key Principle NN1 and NN2 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary
Planning Document (2018).
Joanne Woodward, Chief Planning Officer of The Economy Department
Duly authorised by the Council to sign this notice.
Note:
Refer to the Statement of Applicants’ Rights and general information enclosed.
Page 2 2020/01261/FUL
LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
STATEMENT OF APPLICANTS’ RIGHTS
arising from the refusal of planning permission
1 An applicant aggrieved by the accompanying decision may
Policies cited
AH1AH2CAG3DC1CF3CC11CC13NN1NN2
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.