Appeal 6003015

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development on [name]; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the [name]; • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal upon wildlife; and, • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposal.

The appeal site relates to an outdoor sports centre with 13 synthetic football pitches, car parking and a pavilion building on land designated as Metropolitan

Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) affords MOL the same level of protection as Green Belts. Policy ECC06 of the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (BLP) states that MOL should be protected from inappropriate development applying the same tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework). Appeal Decision: 6003015

Under the Framework, development is considered inappropriate unless it falls within specified exceptions. An exception identified in paragraph 154 b) of the Framework is the provision of appropriate facilities for, amongst other things, outdoor sport and recreation, provided the facilities preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of designating the land as Green Belt, or in this case MOL.

The proposed development would convert 4 of the football pitches into 4 padel courts with perimeter fencing and canopied roofs and would constitute appropriate facilities for outdoor sport for the purposes of paragraph 154 b) of the Framework.

The appellant contends that the site should also be considered Grey Belt land. However, the Framework defines Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land in the Green Belt that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph

Given that MOL is not in the Green Belt it cannot, in my view, be considered Grey Belt.

Furthermore, because MOL is open land within the urban area rather than on the edge of it, the application of the Grey Belt tests is not appropriate because it does not function to restrict urban sprawl (purpose a), prevent neighbouring towns merging (purpose b) or preserve the setting and special character of historic towns (purpose d).

The appellant has also suggested that the proposal should be considered as an exception under Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework which is for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, the Framework definition of PDL excludes land in built up areas such as recreation grounds. In my view, the openair sports pitches at the appeal site constitute a recreation ground and the site cannot be considered PDL. Paragraph 154 b) of the Framework is, therefore, the appropriate exception against which the scheme should be assessed.

The appeal site has mature trees along its eastern boundary adjacent to [address] and its southern boundary with [address] which prevent views into the site when approaching it from the south. The site is visible when approaching from the north along [address] and the footbridge to the side of it where they cross over the [address], and to traffic and pedestrians travelling west and from the bus stop in front of the site on [site address] . From these approaches the existing mesh fencing around the football pitches allows views through it towards the trees behind the appeal site along [address], the tops of which are visible above the pavilion roof, providing a sense of openness despite the presence of the pavilion building.

The existing perimeter fence is 5m high whereas the proposed fence would be 6.5m high with the curved canopy roof above it extending up to a height of 9.04m. The side walls and roof would face towards [site address] and extend for 45.7m, slightly exceeding the length of the pavilion. Although half the courts would sit behind the pavilion, the roof would be visible above the pavilion roof and to the side of it restricting views across to the trees to the rear. In spatial terms the Appeal Decision: 6003015 footprint would remain the same, but the roof would effectively add volume to the structure thereby reducing openness in spatial as well as visual terms.

It is accepted that there are buildings within the MOL, some of which support the use of the MOL as open space. Nonetheless, that does not justify the addition of facilities that would fail to preserve the openness of the MOL. Also, although there would be no additional traffic or activity at the site and the appellant has suggested that the canopies could be removed in future, there is no indication that the scheme would be temporary and thus the harm to openness limited in duration.

Overall, I consider that the proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the MOL and thus would be inappropriate development contrary to Policies CDH01 and ECC06 of the BLP, Policies D3, and G3 of the LP and Section 13 of the Framework which seek to protect MOL from inappropriate development.

Although the existing fences, light columns and hoardings to some extent interrupt the open character of the site they are common features associated with open air sports facilities, as are clubhouses such as the pavilion. The addition of the canopy roofs would be out of keeping with the remaining openair pitches. They would appear dominant and bulky, substantially exceeding the height of the existing fences and not in keeping with openair facilities more generally. They would also be out of keeping with the lower mono-pitched roof on the pavilion, set against which they would create a somewhat cluttered appearance.

According to the appellant the proposed floodlighting would be lower than the existing lighting and therefore have less of an impact on wildlife. Lighting details and floodlighting spillage plans have been provided to me which do not appear to have been submitted with the original planning application. The composite light spillage plan shows the estimated 5 lux and 10 lux light spill exceeding the existing spillage area for 5 and 10 lux lighting, albeit by a relatively small amount. On that basis, it is difficult to see how the proposed lighting would have less of an impact.

The appellant has referred to details that were provided to, and accepted by, the Council for another planning application at the site, ref 25/3631/FUL, which was approved for padel courts, lighting and fencing without the canopy roofs. That scheme is referred to as being broadly similar to the appeal proposal. It is not clear to me whether the proposed lighting scheme is the same as that for the approved scheme. Furthermore, the lighting report (Document NPD022) submitted with that application, which the appellant cites as evidence that the proposed lighting would provide a net benefit to wildlife compared to the existing lighting, has not been provided to me. I am therefore unable to assess whether the proposed scheme would protect wildlife, as the appellant suggests.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that wildlife would be protected and does not therefore accord with Schedule 7a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Policy G6 of the LP and Policies CDH01 and ECC06 of the BLP which seek to protect priority species. Appeal Decision: 6003015

There would be health and well-being benefits in terms of providing sporting facilities in a sustainable location, for which there is an identified demand, and modest benefits arising from short term employment during construction. However, such benefits could be achieved without the need for the canopy roofs, as is the case with the existing football pitches and will be the case if the approved scheme referred to is implemented. As such these benefits carry little weight.

The proposal would be inappropriate development within [name]. Applying the provisions of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to [name]. The proposed development would also harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and area. The other considerations put forward do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the [name], by reason of inappropriateness and effect on openness that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposed development would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.