Evidence base for a padel or tennis facility on open land

Padel court planning evidence stands or falls on four documents: a noise assessment that handles impulsive ball strike, a lighting assessment against obtrusive light guidance, parking and access evidence for peak club hours, and an open space case explaining why the land can be used this way. If the land is a playing field or has been one in the last five years, Sport England becomes a statutory consultee and the application changes character entirely. Everything else in the pack is ordinary.

Outdoor racket sports look modest on a drawing. Two padel courts occupy roughly the footprint of a single tennis court, and the structures are light. The trouble is that they concentrate people, vehicles, artificial light and a sharp repetitive sound into a corner of open land at exactly the hours neighbours are at home.

Loss of open space and the policy test

Open space, sports land and playing fields carry their own protection in national policy. The Framework's test is that such land should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, or the loss is replaced by equivalent or better provision, or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision whose benefits clearly outweigh the loss. The current Framework was re-issued on 17 August 2026 and now uses policy codes rather than paragraph numbers, so check the code and wording in the live edition before quoting it in a statement.

A padel or tennis facility usually sits in the third limb of that test. You are proposing alternative sports provision, so the argument is about need, quality and whether what is lost is equivalent to what arrives.

That argument needs evidence, not assertion. A local playing pitch strategy, a sports facility needs assessment or an open space audit held by the council is the natural source, and most authorities publish one. Where the site is an underused corner of grassland rather than a marked pitch, say so plainly and show it on a plan with the pitch layout over the top.

An Open Space Assessment is the document that carries this reasoning, quantifying what is lost, what is retained and what the replacement provision is.

Noise from ball strike and how it is assessed

Padel is louder per square metre than tennis. The ball is struck against glass and mesh, players call across a small enclosed court, and the sound has a sharp onset that carries further than its overall level suggests.

Most practitioners assess it using BS 4142:2014+A1:2019, applying acoustic feature corrections for impulsivity and intermittency and comparing the rating level with the measured background. The standard was written for sound of an industrial and commercial nature, so a reviewer will expect a short justification of why the method has been used and what the correction is based on. State the correction applied and the reasoning for it rather than leaving the number bare.

Survey design matters more than the model. Measure the background during the hours the courts would be busiest, which for a club facility means weekday evenings and weekend mornings rather than a quiet Tuesday afternoon. A single daytime measurement will be picked apart.

The Noise Impact Assessment should also deal with the practical mitigation, which is limited. Acoustic fencing helps only where the receptor is low and close. Distance, orientation of the court, and hours of use do most of the work. Be honest about that.

Illustrative example

Two courts are proposed on the edge of a village recreation ground, with the nearest garden boundary 35 metres away and an existing hedge between. The assessment measures evening background at the garden, adds a correction for the impulsive strike, and finds the rating level above background at the quietest evening hour. The scheme is then revised: courts rotated so the glass back walls face away, play ending at 21:00, and a 2.4 metre close boarded fence along the shared boundary. This example is illustrative only and no site has the same numbers.

Floodlighting, environmental zones and the curfew

Lighting is where these applications are most often refused. Court lighting has to be bright and even, columns are tall, and the light is aimed across an open surface at head height.

Assessment follows the Institution of Lighting Professionals guidance on obtrusive light, which sets limits by environmental zone, from the darkest rural zones to city centres, and applies tighter limits after a curfew time set by the authority. A rural recreation ground is often in a dark zone where the permitted vertical illuminance at a window is very low.

The Lighting Assessment needs isolux contours for both spill and glare, the luminaire schedule with mounting heights and tilt, and predicted vertical illuminance at the nearest habitable windows before and after the curfew. Where predicted spill exceeds the zone limit, the answer is usually a lower column with a tighter optic and a flat glass lens, not a promise to angle the lights down later.

Ecology cuts across this. Light spill onto a hedge line or watercourse used by foraging bats is a separate objection, and a dark corridor along the boundary is often the condition that unlocks approval.

Parking and access at peak times

Court bookings turn over on the hour, which produces a short sharp arrival and departure pattern rather than a steady flow. Two courts in play with the next hour booked means eight cars leaving and eight arriving inside ten minutes.

A parking survey carried out to the accumulation method used for on-street stress, measured on the evenings and weekend mornings when demand peaks, is the evidence that answers the highway authority. Trip rates from a recognised database for sports club uses give the arrival profile, and the club's own booking model gives the turnover interval. Where a scheme shares an existing car park with a pavilion or a school, show the combined accumulation rather than each use separately.

Access geometry is usually the easier part. Visibility splays, a bound surface for the first few metres and a refuse and maintenance vehicle swept path are normally enough for a facility of this size.

Fencing, court surrounds and landscape effect

A padel court is enclosed by glass and mesh to around four metres, higher than most people expect and visually solid at close range. Lighting columns rise above that. On flat open land the assembly reads as a structure, not as a pitch.

Photomontage from two or three public viewpoints does more for the case than any amount of description. Where the site is in a National Landscape, a conservation area or the setting of a listed building, a proportionate landscape and visual appraisal is the right vehicle, and the design response is usually planting depth, a dark powder coat finish and lowering the court into the ground where levels allow.

Perimeter planting also carries the ecology case, which brings biodiversity net gain into view. Courts on modified grassland will lose habitat units, and the gain plan has to make them up on site or off. The statutory metric must be completed by a competent person under the Environment Act 2021 regime, and the biodiversity gain plan is approved by the authority after permission. The same pattern shows up in other small sites with open land, as in which reports a ten pod glamping site needs.

Sport England and the consultation that follows

Where the application affects a playing field, or land used as one within the last five years, the authority must consult Sport England under the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. Its playing fields policy allows development only in a small number of defined exception circumstances, and a facility for a different sport on part of a pitch is assessed against those exceptions rather than on general planning merits.

Engage before submission. Sport England's early view on whether a proposal meets one of its exceptions is the single most useful thing you can hold before you spend money on lighting and acoustics. A holding objection from a statutory consultee rarely disappears at committee.

The pack and the conditions to expect

For two to four courts with floodlighting on open land, expect the authority to want a Planning Statement, a Design and Access Statement, the noise and lighting assessments, transport and parking evidence, an ecology appraisal with a biodiversity metric, a drainage note for the hard surface and a management plan covering hours and bookings.

Conditions follow a familiar pattern: hours of use with an earlier finish on Sundays, floodlighting switched off at a stated time and controlled by a timer that cannot be overridden locally, the approved luminaire schedule fixed by condition, a management plan for bookings and events, and a landscape scheme with a replacement clause.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it, and note that PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval, and for specialist technical reports such as acoustics, lighting and the biodiversity metric, qualified professional input may be required.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which of the 66 report types a courts scheme on your site is likely to need.