Planning for more padel – observations

As the popularity of padel continues to grow, developers and landowners are exploring opportunities to build courts and meet the increasing demand. Understanding at the outset how the planning system serves the development of land for padel could save applicants considerable time and money.

The key components to consider:

1. When is planning permission required?

In the context of developing padel courts, planning permission would typically be required if a proposal includes:

• New outdoor padel courts on greenfield or brownfield sites
• Indoor conversions involving a material change of use or potentially structural works
• Changes of use
• Covered courts, canopies, fencing or glass enclosures (unless covered by permitted development rights)
• Installation of floodlights
• Extended operating hours if subject to a planning condition (from an existing use)

It is possible for a proposal to not require planning permission – see 2 below.

2. Same use class

Indoor padel courts fall within Use Class E(d). Outdoor courts would generally fall within Use Class F2(c).

A planning application is not required if changing from an existing use which falls in the same use class as the proposed padel courts, because changing use within the same use class does not constitute development for TCPA 1990 purposes. If you are considering this approach, you should ensure that existing permissions and planning agreements relating to the site have been reviewed to understand if a condition or planning (s106) obligation attached restricts changes of use within the approved use class.

If there is doubt or ambiguity, the grant of a lawful development certificate may be necessary to mitigate against any associated risks of breaching planning control or transactional / financial risks.

There is therefore an opportunity to repurpose existing commercial buildings for indoor padel courts without a formal grant of planning permission. We would highly recommend speaking to our Planning team to understand whether planning is required for your site and proposal.

Outdoor courts might be slightly trickier in this respect. A certificate was refused by Lancaster City Council for the change of use from a bowling green (Use Class F2(c)) to outdoor courts because the proposal lacked sufficient evidence demonstrating public accessibility (Council ref: 23/01164/PLDC). The Council commented that “private or heavily restricted access” to the court could render the use as falling outside of Use Class F2.

3. Green Belt or Conservation Area designations

When considering any planning application, Councils must ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt (unless the development relates to grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate, or previously developed land) (NPPF para 153). Inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. The provision of appropriate facilities, including buildings, for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation is an exception.

However, for outdoor courts, the design of the proposal, such as the inclusion of a domed roof (see Cambridge City Council refusal ref: 25/02147/FUL) or extensive perimeter fencing and canopies (see the London Borough of Barnet refusal ref: 25/0235/FUL) have been determined as inappropriate. In respect of the latter proposal, a subsequent application for courts which omitted the canopy enclosures was approved by the London Borough of Barnet (Council ref: 25/3670/FUL).

If the site falls within a Conservation Area or is immediately adjacent, Councils must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This will be a consideration if proposing new courts and/or external features such as floodlights or canopy structures. Accordingly, if harm is identified, there is a presumption against granting permission that needs to be given considerable weight and would have to be outweighed by the benefits.

When exploring the potential for new courts on green spaces, you should ensure that local planning policy is reviewed to identify whether the space is safeguarded. This is often overlooked in initial site appraisals but will help developers to understand the scope of the information required to justify proposals and can determine the likelihood of obtaining planning permission.

4. Noise and lighting

Outdoor courts will need to overcome potential issues associated with noise and lighting. This is an especially important consideration when the site is in proximity to sensitive uses such as residential or ecological sites/features.

The LTA Padel Court Construction Guidance Note outlines that if there are residential properties within 50m of the proposed padel courts then this will likely require noise and lighting surveys from specialist consultants.

Councils are likely to condition operational hours, outdoor lighting and design features (such as screens and barriers) to mitigate against the harm.

The commercial impact of an ongoing restriction on operational hours of use, and the costs associated with implementing additional design features must be considered as early as possible to understand viability.

5. Amenity

Proposals must be assessed in terms of the visual effect on the character of the area and the enjoyment of residential property.

Noise, lighting, traffic and loss of privacy could be relevant to padel proposals.

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham refused an application (Council ref: 2019/01504/FUL) because the padel perimeter enclosures introduced a “discordant feature” and, due to close proximity with nearby residential properties, the use would have a “harmful impact in terms of nuisance, noise and disturbance”.

Applicants should carefully consider the siting of proposals and may need to submit a noise assessment and details of mitigation measures to justify the acceptability of the impact of the proposals on residential amenity.

6. Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain (“BNG”)

Depending on the existing state of the site, ecological surveys may be needed to support a planning application.

Unless exempt, developers in England are required to provide 10% BNG on all habitats within the redline boundary of their development, whether or not they are impacted.

Developers should understand the scale of the proposal at an early stage, to check whether an exemption applies and, if not, the costs associated with securing compliance.

It is worth noting that additional exemptions are due to be introduced at the end of July 2026 which will remove the requirement to deliver BNG on a number of sites. This would apply to sites smaller than 0.2 ha and temporary planning permissions granted for a maximum of five years. Guidance on the transitional arrangements is due to be published soon. We recommend monitoring this to see if it changes the position for your site.

7. Sequential test

Indoor padel courts fall within Use Class E(d) and therefore could be treated by the local planning authority as a “main town centre use” under the NPPF (see para 91 and the Glossary). Where a proposed site lies on the edge or outside the town centre boundary identified in the relevant Local Plan Policies Map, a sequential test will usually be required to demonstrate that no suitable town centre or edge-of-centre sites are available and suitable before an out-of-centre location can be justified. However, often it will be simpler to use a building with an existing Class E use so that this policy requirement would not then apply.

This policy requirement does not generally apply to outdoor padel courts, although some Local Plans may still require a sequential assessment where the courts form part of a wider leisure or mixed-use development.

8. Highway impact

Increased traffic may cause highway safety or capacity issues. Restricted sites may struggle to overcome these issues.