Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposed Development – The application related to
(a) the provision of additional tennis facilities, with these facilities including a total of six permanent synthetic surface tennis courts, with three of these tennis courts covered by an air dome (temporary for 10 years);
(b)  the erection of eight, 10 metre high columns providing twelve floodlights to the three uncovered courts;
(c) the erection of single storey buildings to provide temporary changing facilities, storage and WC facilities, a new electrical substation, switch room and inflation unit; and
(d) the resurfacing and formalising of the area currently used for car parking and the widening of existing vehicular access from Grand Drive plus associated landscaping, drainage and fencing.

2. Air Dome – At the request of the Chair, a representative for the applicant confirmed that the air dome would be constantly inflated and wouldn’t be deflated whilst not in use.

3. Discussion – There was considerable discussion of the proposals.  Various Members expressed concerns regarding the proposals including -
(a) the proposals effect on the existing open space being contrary to Council policy;
(b) the size of the air dome, and particularly its height of some 40 ft;
(c) light spillage from the air dome;
(d) the location of the dome and other sporting facilities and the parking facilities, all of which may be intensively used, close to surrounding residential properties;
(e) the visual intrusion from the dome and other facilities for surrounding residents;
(f) the noise pollution from the proposals which include a public address system;
(g) loss of privacy for surrounding residents;
(h) possible harm to surrounding trees; and
(i) this site not being an appropriate location for these sporting facilities.

4. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below, subject to the detailed grounds of refusal being agreed by officers.   The motion was carried by 5 votes to 2 (Councillors John Delaney and Peter Southgate dissenting).  Subsequently the Committee also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 9 - ref. 14/P0348 (Raynes Park Playing Fields, Grand Drive, SW20 9NB)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the development being contrary to the following policies -

(i) Policy CS.13(a) of Merton’s Core Strategy (by failing to protect and enhance the Borough’s public and private open space network including Metropolitan Open Land, parks, and other open spaces);

(ii) Policy BE.15, para.(iii) of the Merton Unitary Development Plan (2003) (by failing to protect amenities from visual intrusion); and

(iii) any similar policies in policy DMD2 of Merton’s Draft Sites and Premises Plan.

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration (in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair) be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee considered that the officer report had failed to give sufficient weight to the requirements of Policy CS.13 relating to the protection of open space and the requirements of Policy BE.15 regarding the impact on residential amenities.