# The Bradford Golf Club, Hawksworth Lane, Guiseley

- **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ryan Cowley
- **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009680
- **Application reference:** 25/05530/FU
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Sports netting system on 15 m steel lattice towers along golf club boundary
- **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area, TPO
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3, P3, N2
- **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2019 P10, P11, P12, G9, UDPR 2006 GP5, N19, BD5, NRWLP 2013 Land 2
- **Main issues:** character and appearance incl. conservation area and trees, living conditions, ecology
- **Tags:** not-inappropriate, gb7-1-f-outdoor-recreation, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, gb-incidental

## Summary
Fifteen-metre ball-stop netting at a golf club on the Green Belt edge beside a conservation area. Green Belt was not in dispute: the netting was an appropriate facility for outdoor sport under GB7(1)(f)(iv). The appeal was dismissed on moderate harm to the conservation area's setting and to protected trees, on neighbour amenity and on ecology. The limited public benefits did not outweigh those harms.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The parts of the Framework relevant to this appeal have not substantively changed. I have thus not sought further submissions" (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** The Inspector agreed with the Council that the netting is an appropriate facility for outdoor sport that "would preserve openness and would not conflict with the purposes" (DL ¶23).
- **Heritage (HE6): moderate harm.** "the proposal would loom over the area as an obtrusive incursion into the skyline … industrial and utilitarian appearance" (DL ¶8). "substantial weight must be given to the conservation of the CA" (DL ¶12).
- **Living conditions: FAIL.** The netting would "dominate the outlook … appear overbearing and create a sense of enclosure" (DL ¶14).

## Planning balance
HE6 harm against public benefits. Those benefits were limited because the course had already been redesigned and alternatives had not been explored (DL ¶¶26–28).

## What made the difference
Height and proximity to houses and a conservation area. Green Belt status helped rather than hindered: the (f)(iv) sport-facility exception was accepted.

## Transferable points
- Tall ball-stop netting at an existing golf course can be an "appropriate facility" for outdoor sport under GB7(1)(f)(iv) where it sits at the GB edge near the clubhouse (DL ¶23).
- HE6 applied with "substantial weight" to conservation (2024 "great weight" → 2026 "substantial weight") (DL ¶12).
- Weak evidence on alternatives reduces the weight given to claimed public benefits (DL ¶28).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** appropriate facilities for outdoor sport; edge of GB near clubhouse and development envelope; openness preserved, no conflict with purposes (DL 23)
- **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** moderate harm to setting/significance of Tranmere Park CA; "substantial weight must be given to the conservation" (DL 8, 12)
- **P3: fail.** overbearing, enclosure, netted shadow on neighbouring gardens (DL 13-18)
- **N2: harm.** collision/entanglement barrier in Leeds Habitat Network, no ecology assessment (DL 19-22)

## Key facts
- 15 m galvanised lattice towers with black mesh close to rear gardens on Greenfield Lane
- Adjacent to Tranmere Park Conservation Area; foundations encroach on RPAs of CA-protected trees
- Benefits (ball-strike protection) reduced because the nearest area is now a putting/chipping green and alternatives were not explored

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009680
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4e004ed8-6ca9-44ed-a222-9996a4ba73c8

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009680.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.