# Land north of Scrubs Farm, Lower Gravel Road, Bromley (padel courts) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Burch - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012303 - **Application reference:** 25/05644/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Four outdoor padel courts with 3 to 4 m mesh and glass enclosures and integrated floodlights, a WC and office building, access, fencing, landscaping and 15 parking spaces - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 37, 49, 57, 58, London Plan 2021 G2, S5 - **Main issues:** whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt, very special circumstances - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date, grey-belt-not-needed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Four floodlit outdoor padel courts with a small WC and office building and 15 parking spaces, on Green Belt land beside an industrial estate and playing fields in Bromley, were allowed. The inspector found the scheme fell within GB7(1)(f)(iv): facilities for outdoor sport where the impact on openness is minimised and there is no significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes. The local Green Belt policy, which asks for openness to be preserved, was given limited weight as inconsistent with that test. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶2). - **Plan weight.** Policy 49 "requires such development to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. It is therefore inconsistent with the Framework in this regard" (DL ¶8). - **Openness minimised: PASS.** "the use of transparent glazing and mesh would maintain a degree of visual permeability" (DL ¶11). On activity: "the scale of the use would be relatively modest and would not give rise to overly intensive levels of activity" (DL ¶14). - **Purposes: no significant conflict.** The courts "would therefore result in a degree of encroachment into this area. However, within the context of the wider area, including the park, playing fields and commercial/industrial estate, this would not result in a significant conflict with the purpose of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (DL ¶18). - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** "I am satisfied that the impact on openness would be minimised and there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶20). - **Location.** "whilst I accept that the site is not situated in a particularly sustainable location, on balance, and when considered alongside the benefits of the scheme, I find the scheme to be acceptable in this regard" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance None is set out. Once the scheme was found not inappropriate, the inspector held "I do not need to consider other considerations and whether these amount to very special circumstances" (DL ¶21), dealt with character, location and parking as other matters, and allowed the appeal. S5(5) is not mentioned. ## What made the difference Context and design. The site sits between an industrial estate with security lighting, floodlit playing fields and a park, so the courts, lights and activity were judged against that backdrop. The enclosures are see-through and the lights are fixed to them, with no separate columns. The test applied was whether the impact was "minimised", not whether openness was kept intact: the inspector accepted some loss of openness from the courts, enclosures, lights, buildings and activity, and still found the exception met. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(f)(iv) asks whether the impact on openness is minimised, not whether openness is preserved; a local policy that requires preservation is inconsistent with it (DL ¶8). - Design features that minimise impact: see-through enclosures, lighting integrated into them, single-storey buildings between the parking and the courts, and the minimum parking needed (DL ¶10-13). - Activity counts towards the openness impact, and is judged against existing activity nearby (DL ¶14). - All five Green Belt purposes were checked for "significant conflict", including encroachment and regeneration (DL ¶16-19). - A leisure use in a location with a PTAL of 0 was accepted on balance, without TR3 being applied (DL ¶24-25). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** outdoor sport facilities with a change of use; impact on openness minimised (open courts, see-through enclosures, lights fixed to the enclosures, single-storey buildings, modest parking) and no significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes; the letter writes "GB7(f)(iv)" (DL 7, 9-20) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so very special circumstances not considered (DL 21) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: not-engaged.** grey belt and other exceptions argued by the appellant but not determined once (f)(iv) was met (DL 6, 21) - **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** Bromley Local Plan Policy 49 requires such development to preserve openness and not conflict with the purposes, which is stricter than the Framework test; found inconsistent and given limited weight; Annex A not cited (DL 8) - **TR3: neutral.** mapped: TR3 not cited; PTAL 0 and no footway on the 130 m access lane, but a bus garage with four services 800 m away and Petts Wood station a 30-minute walk; "not situated in a particularly sustainable location" yet acceptable on balance with the benefits; not a refusal reason (DL 24-25) - **TR6(4): pass.** mapped: TR6 not cited; no highway authority objection; peak parking demand of 12 vehicles against 15 spaces (DL 26) - **DP3: accord.** mapped: DP3 not cited; courts and floodlights seen against the industrial estate and playing-field floodlights; complies with Local Plan Policy 37 (DL 22-23) - **DM6: pass.** conditions tested against DM6; cycle parking trigger moved to first use; refuse and parking management conditions not imposed (DL 27-34) ## Key facts - Site is flat, with hardstanding, part-sealed surfaces and stored agricultural equipment, at the edge of a field in the Metropolitan Green Belt; a commercial and industrial estate lies to the south, playing fields to the west and a park to the north (DL 4) - The Council accepted the proposal was a change of use with facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, and that the site has only a limited role in checking sprawl (DL 7, 16) - Some encroachment into a wider, more rural field was found, but not a significant conflict with purpose (c) (DL 18) - The Council raised sustainability of location only in arguing the site was not grey belt; it was not a reason for refusal (DL 24) - Benefits named are health and wellbeing from a sports facility close to a residential area, and a high level of public support; no weight words are used (DL 25) - Hours limited to 07:00 to 21:30 (08:00 on Sundays and bank holidays) by condition 9 - No S5(5) balance is set out in the letter ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012303 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012303.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.