Cambridge padel appeals have secured permission for five floodlit courts at Cambridge Rugby Union Club, after an Inspector found that the existing sports complex qualified for the grey belt exception. Both versions of the scheme, one with a canopy over three courts and one without, were allowed on 10 November 2026.
PadelStars Limited challenged Cambridge City Council’s refusal of applications 25/02147/FUL and 25/04801/FUL at Grantchester Road, Newnham. Inspector F P Tinsley concluded that the proposed courts would meet a documented shortage in the city and that the existing sports facilities, surrounding structures and practical access arrangements were central to the planning balance.
The Cambridge padel appeals are particularly useful because an apparently similar proposal for two uncovered padel courts at Dunnington and Grimston Sports Club near York was dismissed on the same day. The difference shows why proposals on existing sporting land do not receive the same Green Belt treatment automatically.
Why the Cambridge padel appeals succeeded
Both Cambridge schemes concern five courts within an established sports complex. Appeal A, reference 6007602, includes a barrel-vaulted canopy over three of them, while Appeal B, reference 6007605, proposes all five without a canopy. Each also includes a club hut, floodlighting and landscaping. The Inspector dealt with both appeals in a combined decision letter.
The main questions were whether the works amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and whether they would harm the protected open space or Cambridge’s setting. The land lies among rugby club buildings, a grandstand, existing floodlit pitches, fencing and nearby tennis facilities. That context mattered more than treating the site as if it were untouched open countryside.
Cambridge City Council’s 2021 Green Belt assessment assessed a substantially larger parcel, about 40.37 hectares, and identified very high harm if it were released. Inspector Tinsley considered that strategic assessment of limited assistance in judging the specific, much smaller appeal site. The Inspector instead considered what this part of the club contributed to individual Green Belt purposes.
Grey belt status removed the inappropriate-development objection
Under Policy GB7(g) of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, grey belt land can qualify for an exception from the normal Green Belt restriction if the additional policy conditions are met. The Inspector found the appeal site did not contribute strongly to checking Cambridge’s unrestricted sprawl, preventing neighbouring settlements merging or preserving the historic city’s special character.
The Inspector recognised Cambridge’s historic significance, but concluded that facilities located centrally among existing sports buildings were materially different from development of an undeveloped area contributing to its wider landscape setting. Nor would the proposals materially narrow the separation between Cambridge and Grantchester. The Cambridge padel appeals therefore passed the site-specific grey belt definition.
That classification was not the end of the test. The Inspector also examined whether the scheme would undermine the wider Green Belt purposes, respond to evidenced unmet need and occupy a sustainable location. A committee report had identified a requirement for 13 additional padel courts in Cambridge by 2030. Five new courts would make a meaningful contribution towards closing that gap.
Existing parking, proposed cycle spaces and a bus stop immediately outside the rugby club entrance supported the location case. No substantive highway objection was raised. Taken together, these factors satisfied the extra requirements of Policy GB7(g), so the Inspector concluded that the schemes were not inappropriate development in the Green Belt
. A very special circumstances case was therefore unnecessary.
Our grey belt and Green Belt guide explains why a land classification alone does not guarantee planning permission and how the remaining national policy tests operate.
What the canopy changed in the planning balance
The distinction between the two appeals was not cosmetic. Appeal A’s canopy would introduce a more substantial structure over three courts and reduce the amount of outdoor recreational space. The Inspector identified moderate conflict with Cambridge Local Plan Policy 67, which protects recreation space, but gave that conflict limited weight because the site would continue to provide sport, including covered facilities available in more weather conditions.
Appeal B avoided that conflict because the courts were uncovered. The Inspector considered both designs acceptable in visual terms overall, notwithstanding some limited effect on protected views. The Inspector did not interpret the neighbourhood plan’s protection of views as meaning that absolutely no change in those views could be allowed.
Existing floodlighting at the rugby ground was an important baseline. The Council had raised concerns about extra artificial light in relation to Appeal B, but its committee report had accepted that mitigations and operating-hour restrictions could address the issue. The Inspector was not persuaded that the new lighting would materially damage this established sporting setting.
Noise had also been assessed. The proposed courts were a considerable distance from the nearest homes, with some screening from existing structures and vegetation. The technical material did not demonstrate unacceptable impacts on nearby residents. Those conclusions are specific to this site and should not be read as a free pass for padel near housing.
The Cambridge padel appeals reinforce the practical points covered in Planning Geek’s padel court planning permission guide, particularly the treatment of glass enclosures, canopies, lighting, noise and the cumulative role of existing sports facilities.
Same-day York refusal shows the limits of that reasoning
A second Inspector reached the opposite outcome at Dunnington and Grimston Sports Club near York on 10 November. Inspector J Hobbs dismissed appeal 6008336 for two uncovered courts and associated floodlights. Those courts would have been placed away from most existing buildings in a visually prominent part of the club’s playing fields.
Although the York proposal offered community health benefits and had support from the Lawn Tennis Association, the Inspector found that its impact on Green Belt openness had not been minimised. It would also remove part of a playing field without replacement. The sporting benefits did not clearly outweigh that loss under Framework Policy HC7, and no very special circumstances justified inappropriate Green Belt development.
The York decision did not rule that padel is unacceptable in the Green Belt. It turned on the positioning, visibility and loss of usable recreational land. In contrast, the Cambridge padel appeals involved a contained part of a more intensively developed sports complex, and the Inspector found the relevant grey belt exception applied.
Conditions still control opening and community access
Planning permission does not mean that either Cambridge scheme can simply open without further approvals. Both have conditions controlling design details, lighting, construction hours, footway improvements, drainage, landscaping and biodiversity. The courts’ activities are restricted outside 07.00 to 22.00 each day, with detailed lighting requirements intended to protect wildlife and neighbours.
Before the facilities come into use, the operator must obtain approval of a Community Use Agreement covering pricing, public access for people who are not rugby club members, opening arrangements, management, advertising and review. The agreement must be reviewed after one, two and five years. A Biodiversity Gain Plan must also demonstrate at least 10% biodiversity net gain.
Costs refused despite both Cambridge appeal wins
Although both Cambridge planning appeals succeeded, Inspector Tinsley refused PadelStars Limited’s separate application for a full costs award against Cambridge City Council in respect of Appeal B, reference 6007605. The separate costs decision, also dated 10 November 2026, found that the Council had supported its Green Belt concerns with relevant evidence and reasoned planning judgement. The fact that the Inspector reached a different planning conclusion did not establish unreasonable behaviour.
The appellant argued that councillors’ reasons for refusal differed from the officer recommendation and that comparable schemes elsewhere had not been treated consistently. The Inspector observed that Members are not bound to follow officer recommendations
and accepted the Council’s explanation of the differences between the other sites and this proposal. The costs refusal is a useful distinction: succeeding on the planning merits does not automatically entitle an appellant to recover appeal expenses.
There is a wider lesson for anyone planning a new sports facility in protected countryside. Start with the specific site, not merely the type of sport. Establish where built development already exists, the real contribution of the land to Green Belt purposes, what open playing space would be lost, and the evidence of local need. The Cambridge padel appeals and the York refusal show how those details can produce markedly different results under the same national framework.
Inspector F P Tinsley allowed Cambridge appeals 6007602 and 6007605 on 10 November 2026. The official Planning Inspectorate records are available for appeal 6007602 and appeal 6007605. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The contrasting York decision, appeal 6008336, can be checked through the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.
0 Comments