®Planning appeal decision
The Grove Lawn Tennis Club, Cascade Avenue, London, N10 3PS
Planning appeal 3356480 at The Grove Lawn Tennis Club, Cascade Avenue, London, N10 3PS (London Borough of Haringey) was dismissed on 17 July 2025 by Inspector Smith J, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposed development on the availability of community facilities, including sports and recreation facilities and open space.
Redevelopment of site including conversion of existing pavilion into 1.no residential dwelling and erection of 8.no residential dwellings, associated landscaping and cycle storage
- Authority
- London Borough of Haringey
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Smith J
- Postcode
- N10 3PS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposed development on the availability of community facilities, including sports and recreation facilities and open space
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Rookfield Conservation Area
- the effect on living conditions for occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and privacy
- whether suitable living conditions would be provided for future occupiers of the converted pavilion building
What decided it
The less-than-substantial harm to the significance of the Rookfield Conservation Area, assessed towards the upper end of that category, was not outweighed by the public benefits, engaging paragraph 11d(i) and confirming conflict with the development plan.
The collective benefits of the scheme (housing delivery, one affordable unit, PDL use, economic and biodiversity gains), carrying no more than moderate weight, did not outweigh the great weight attached to the less-than-substantial heritage harm together with conflicts on community facilities and neighbour outlook, so the balance tipped against the proposal and paragraph 11d(i) rather than d(ii) applied.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy S5Policy S1Policy SP15Policy SP16Policy SP13Policy DM20Policy DM49Policy HC1Policy DM9Policy DC3Policy DM1Policy DM7Policy SP11Policy D3Policy D6Policy SI2Policy SP4Policy DM21
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 96Paragraph 98Paragraph 104Paragraph 11Paragraph 125Paragraph 135Paragraph 212Paragraph 215
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Haringey
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed14 October 202660082516 Ewart Grove, Wood Green, London, N22 5NX
- Allowed13 October 20266010745Rakkas 365-369 Green Lanes, Haringey, London, N4 1DY
- Dismissed13 October 2026600719538 Parkhurst Road, Wood Green, London, N22 8JQ
- Dismissed9 October 202660113325 Kimberley Gardens, Tottenham, London, N4 1LB
- Dismissed30 September 20263367051109 Great Cambridge Road, London, N17 7LN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.