New Forest padel courts face demolition order

At Hamptworth Golf and Country Club in the New Forest, two padel courts sit beneath a 37-metre-wide canopy structure – and that entire setup may soon have to be removed. The New Forest National Park Authority has refused the club's retrospective planning application and issued an enforcement notice requiring the dismantling of unauthorised development. For the growing padel community in southern England, the case is a clear reminder that even established sports facilities can quickly clash with landscape and nature conservation rules in protected areas.

Construction without permission in a national park

The club occupies an attractive setting between Salisbury and Southampton. Last winter, Hamptworth completed a large canopy over two padel courts without first submitting a planning application to the national park authority. According to enforcement documents, three open pickleball courts were also added alongside the original two courts. The combination of roofing, floodlighting, enclosures, ground works and drainage forms the core of the disputed "extension of sports courts" – all carried out without the required consent.

A formal enforcement notice was issued in February. It requires the operator, within six months of the notice taking effect – from 1 June – to remove all unauthorised structures and restore the land to its previous condition. If no appeal is lodged or if it fails, the deadline stands without compromise: demolition and reinstatement.

Why the authority said no

Planning officers judged the build to be "detrimental and harmful" to the character and tranquillity of the protected landscape. The development does not read as a high-quality, locally distinctive addition but introduces excessive built form into the national park. The notice highlights several concerns:

• Harm to landscape quality and weak response to local design character
• Insufficient limitation of external lighting despite floodlights
• Location within 70 metres of priority habitats and bat commuting corridors
• Risks to biodiversity and the intrinsic character of the countryside

Wiltshire County Council's flood authority also objected, citing "incorrect and insufficient information" about drainage works affecting the nearby River Blackwater. The dispute therefore covers not only how the courts look but potential hydrological impacts.

Not a "limited extension" of the golf course

Crucial to the refusal was how the scheme was classified. The padel and tennis courts were deemed not a limited extension of golf operations but a "completely unrelated, diversified provision" that could run independently of the course. That separation makes it harder to argue that the club merely modernised existing infrastructure.

Pickleball in the same dispute

Alongside the two padel courts, enforcement papers also cover three new open pickleball courts. For members and neighbours, the conflict is not about a single sport but a wider racket expansion on the golf estate. Anyone assessing the planning position should treat both offers together because lighting, fencing and ground works apply to the whole scheme.

Club defends jobs and local amenity

Speaking to the Salisbury Journal, Hamptworth said the padel and pickleball facility employs 24 people and serves as an important local amenity. It argued that planning policy should give greater weight to supporting economic growth for established businesses adapting to modern sport demand. From the club's perspective, the case raises whether protected landscapes and racket-sport development can be better aligned.

For padel players across Britain, the conflict remains acute: demolition would remove two courts in a region where indoor and outdoor capacity is already tight. The dispute also shows that canopies, lighting and drainage in sensitive locations trigger planning scrutiny faster than court markings alone.

Next steps and wider implications

The club can still appeal. If it does not, or if an appeal fails, the six-month removal and restoration period begins in June. Observers compare Hamptworth to other English padel planning battles – from noise research to debates over local restrictions. Anyone planning new courts should assess landscape protection, lighting, watercourses and how far the offer is tied to the site's core business at an early stage.

The enforcement notice itemises each element: extension of sports courts with ground modelling and drainage, floodlighting, enclosures and the roof structure. Operators should assume the entire technical package is in scope, not only the visible canopy. Early specialist input on lighting, noise, water and protected species is therefore advisable in comparable locations.

Padel is booming across Britain, yet consents in national parks rarely proceed smoothly. Trade coverage regularly points clubs to planning guides, noise models and neighbour engagement. Hamptworth illustrates that retrospective approval after completion does not remove risk – it can harden the authority's case once landscape harm is already visible.

For Hamptworth, the national park decision means the winter investment in covered outdoor padel was, in planning terms, a step too far without consent. Whether the courts survive depends on legal challenges and possible negotiated solutions – until then, the site stands as a cautionary tale for ambitious club expansions in the New Forest.