Comment: ‘how could planning rules accommodate both padel-playing schoolgirls and their actor neighbours?

It’s no that secret Homes & Property is a pro-pub publication, happy to endorse living close to a good boozer.

But are all amenities created equal? While I would be happy with a quality pub, what about, say, a padel court?

It’s not as unlikely a quandary as it seems, at least for West Hampstead residents, who include Downton Abbey actor Jim Carter.

The Camden New Journal reports a nearby girls’ school has applied to build facilities for the Andy Murray-endorsed sport — a cross between squash and tennis — on cricket grounds near Carter’s home.

In a planning objection on Camden council’s website the actor states concern about the “explosive noise associated with padel tennis” and the “aggressive levels of sound from players and equipment”.

It’s a poser. On the one hand, schoolgirls whose padel dreams stand to be thwarted by an unsympathetic neighbour.

On the other, a long-standing resident who presumably works at night quite a lot and understandably wouldn’t relish early morning thwacking.

It’s easy to level accusations of Nimbyism at people who object to development in their area, but equally lives can be ruined by local changes beyond our control.

As ever, I believe the problem lies with the system: planning laws were designed to be flexible and yet too often we face a zero sum game. In this case — to padel or not to padel.

With a more constructive, less confrontational system, could a middle way be found?