PLANS for a new-look tennis centre were finally given the stamp of approval by district planners after tight controls for its future use were put in place.

Councillors said that they saw no good reason not to allow the new building to be constructed but ordered that it would have to be demolished if it were no longer to be used as a leisure facility.

Last week East Hampshire District CouncilÕs north planning committee heard that Kingsley Tennis Centre wanted permission to demolish its existing dome building and replace it with a new complex.

Although the application was well backed, with 35 letters of support being sent to the council, some Kingsley residents were less enthusiastic.

Kingsley Parish Council objected to the application because of the buildingÕs resemblance to an industrial shed. It expressed the fear that, if the tennis centre were to close, a new industrial use would take its place.

Case officer Keith Oliver told councillors that although the applicant had more than 100 years left on his lease, the parish council was still unconvinced that would safeguard the village against extra industrial development.

ÒThe parishÕs view is that things can change and that in a few years we could be left with an industrial building,Ó he said.

He said that the new timber boarding and cladding building, measuring 60 metres by 36.5 metres, would encompass the four indoor courts with the two existing outdoor clay courts remaining.

But Mr Oliver pointed out that an order to demolish the building, if its present use ceases, would not lead to the land being restored as it is already a brown field site.

KingsleyÕs district councillor Warwick Womack urged councillors to take a dim view of the application as he said that Òit is an inappropriate building for the village of KingsleyÓ.

ÒIf they had come up with a more ingenious and better designed building it would have my wholehearted support and probably that of the parish council,Ó he said. ÒBut it is an industrial shed and I am concerned about a change of use application.Ó

ÒI would support this industrial shed with the condition that it be demolished when its life as a tennis centre is over.Ó

He was backed by Geoffrey Whittle (Headley) who said that the tennis centre Òis a shed and it could have been a lot nicerÓ.

ÒI have seen in Kingsley buildings change from one use to something else and there is nothing that we can do about it.Ó

He said that the district council now had an opportunity to prevent this from happening with a condition that the building be demolished if the tennis centre ceases to exist.

Anthony Williams, also a Headley councillor, added: ÒI donÕt think that we would be considering a building of this magnitude, scale and appearance unless it was for a sporting purpose.

ÒI think that we are within our rights to say that this building of quasi-industrial design should be demolished if its existing use ceases.Ó

However other councillors were less convinced that a condition was needed and pointed out that the building only has to be functional and not visually pleasing.

Jerry Janes (Alton - Wooteys) said: ÒIt is only a building to play tennis in, it does not have to be pretty.Ó

Chris Graham (Ropley and Tisted) added: ÒThe site is very well hidden. This tennis club has also got a very good reputation.Ó

A proposal that the building would have to be demolished if its use as a tennis centre had finished was lost, but councillors agreed by a large majority that it would have to go if it was no longer used as a leisure facility.

The tennis club now has five years to demolish the dome and construct its new home.