The Wimbledon tennis championships are synonymous with hushed silences, polite applause and English civility. But a feud is raging between local residents and the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club’s (AELTC) plans to expand the tournament’s footprint.
The proposals include building lots of new training courts and a “show court” on nearby land used as a private golf course. The area was sold to the AELTC in 2018 by members of the now 124-year-old Wimbledon Park Golf Club, including British TV presenter Piers Morgan, and presenting duo Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly, all of whom collected a windfall of £85,000 as part of the £65million purchase.
Advertisement
But the AELTC has not built on it yet and, in a wood-panelled council chamber in south-west London, a group of local politicians this week struck a hammer blow to the plans of one of the most powerful organisations in world tennis.
The Athletic went along to that meeting in the Wandsworth district and spoke to several campaigners and experts to find out more about the spat.
Wimbledon operates in a far smaller space than tennis’ other three Grand Slam tournaments: the Australian, French and U.S. Opens.
The planned expansion would include 39 smaller courts for playing the tournament’s qualifying rounds and a new 8,000-seater “show court”. But it faces fierce opposition from many locals in that part of London, who do not want an “industrial” complex which they worry will build on green space and bring increased traffic and disruption. Backers say the scheme will provide huge economic and social benefits and expand public access, given the land concerned is a now-closed private golf course.
The plans for the expansion (@AELTC/Allies & Morrison)
Around 90 per cent of the proposed development is in the borough of Merton, the rest is in Wandsworth, the borough to the north. While the planning committee of Merton Council voted for the plans 6-4 last month, the same body in Wandsworth voted unanimously against it this week after recommendations from planning officers. It means the expansion is under threat.
“The councillors unanimously recognised the crucial point that this application provides no justification for so much harm to Metropolitan Open Land — our precious Green Belt,” said Iain Simpson, chair of the Save Wimbledon Park group, who described the outcome as “very heartening”.
Sally Bolton, chief executive of the All England Club, said she was “disappointed” but that the fight is not over: “Given the split council decision, with the London Borough of Merton resolving to approve our application last month, our planning application will now be referred to the Mayor of London’s office for consideration.”
David Law is a tennis commentator for the BBC and other outlets, and a co-presenter of the Tennis Podcast. He says despite Wimbledon being the most famous tennis tournament in the world, in other respects it lags behind the three other Grand Slams in Melbourne, Paris and New York.
Advertisement
For example, its qualifying rounds are not held on the Wimbledon site but several miles away in Roehampton. “The other Grand Slams have enormous plots of land, so they’re able to have the entire qualifying round around their stadium,” Law says.
This means the other three tournaments have a “fan week”, where the public can come and watch qualifying matches and also see the big-name players practising, effectively extending those Grand Slams into a three-week extravaganza.
An artist’s impression of the planned show court (@AELTC/Allies & Morrison)
Law says the French and U.S. Opens both recently expanded after experiencing similar troubles gaining local approval. Wimbledon is a huge global brand, and there is “bemusement” around the world that it cannot do what it wants in terms of expanding and investing in tennis.
Although a bigger and longer Wimbledon each British summer would be popular among tennis fans and those who work in the industry, local residents worry about increased disruption and complain the area’s rail and underground stations struggle to handle tournament traffic already.
“I can see why Wimbledon wants to do it and I’m sure they’ll do a great job,” says Law. “Each year, you see they have done an amazing job of quietly innovating but without sacrificing their style and tradition.
“But I’m biased — I work in tennis. I don’t live in the area and the things that people are objecting to don’t affect me.”
“Concrete, no! Green space, yes!,” chants a protestor with a makeshift drum on a cold evening outside Wandsworth Town Hall, as a few dozen protesters voice their opposition to the proposals.
“Hey, Wandsworth! Leave our park alone!,” chants another, to the tune of Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall.
Many of those present have signs with messages saying ‘Save The Park’ or variations on that theme.
The petition to ‘Save Wimbledon Park’ has over 16,000 followers and the vocal support of the two local MPs, the governing Conservatives’ Stephen Hammond and Fleur Anderson of the Labour Party opposition.
Protestors outside the Wandsworth council meeting (Joey D’Urso/The Athletic)
Many say they are furious that a public park, an area enjoyed by people of all ages and backgrounds, is under threat from a wealthy private company — but this is not the case. The truth is more nuanced. Wimbledon Park itself is not the subject of the proposals, which are to build on the adjacent privately owned Wimbledon Park Golf Course — not that you would know it from following the discourse online.
Critics of the plan note it is AELTC itself which has used the explosive ‘Wimbledon Park’ name frequently, and indeed the page on the Wimbledon official website calls the plans the ‘AELTC Wimbledon Park Project’.
That is not to say there aren’t legitimate arguments against the scheme.
Merton’s planning officers recommended the scheme. Yet in a detailed presentation in the Wandsworth council chamber, with dozens of opponents to the plans watching quietly from the public gallery, looking down on to the eight councillors who would ultimately decide, a planning officer set out in great detail what the scheme would mean in practice.
Advertisement
The officer outlined many possible benefits: a new public park which would expand access to green spaces (given the land’s previous use as a golf course), money spent improving the nearby public park, and investment in conservation and biodiversity.
But there were drawbacks outlined too: the visual effect of losing a rare green space in London and increased pressure on transport over an estimated eight years of work, including de-silting a lake, with hundreds of heavy goods vehicles making their way through surrounding residential streets every month.
Councillor after councillor stood up to make these points, citing public opinion being on their side. Many more letters were submitted to the council opposing the scheme than supporting it.
Many are also angry about the fact that, in 1993, when land rights of the golf course were transferred from Merton Council, the golf club agreed in a legal covenant “not to use the (land) other than for leisure or recreational purposes or as an open space”.
Another hot topic is the term “permissive access”, which is used to mean the AELTC will own the land and permit access for public use. Critics say this means it could be suddenly rescinded and taken completely into private hands, while proponents say this is simply false.
Many critics say their opposition relates to the scale and size of the project rather than the concept of Wimbledon expanding in any way. “We love tennis, but this was a step too far,” Lee Roberts, the Conservatives’ parliamentary spokesman for the Putney, Roehampton and Southfields constituency Anderson represents, told The Athletic.
Opposition was particularly fierce to the 8,000-seater show court which would be visible from a long distance and, once in use, mean a lot of extra footfall and traffic in the area.
While Wandsworth council said this week the “very special circumstances” were not met, their Merton counterparts felt differently last month, arguing “substantial public benefits would clearly outweigh (the) harm”.
Despite it having been a private golf course, the plot is designated ‘Metropolitan Open Land’, of which there is little left in London. That means it is very difficult to gain permission to build on such areas. Proponents say green spaces have environmental benefits even if they are not open to the public.
Advertisement
Paul Willatts, one of the protestors, told The Athletic the Wimbledon plans would “desecrate” the open land and, while accepting that golf might not be the best use for it, noted that once land is built upon, it remains that way forever.
“This decision is fantastic for local residents and our green spaces,” says Anderson, whose constituency sits just north of the Wimbledon complex. “There is still more to be done and I will continue to campaign to save our green spaces in the next stages.”
An artist’s impression of what the qualifying courts would look like (@AELTC/Allies & Morrison)
The AELTC is frustrated at the opposition to the scheme on environmental grounds because while the plans would remove around 300 trees, it would see the planting of around 1,500 and turn “23 acres of previously private land into a new public park”. Critics contend old trees are more valuable than young ones in relation to biodiversity and carbon capture.
Paul White, one councillor who voted against the scheme, noted that maintaining the site’s previous use as “an exclusive golf club” involved spraying grass with “a hell of a lot of pesticides”, and that while golf clubs are visually green they are not as environmentally beneficial as it might seem.
At the heart of the issue is that while the scheme may benefit people across London, the UK and even the world, locals ultimately get a lot of say in the matter — and the borough of Wandsworth has said no.
This is a common issue across global sport. While governing bodies and athletes are excited by the idea of new arenas and training spaces, those who live in the immediate area are more concerned about issues such as scenery and transport.
This is not the end of the road, and the London mayor’s office has 10 days to scrap the plans or review them while Michael Gove, the UK’s secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, may ultimately get to rule on the scheme.
Advertisement
It was notable that as the Wandsworth debate neared its conclusion, some councillors seemed to suggest they were not completely opposed to the proposals, merely to their size and scale, suggesting there may be room for compromise if some of the AELTC’s ambitions are pared back; the size of the new show court was a particular source of anger.
Whatever the conclusion, the organisers of one of the most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world will have a job on their hands getting along with their neighbours.
(Top photos: @AELTC/Allies & Morrison; Joey D’Urso/The Athletic)