Two weeks before the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) opens its gates to the world’s most famous tennis tournament, it has shut the door on compromise. It has formally rejected the alternative plan put forward by residents fighting its Wimbledon Park expansion and ruled out further talks.
The club says the residents’ scheme “simply doesn’t work.” In a letter from AELTC chair Debbie Jevans, the club goes on to say it can see no purpose in further discussions with Save Wimbledon Park.
It is the clearest signal yet that the prospect of a negotiated compromise has gone. The SWP campaign has already lost in the High Court and is at the Court of Appeal stage, and the legal protection it sought was removed by an amendment now on the statute book.
With the club declining to engage further on the alternative scheme, the negotiated route has closed and the club is pressing ahead with the development it already has permission to build. Save Wimbledon Park plans to stage a protest on the first day of the Championships.
The architects’ exchange
The rejection followed two open letters the campaign sent this month in which it asked AELTC to “come to the table and talk” citing its “despair at the loss of beautiful parkland turned into your industrialised private sports complex”. The letter note its alternative plan put forward by the original designer of the Wimbledon complex and, among other things, the lack of funds for “a transport system collapsing under the increased demand.”
In response, Jevans wrote that the residents’ architects’ alternative “simply doesn’t meet the needs and objectives of the development and doesn’t work” and provided a 15-page analysis as to why. The report was compiled by architects whose experience, the AELTC notes, includes work on the masterplan for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games site.
The club also pointed to the planning permission already granted by the Greater London Authority, which covers a new show court and ancillary buildings on the former private golf-course land.
The AELTC said it had met the campaign multiple times and explained its position in detail. A club spokesperson said the club had hosted and attended more than 100 community events, and that plans had been amended on the basis of local feedback: a newly upgraded park entrance, four acres of new parkland on the northern tip of the site, access to the former golf clubhouse as a community space, and a commitment to begin work on the southern parkland and lake first, so that community benefits could be felt as early as possible.
What the campaign says
Save Wimbledon Park challenges AELTC’s account of its engagement with the community and maintains that the development does not represent a genuine community partnership. AELTC has repeatedly refused to send a representative to SWP’s public meetings, a meeting put together by Wimbledon MP Paul Kohler led nowhere, and a subsequent private meeting between AELTC and SWP also made no headway.
The two sides are far apart. The club says the process has been extensive and collaborative; the campaign says it falls short. What we do know now is that the club has reviewed the campaign’s alternative, had it assessed, and formally said no. The hope expressed by many that AELTC would temper its attitude and met local residents where they were is effectively over.
What happens next
The club has planning permission from the GLA and says it is pressing ahead. The Wimbledon Championships run from 29 June to 12 July.
For 13 months this has been a live contest, through the High Court, Parliament, and the courts again. This week’s rejection of the alternative is the point at which the negotiated route closes too.
An expert assessment published in May found the development would result in a 36% net biodiversity loss, against the AELTC’s own claim of a 23% gain.
Clarification, 9.30am: This article originally described the covenants on the land as ones Merton has not agreed to enforce. To be clearer: Merton has said it will respect the covenants but has not committed to enforcing them, and equally has not agreed not to. The wording has been amended to reflect that its position is uncommitted.
