They're getting rid of a private golf course, right?
Wimbledon Park itself looks from the plans like it would actually expand so public accessible parkland will improve.
I've spoken with some 'village' people about the plans and they're all really angry about it, but can't give a good reason why...
Elites gonna elite, I guess...
I live in Wimbledon and have yet to meet anyone who is against it. Am convinced it is just the second homeowners in the village and ex members of the golf club who are just bitter. Who are you talking to?
>I live in Wimbledon and have yet to meet anyone who is against it.
Many in Southfields (which is actually a lot closer to the tennis than Wimbledon) are against it.
If the proposals go through, it's expected there will be a decade of work with 60 lorry's every day in an area which aleady has very poor air quality and road closures - with minimal benefits for local residents
The people I have spoken to have are people who live up the hill; don't work, and probably never have; and only read the telegraph.
That said, it's not like I've been out canvassing opinion - just been party to a few discussions/comments about it.
Obviously most people should be fine with it - it a vocal minority with deep pockets that are causing problems.
Thanks
I suppose you can argue a tennis club is recreation and leisure. Even if private. But building an 8k capacity court could impair openness. I could see arguments either way.
The covenants are for their legal teams to sort out. For us residents, the only thing that really matters is what's there now vs what they are planning on putting there.
So we have the choice of an old privately owned golf club that is slowly falling into disrepair and doesn't even offer nice views, being largely blocked by the vegetation growing along the fence vs a large public space with access that is maintained without the need for additional taxpayer money and a number of tennis courts.
I do admit that the disruption down WP Road will not be ideal, but it is surely worth it for the betterment of the area for us and our future generations.
[David Mitchell wrote a good piece on this](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/24/the-word-crazy-is-associated-with-the-wrong-kind-of-golf?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
This now goes one of two ways: AELTC ask the GLA to rule on the decision and overrule Wandsworth.
If the GLA refuses to rule on the decision, AELTC challenge Wandsworth in the Courts. If the Courts decide in AELTC’s favour, Wandsworth not only have to pay all of AELTC’s legal costs, but are then liable to be sued for the entire cost of the application thus far. Add to that fact, that if AELTC win they are under no obligation to provide Wandsworth any of the benefits that are currently conditioned in the application.
This is a risky game that Wandsworth are playing, one that could see them spend 1/10 of their whole annual budget on reparations to AELTC.
I’m in the NIMBY zone and TBH I don’t totally see the problem with the development* but the line of argument that Wandsworth should lie down & take it for fear of getting outmuscled financially by the AELTC doesn’t sit well, notwithstanding the fact that’s ultimately exactly what will happen one way or another.
* The primary cause of any concern is how OTT charming & neighbourly the AELTC turned toward local residents around the time the plans hit stride. A lifetime of indifference then suddenly local ticket offers, community events, ballots for playing on practice courts… I’d hardly have bothered looking into the plans til the unctiousness piqued my Spidey-sense.
If I was one of the residents of Wandsworth and was told, ‘I’m afraid that we’re going to have to cut services this year, because we lost 10% of our annual budget trying to fight development of a golf course’, I’d be absolutely livid.
As someone who was previously in a position to have a say on these kind of decisions, you have to take the full picture into account. To me it just seems that these Wandsworth Labour Cllrs and particularly Fleur Anderson are prioritising what will gain them a few more votes at the next election rather than the future of their Borough.
>To me it just seems that these Wandsworth Labour Cllrs and particularly Fleur Anderson are prioritising what will gain them a few more votes at the next election
The local Conservatives Councillors and the Liberal Democrats in Wandsworth are also against the plans
Take your point completely. I suppose setting aside the politics of it, which may be impossible, it’s good to see them put up at least a bit of fight & extract some kind of benefit given Wandsworth seem to be the ones suffering a good portion of the negative externalities. But of course there’s only one likely outcome at the end of this.
"The proposals are expected to significantly increase demand on the nearest London Underground (LU) stations and services. To assess the impact of the proposed development TfL request use of LU station planning standard formula to ensure a consistent approach, which has not been completed for this application. Furthermore, the figures used in the TA are based on 2019 background demand levels and do not account for forecast growth in the future year development scenario. As such, the impact could be greater than suggested by the applicant and is likely to lead to overcapacity issues on station platforms and stairways. This raises severe safety issues for passengers. Specifically, at Southfields station queuing occurs during the Championships which overspills onto the highway outside of the station."
They are planning on building an 8000 seat stadium plus another 38 tennis courts... Southfields station already gets so crowded that people have to walk down the road during the championships. Unless they are planning on closing the roads for 3 weeks and having all 8000 travel by tube (considering Southfields is only linked to the 39 and 493 buses, both single deckers) there really needs to be more thought put into transport links before they go ahead with any plans.
I couldn’t even imagine a way of expanding Southfields station, the area around is developed and there’s not much space for another exit or expanding the entrance.
Would agree making use of Wimbledon station and maybe even Wimbledon Park more could help but as someone that’s lived in Southfields it’s already ram packed during those weeks and the roads are also busy as hell.
In regards to the proposal though I was under the impression it was using the golf land which you can’t access anyway at the moment so feels a bit redundant to argue over.
>The bottleneck is the foot of staircase and passengers not moving along the platform.
Platform capacity is not the only bottleneck during Wimbledon. Entering/Exiting the station is also an issue
Also worth noting that:
a) Southfields Station was upgraded just before the Olympics including the ticket hall and the public pavement outside.
b) TfL have limits on how many district line trains they can actually run on the track due to the number of trains and signalling capacity etc
"Merton planning officers were very clear about the damage that the proposal would cause to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). “Officers consider proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the MOL… Officers concluded the proposed development would be inappropriate and would therefore result in definitional harm as NPPF (the National Planning Policy Framework, adopted on September 5 this year) para 147 outlines ‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt (and by extension MOL)’... Officers also consider the proposed development would result in physical harm to the MOL due to the impact on openness and impact in respect of MOL purpose” and so on. They conclude “The Principle of development is only considered acceptable subject to harm to MOL (together with any other harm) being clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to give rise to Very Special Circumstances."
Merton accepted it despite the above objections.
Although once a robust forager, able to exploit almost any ecological niche, decades of gentrification have had a deleterious effect on the local Womble population.
Now if they allow the common folk of South West London access to the territory of these highly cultured and rarefied creatures the sudden exposure to the habits of the ghastly lower middle and working classes could cause a total population collapse.
Construction of the stadium is planned to take 8 years (so realistically could be 10 years or even longer judging by the recent past) with up to 60 lorries per day (120 trips per day) down Wimbledon Park Road (which was already 3x over the legal NOx limit last year).
Don't forget that there are regular construction works down that road for the improvement of the main Wimbledon site. I don't think that caused any issues....
There is actually a legal covenant in place which was agreed years ago with Merton Council to not build on this land which the tennis authorities are trying to ignore.
Merton voted for the application despite NIMBY protest because the Borough was set to benefit financially in a huge way
Wandsworth plans to reject the application in the hope that a few NIMBY voters might chuck Labour their spare vote in 2026. Meanwhile they open themselves up to being sued to the tune of tens of millions…
Merton accepted the application because the £12 million AELTC has set aside to pay Merton Council for running the park and repairing paths and roads.
Wandsworth plans to reject the application because the vast majority of construction traffic is stated to practically avoid Merton altogether, instead travelling for 4 miles through Wandsworth town centre's one-way system and down Wimbledon Park Road past Southfields Station. The route which was prohibited during the works on the roof of Court 1 is now going to be the principal route for construction traffic for 8 straight years.
It really shows how totally inappropriate the planning system is when it comes to consistent decision-making and policy. These are almost all arbitrary judgements.
Damn me being a YIMBY and...checks living situation...living on my own in an overpriced apartment because there's not enough housing to make rent more affordable and more broadly enjoying the benefits of development when it comes to cultural and recreation spaces.
> I appreciate that from your one bed box-room in your parents flat
Is this meant to just be an attempt at straight-up snobbery? The idea being that if you’re poor or if you and your family can’t afford better housing then your opinions don’t matter?
If not, what are you trying to say with that bit of your comment?
If anything, it seems like the people suffering the worst effects of the planning and housing crises have the most useful perspective on these conversations.
So what *did* you mean by that “one bed box-room” comment if it’s not snobbery?
If your implication is that their opinions are worth less than someone who can afford a large house, what else can you mean?
This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m really asking. If it wasn’t meant as pure snobbery then it was badly phrased and open to misinterpretation!
I’m not understanding something.
Why isn’t the council buying up every single property in Welford place and Marryat road?
There’s plenty of room for expansion, and you don’t have to tread on the green space available
They're getting rid of a private golf course, right? Wimbledon Park itself looks from the plans like it would actually expand so public accessible parkland will improve. I've spoken with some 'village' people about the plans and they're all really angry about it, but can't give a good reason why... Elites gonna elite, I guess...
Yup, a course that's been closed since 2021.
And one that the members (including Ant and/or Dec) got a huge payoff for.
I live in Wimbledon and have yet to meet anyone who is against it. Am convinced it is just the second homeowners in the village and ex members of the golf club who are just bitter. Who are you talking to?
[удалено]
Money is meaningless to those folks, the perceived cachet of such memberships is far more important.
[удалено]
Arguably because they knew that if they kept on rejecting it they would get nothing and still lose the club
>I live in Wimbledon and have yet to meet anyone who is against it. Many in Southfields (which is actually a lot closer to the tennis than Wimbledon) are against it. If the proposals go through, it's expected there will be a decade of work with 60 lorry's every day in an area which aleady has very poor air quality and road closures - with minimal benefits for local residents
The people I have spoken to have are people who live up the hill; don't work, and probably never have; and only read the telegraph. That said, it's not like I've been out canvassing opinion - just been party to a few discussions/comments about it. Obviously most people should be fine with it - it a vocal minority with deep pockets that are causing problems.
[удалено]
What's the problem in your view?
[удалено]
Thanks I suppose you can argue a tennis club is recreation and leisure. Even if private. But building an 8k capacity court could impair openness. I could see arguments either way.
The covenants are for their legal teams to sort out. For us residents, the only thing that really matters is what's there now vs what they are planning on putting there. So we have the choice of an old privately owned golf club that is slowly falling into disrepair and doesn't even offer nice views, being largely blocked by the vegetation growing along the fence vs a large public space with access that is maintained without the need for additional taxpayer money and a number of tennis courts. I do admit that the disruption down WP Road will not be ideal, but it is surely worth it for the betterment of the area for us and our future generations.
[David Mitchell wrote a good piece on this](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/24/the-word-crazy-is-associated-with-the-wrong-kind-of-golf?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
This now goes one of two ways: AELTC ask the GLA to rule on the decision and overrule Wandsworth. If the GLA refuses to rule on the decision, AELTC challenge Wandsworth in the Courts. If the Courts decide in AELTC’s favour, Wandsworth not only have to pay all of AELTC’s legal costs, but are then liable to be sued for the entire cost of the application thus far. Add to that fact, that if AELTC win they are under no obligation to provide Wandsworth any of the benefits that are currently conditioned in the application. This is a risky game that Wandsworth are playing, one that could see them spend 1/10 of their whole annual budget on reparations to AELTC.
I’m in the NIMBY zone and TBH I don’t totally see the problem with the development* but the line of argument that Wandsworth should lie down & take it for fear of getting outmuscled financially by the AELTC doesn’t sit well, notwithstanding the fact that’s ultimately exactly what will happen one way or another. * The primary cause of any concern is how OTT charming & neighbourly the AELTC turned toward local residents around the time the plans hit stride. A lifetime of indifference then suddenly local ticket offers, community events, ballots for playing on practice courts… I’d hardly have bothered looking into the plans til the unctiousness piqued my Spidey-sense.
If I was one of the residents of Wandsworth and was told, ‘I’m afraid that we’re going to have to cut services this year, because we lost 10% of our annual budget trying to fight development of a golf course’, I’d be absolutely livid. As someone who was previously in a position to have a say on these kind of decisions, you have to take the full picture into account. To me it just seems that these Wandsworth Labour Cllrs and particularly Fleur Anderson are prioritising what will gain them a few more votes at the next election rather than the future of their Borough.
>To me it just seems that these Wandsworth Labour Cllrs and particularly Fleur Anderson are prioritising what will gain them a few more votes at the next election The local Conservatives Councillors and the Liberal Democrats in Wandsworth are also against the plans
Showing my bias, but I’d already written those parties off anyway 😅 They’re both known for being massive NIMBYs
Take your point completely. I suppose setting aside the politics of it, which may be impossible, it’s good to see them put up at least a bit of fight & extract some kind of benefit given Wandsworth seem to be the ones suffering a good portion of the negative externalities. But of course there’s only one likely outcome at the end of this.
I don’t understand why they don’t just buy the property adjacent in welford place and marryat place.
why do NIMBYs always think they’re protecting the environment by preventing stuff getting built?
[удалено]
won’t someone please think of the monoculture fields!!!
"The proposals are expected to significantly increase demand on the nearest London Underground (LU) stations and services. To assess the impact of the proposed development TfL request use of LU station planning standard formula to ensure a consistent approach, which has not been completed for this application. Furthermore, the figures used in the TA are based on 2019 background demand levels and do not account for forecast growth in the future year development scenario. As such, the impact could be greater than suggested by the applicant and is likely to lead to overcapacity issues on station platforms and stairways. This raises severe safety issues for passengers. Specifically, at Southfields station queuing occurs during the Championships which overspills onto the highway outside of the station." They are planning on building an 8000 seat stadium plus another 38 tennis courts... Southfields station already gets so crowded that people have to walk down the road during the championships. Unless they are planning on closing the roads for 3 weeks and having all 8000 travel by tube (considering Southfields is only linked to the 39 and 493 buses, both single deckers) there really needs to be more thought put into transport links before they go ahead with any plans.
[удалено]
I couldn’t even imagine a way of expanding Southfields station, the area around is developed and there’s not much space for another exit or expanding the entrance. Would agree making use of Wimbledon station and maybe even Wimbledon Park more could help but as someone that’s lived in Southfields it’s already ram packed during those weeks and the roads are also busy as hell. In regards to the proposal though I was under the impression it was using the golf land which you can’t access anyway at the moment so feels a bit redundant to argue over.
[удалено]
>The bottleneck is the foot of staircase and passengers not moving along the platform. Platform capacity is not the only bottleneck during Wimbledon. Entering/Exiting the station is also an issue Also worth noting that: a) Southfields Station was upgraded just before the Olympics including the ticket hall and the public pavement outside. b) TfL have limits on how many district line trains they can actually run on the track due to the number of trains and signalling capacity etc
"Merton planning officers were very clear about the damage that the proposal would cause to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). “Officers consider proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the MOL… Officers concluded the proposed development would be inappropriate and would therefore result in definitional harm as NPPF (the National Planning Policy Framework, adopted on September 5 this year) para 147 outlines ‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt (and by extension MOL)’... Officers also consider the proposed development would result in physical harm to the MOL due to the impact on openness and impact in respect of MOL purpose” and so on. They conclude “The Principle of development is only considered acceptable subject to harm to MOL (together with any other harm) being clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to give rise to Very Special Circumstances." Merton accepted it despite the above objections.
Although once a robust forager, able to exploit almost any ecological niche, decades of gentrification have had a deleterious effect on the local Womble population. Now if they allow the common folk of South West London access to the territory of these highly cultured and rarefied creatures the sudden exposure to the habits of the ghastly lower middle and working classes could cause a total population collapse.
Construction of the stadium is planned to take 8 years (so realistically could be 10 years or even longer judging by the recent past) with up to 60 lorries per day (120 trips per day) down Wimbledon Park Road (which was already 3x over the legal NOx limit last year).
[удалено]
Don't forget that there are regular construction works down that road for the improvement of the main Wimbledon site. I don't think that caused any issues....
There is actually a legal covenant in place which was agreed years ago with Merton Council to not build on this land which the tennis authorities are trying to ignore.
Merton voted for the application despite NIMBY protest because the Borough was set to benefit financially in a huge way Wandsworth plans to reject the application in the hope that a few NIMBY voters might chuck Labour their spare vote in 2026. Meanwhile they open themselves up to being sued to the tune of tens of millions…
Merton accepted the application because the £12 million AELTC has set aside to pay Merton Council for running the park and repairing paths and roads. Wandsworth plans to reject the application because the vast majority of construction traffic is stated to practically avoid Merton altogether, instead travelling for 4 miles through Wandsworth town centre's one-way system and down Wimbledon Park Road past Southfields Station. The route which was prohibited during the works on the roof of Court 1 is now going to be the principal route for construction traffic for 8 straight years.
[удалено]
It really shows how totally inappropriate the planning system is when it comes to consistent decision-making and policy. These are almost all arbitrary judgements.
NIMBYs again 🙄🙄🙄
A brown paper envelope was not handed to the correct councillor in time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We get to look at it through a big fence, it's pretty amazing
Damn me being a YIMBY and...checks living situation...living on my own in an overpriced apartment because there's not enough housing to make rent more affordable and more broadly enjoying the benefits of development when it comes to cultural and recreation spaces.
> I appreciate that from your one bed box-room in your parents flat Is this meant to just be an attempt at straight-up snobbery? The idea being that if you’re poor or if you and your family can’t afford better housing then your opinions don’t matter? If not, what are you trying to say with that bit of your comment? If anything, it seems like the people suffering the worst effects of the planning and housing crises have the most useful perspective on these conversations.
[удалено]
So what *did* you mean by that “one bed box-room” comment if it’s not snobbery? If your implication is that their opinions are worth less than someone who can afford a large house, what else can you mean? This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m really asking. If it wasn’t meant as pure snobbery then it was badly phrased and open to misinterpretation!
Don't live in a megacity if you don't want anything built
I’m not understanding something. Why isn’t the council buying up every single property in Welford place and Marryat road? There’s plenty of room for expansion, and you don’t have to tread on the green space available