Hundreds march on High Court to protest against Wimbledon expansion
Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) is challenging the decision by the Greater London Authority (GLA) to give the green light to the All England Club's proposal to build 39 new courts, including an 8,000-seat stadium, on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club.
Planning permission for the scheme was granted last year by Jules Pipe, London's deputy mayor for planning, who said that the proposals 'would facilitate very significant benefits' which 'clearly outweigh the harm'.
Debbie Jevans, chair of the All England Club, was also in attendance for the hearing, but she was hugely outnumbered by locals opposing the plans. As well as a vociferous protest outside, with campaigners waving placards, queues stretched through the corridors outside Court 68 with an hour to spare before the hearing opened.
The hearing begins after Telegraph Sport detailed how Sir Ben Ainslie had been parachuted in to support the proposed expansion.
Ahead of the challenge on to the £200 million development proposals, Britain's most successful Olympic sailor has thrown his weight behind the scheme.
Ainslie's involvement centres around the sailing club on the sculpted lake that stands at the centre of the park, with the local resident saying: 'I would love to muck in and see it become a real success.'
Jevans, meanwhile, says the proposals would deliver 27 acres of 'newly accessible parkland for the community', and would allow the qualifying tournament for Wimbledon – currently staged at Roehampton – to be held on-site.
But campaigners say that Wimbledon Park, a Grade II-listed heritage site, is subject to similar protections as the green belt or royal parks and that allowing development on the site would set a 'dangerous precedent'.
SWP's lawyers are set to argue that the GLA's decision failed to take into account the implications of 'restrictive covenants' on the use of the land, and that the development would cause 'deliberate damage'.
The GLA is defending the legal challenge at a two-day hearing before Mr Justice Saini, which is due to begin at 10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The plans were first submitted to both Merton and Wandsworth Councils, with the park straddling the boroughs, in 2021, three years after the All England Club bought out golf club members with the intention of developing the land.
After Merton Council approved the plans, but Wandsworth Council rejected them, the Mayor of London's office took charge of the application.
Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan then recursed himself from the process in 2023, having previously expressed public support for the development.
The plans attracted opposition from Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, and Richard Rees, who was previously the lead planner for the building of Wimbledon's Court No 1 and the development of Henman Hill.
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Christopher Coombe, a director of SWP, said: 'If this decision by the GLA is upheld and the development goes ahead, the detrimental impacts on our environment and delicate ecosystem will be devastating.
'Our community has given massive support to the campaign over four years, desperate to stop the loss of open space intended for public recreation.
'This is not just in SW19; it's happening all over London. Once built, it is gone forever, and there is very little local trust in an organisation that prides itself on fair play, but then breaks its word.
'We all love the Wimbledon championships, but don't believe the proposal is really about protecting the future of the world's best tennis tournament.
'We will continue to press [the All England Club] to reconsider their fighting stance towards our community and to join us in finding a resolution that we can all get behind.'
A spokesperson for the All England Club said: 'Our proposals will deliver one of the greatest sporting transformations for London since 2012.
'They are crucial to ensuring Wimbledon remains at the pinnacle of tennis, one of the world's best sporting events, and a global attraction for both London and the UK.
'On offer are substantial year-round benefits for our community and the delivery of significant social, economic, and environmental improvements.
'This includes more than 27 acres of new public parkland on what is currently inaccessible, private land.
'Our plans will increase the size of Wimbledon Park by a third and create spaces for people and nature to thrive.
'There will be a very significant increase in biodiversity across the site and our proposals are underpinned by more than 1,000 hours of ecological surveys, which are endorsed by the London Wildlife Trust.
'We have spoken to more than 10,000 people as part of our consultation events, and we know that the vast majority of people just want us to get on and deliver the many benefits on offer.'
A GLA spokesperson said: 'The Mayor believes this scheme will bring a significant range of benefits, including environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits to the local area, the wider capital and the UK economy.
'It will create new jobs and green spaces and cement Wimbledon's reputation as the greatest tennis competition in the world.
'An application has been made for the court to determine this matter, and it is therefore inappropriate for the mayor to comment further at this stage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US is close to reaching a trade deal with China
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday his administration was close to reaching a trade deal with China, but gave no other details. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Remembering victims of historical injustice
Campaigners are right to say that the miners' strike, which saw the violent repression of strikers at Orgreave in 1984, remains an enduring source of injustice (Government launches Orgreave inquiry, 40 years after clashes at miners' strike, 20 July). And Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield, who is to chair the Orgreave inquiry, is right to recognise that the acknowledgment of truth is essential for long-term community healing. Sadly, Orgreave is not the only example of where truth and justice have been forsaken when excessive violence has been used against people on strike. Two hundred years ago, on 3 August 1825, six people were seriously wounded and seven killed by soldiers at North Sands, Sunderland, during the 1825 seamen's strike. The killings were met with anger and outrage, with many local people believing that those who died had been wilfully murdered. Soldiers had fired like target practice into a crowd of 100 from a boat on the River Wear. The threat posed by the crowd, made up of a combination of women, children, strikers, workers and bystanders, was greatly exaggerated. The only inquiries were two short inquests into just two of the seven deaths. At the time, the killings were reported in national newspapers and were undoubtedly one of the most significant events of 1825. What happened at Sunderland is not so different from that six years earlier at Peterloo, on 16 August 1819, yet knowledge and awareness of these two massacres are vastly different. The Sunderland seafarers' union, the Seamen's Loyal Standard Association, stated that 3 August 1825 should 'ever be remembered', but over time, the North Sands Massacre has been virtually forgotten. The denial of truth and justice at Orgreave is unfortunately just one of several incidents where those policing industrial action have used unnecessary violence and then placed the blame on their victims. All victims of historical injustice should be remembered and their communities allowed to David Gordon ScottThe Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
