Wimbledon

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

RE: Wimbledon

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

But planners have recommended to Wandsworth Council to refuse the plan

www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/nov/13/wimbledon-expansion-plan-planners-stadium-show-court

Lambda · Futures qualifying

As with Merton, the application is an 'inappropriate development ' for designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and permission can only be granted if 'Very Special Circumstances ' have been met, defined as the needs of the development are justified and benefits outweigh the harm.

It seems to me from reading through the VSC section that the officers have identified a number of significant and limited benefits, but they are not persuaded on the need for the development.

On the needs of the development, Wandsworth officers have advised that
* It has not been demonstrated why qualifying needs to be at the main site and cannot be held elsewhere
* It is accepted that the current third show court is the smallest of the grand slams and presents scheduling difficulties, but it has not been demonstrated that the show court is needed to support junior and amateur tennis tournaments, nor has it been demonstrated why the show court needs to be a permanent structure and cannot be a temporary structure given its limited use each year
* It is acknowledged that existing practice court facilities are inadequate and there is insufficient space on the existing site to provide additional practice facilities, but it has not been demonstrated that alternative locations for practice facilities were considered and why practice facilities need to be in this location.
* It is acknowledged that to accommodate the main draw, wheelchair and junior qualifying as well as the main draw qualifying, wheelchair and junior championships more courts are necessary for the scale of events that the AELTC envisions, but the AELTC indicate the courts in this application would allow for a reduction in courts on the existing site to aid crowd flow and this cannot be a justification for development on MOL.
* It is not clear why there needs to be 4 additional courts for the main draw
* No indication of player numbers have been provided as to whether fewer courts would be possible.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Interesting points they make there, Lambda - thanks for posting it

Madadman · Top national player

Interesting, Wandsworth council actually covers the site that the Qualifying tournament takes place.

Lambda · Futures qualifying

Unanimously rejected by Wandsworth. This will now go to the Mayor of London's office, although apparently Sadiq has recused himself so it will be a deputy that makes the decision.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Lambda wrote:
Unanimously rejected by Wandsworth. This will now go to the Mayor of London's office, although apparently Sadiq has recused himself so it will be a deputy that makes the decision.

" Hoi, mate, fancy a lifetime debenture as a nice gift from us. Oh, and you couldnt see your way to signing it off, could you??"

Var · Club Coach

Lambda wrote:
As with Merton, the application is an 'inappropriate development ' for designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and permission can only be granted if 'Very Special Circumstances ' have been met, defined as the needs of the development are justified and benefits outweigh the harm.

It seems to me from reading through the VSC section that the officers have identified a number of significant and limited benefits, but they are not persuaded on the need for the development.

On the needs of the development, Wandsworth officers have advised that
* It has not been demonstrated why qualifying needs to be at the main site and cannot be held elsewhere
* It is accepted that the current third show court is the smallest of the grand slams and presents scheduling difficulties, but it has not been demonstrated that the show court is needed to support junior and amateur tennis tournaments, nor has it been demonstrated why the show court needs to be a permanent structure and cannot be a temporary structure given its limited use each year
* It is acknowledged that existing practice court facilities are inadequate and there is insufficient space on the existing site to provide additional practice facilities, but it has not been demonstrated that alternative locations for practice facilities were considered and why practice facilities need to be in this location.
* It is acknowledged that to accommodate the main draw, wheelchair and junior qualifying as well as the main draw qualifying, wheelchair and junior championships more courts are necessary for the scale of events that the AELTC envisions, but the AELTC indicate the courts in this application would allow for a reduction in courts on the existing site to aid crowd flow and this cannot be a justification for development on MOL.
* It is not clear why there needs to be 4 additional courts for the main draw
* No indication of player numbers have been provided as to whether fewer courts would be possible.

Thanks, Lambda. I can't grasp the need for this TBH. Qualifying at Roehampton has worked OK in the past - why not develop that site? Also, as the number of players in the Grand Slam is set and can't be altered, why are 4 more courts needed if it has worked OK previously or are they mining this tournament to the last buck!? It seems to me we would be better off developing an indoors permanent world-class hard court centre that could attract top ATP and WTA challenger etc tournaments year-round, to give our players a better chance at entry and gaining ranking points. at the end of the day, Wimbledon is one fortnight a year.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I agree, Var

Of course it would be lovely to expand Wimbledon and have more spacious facilities, allow the qualifiers to play there (supposedly it's only really the players who care) etc etc

But there's no free lunch and it has to be balanced against the interests of everyone else

And you certainly can't say it's a MAJOR problem as is, when it's been successfully running each year, at a big profit.