Wimbledon expansion plan goes into legal tie-break
On one side of the legal net is the campaign group Save Wimbledon Park, while facing them in a judicial review of their ambitious expansion plan on Tuesday and Wednesday will be the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC).
It is the latest stage of a long-running fight that has split the south-west London "village", which has been home to the Championships since 1877.
Last September the AELTC secured planning permission from the Greater London Authority (GLA) to treble the size of the main site to include 39 new courts including an 8,000-seat show court by redeveloping a former golf course on parkland land it already owns.
The 200-million-pound ($272.92-million) expansion aims to increase daily capacity to 50,000 people from the current 42,000, upgrade facilities and move the qualifying rounds on site to mirror the Australian, French, and U.S. Opens.
The plans have the backing of several leading players, including Novak Djokovic, and 62 per cent of 10,000 residents in Merton and Wandsworth, the London boroughs that share the new site, also support the scheme, according to the AELTC.
'Our confidence in the development and the proposals that we've been working on for many years is as strong as it ever has been,' Wimbledon tournament director Jamie Baker told Reuters.
'For the championships to continue to be in the position that it is and to deliver all the benefits to stakeholders including the local community it is vital that we are able to stage the tournament on one site and bring all the grounds together."
However, this week's judicial review will decide whether the GLA's decision to grant planning permission was unlawful.
Opponents of the development, including Thelma Ruby, a 100-year-old former actress who lives in a flat overlooking the park, and West Hill Ward Councillor Malcolm Grimston, say the club's plans will cause environmental damage and major disruption to the area.
'It's terribly important that it does not go ahead not just for myself but for the whole planet and future generations," Ruby told Reuters.
"I overlook this beautiful landscape and there are all sorts of covenants that say you mustn't build on it, and yet the tennis people have this unnecessary plan they admit will cut down all these glorious trees, which will harm wildlife.
'They're using concrete, building roads, they're going to have lorries polluting and passing my window every 10 minutes. The whole area will be in chaos as they're closing off roads,' she said.
Save Wimbledon Park says the GLA failed to consider covenants that were agreed by the AELTC, including restrictions on redeveloping the land, when it bought the Wimbledon Park golf course freehold from Merton council in 1993 for 5.2 million pounds.
The AELTC paid a reported 63.5 million pounds to buy the Golf Club's lease, which was due to run until 2041.
The campaign group also believes the GLA failed to consider the land's statutory Public Recreation Trust status which means it should be held as "public walks or pleasure grounds".
'It is not antipathy towards the AELTC that's driving this, as some of the benefits are real, such as the extension of lake,' councillor Grimston told Reuters.
'The problem is that it will treble the footprint of the current Championship and turn what currently has very much a feel of being rural England and a gentle pace of life into an industrial complex that would dominate the views of the lake.
'That's why it's classified as Metropolitan Open Land, which is the urban equivalent of the green belt that has been protected for many decades in planning law in the UK and rightly so,' he said.
The AELTC say the plans will improve the biodiversity of the park, as well as bringing parts of it back into public use.
'The London Wildlife trust have endorsed the plans, they've spent many hours scrutinising our analysis and our expert views," the AELTC's head of corporate affairs Dominic Foster said.
"We know that this expansion will deliver a very significant benefit to biodiversity, whereas golf courses are not good for biodiversity.'
($1 = 0.7328 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
No end to Swiatek's new-found love of Wimbledon's green, green grass
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Tennis - Wimbledon - All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, London, Britain - July 7, 2025 Poland's Iga Swiatek reacts during her round of 16 match against Denmark's Clara Tauson REUTERS/Isabel Infantes LONDON - Before this year, there was no love lost between Iga Swiatek and the grass courts of Wimbledon. So what if it was called the spiritual home of lawn tennis? So what if it was the tournament that tennis greats such as Martina Navratilova, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic picked out as the one they always wanted to win above any other? She may not have uttered the words "grass is for cows", as Ivan Lendl once did when he opted to skip the tournament to go on holiday, but Swiatek seemed to share that sentiment as Wimbledon was never a happy hunting ground for her. The five-times Grand Slam champion always looked like she could not wait to escape the leafy confines of the All England Club during her five previous visits, which often followed her run to the French Open title. It was the only major where she had failed to reach at least the last four and there was little evidence that she had the desire to improve that record -- until this year. On Monday, the Polish eighth seed found her grasscourt wings to fly into the Wimbledon quarter-finals with a soaring 6-4 6-1 victory over Danish 23rd seed Clara Tauson. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump announces 25% tariffs on goods from Japan, South Korea in letters to leaders Business US stocks knocked lower by tariff jitters; Musk's political plan hits Tesla Singapore Eligible S'poreans to get up to $850 in GSTV cash, up to $450 in MediSave top-ups in August Singapore Four golf courses to close by 2035, leaving Singapore with 12 courses Singapore Singapore's second mufti Sheikh Syed Isa Semait dies at age 87 Singapore Fewer marriages in Singapore in 2024; greater marital stability for recent unions Singapore Competition watchdog gives SIA, Malaysia Airlines conditional approval to continue cooperation Singapore About 20 delivery riders meet Pritam Singh to discuss platform worker issues "It's pretty amazing, this is the first time ever I've enjoyed London," she told the crowd who started laughing. "Sorry guys, I mean I've always enjoyed it. I feel good on the court when I feel good off the court." That feelgood factor was missing during her opening two service games with Danish 23rd seed Tauson on Monday as Swiatek kept misfiring her serve. Cries of "ohh" rang around Court One as she opened her account with two double faults en route to dropping her serve to love. When she produced another two successive double faults to drop her serve again in the third game the gasps grew louder and Tauson must have thought it was game on for her to knock out another Grand Slam champion following her success over 2022 Wimbledon champion Elena Rybakina two days ago. But from 3-1 down in the first set, and fuelled by her favourite Wimbledon diet of pasta tossed with strawberries and yoghurt, Swiatek sprinted away with eight of the last nine games. After extending her perfect record against Danish opponents to 4-0, she delved deeper into what had clicked for her on grass. "I felt this year that I could really develop as a player. I'm doing the job no matter what the results are going to be," said the Pole, who will next face Russian Liudmila Samsonova. "I feel like I'm doing a great job at just learning how to play on grass. First time I feel, like, more comfortable. I feel like the process has some kind of logic. "It's tough when the expectations are high and people talk to you like you're underperforming. I guess this year is just different." The transition from the clay to grass has not been easy for Swiatek, who has had to get out of her comfort zone to come up with a winning formula. While she has mastered the art of sliding across clay, tennis's slowest surface, in order to conjure up shots that are beyond the capability of most of her rivals, she has had to abandon that manoeuvre on the slicker turf courts. "I've been watching Carlos (Alcaraz) a little bit and Novak (Djokovic). I see them slide (on grass). Obviously it's possible but you just need to kind of trust it," she said. "Since I never played so many matches on grass as this year, I've never had time to really trust it." But at least she now has faith that she can do well on grass, especially as she has a great chance to reach the Wimbledon semi-finals for the first time considering she has a 4-0 record over Samsonova. Just in case any doubts lingered about Swiatek's chances of finally lifting the Venus Rosewater Dish come Saturday, Tauson said: "She's probably impossible to beat." REUTERS
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
No end to Swiatek's new-found love of Wimbledon's green, green grass
LONDON :Before this year, there was no love lost between Iga Swiatek and the grass courts of Wimbledon. So what if it was called the spiritual home of lawn tennis? So what if it was the tournament that tennis greats such as Martina Navratilova, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic picked out as the one they always wanted to win above any other? She may not have uttered the words "grass is for cows", as Ivan Lendl once did when he opted to skip the tournament to go on holiday, but Swiatek seemed to share that sentiment as Wimbledon was never a happy hunting ground for her. The five-times Grand Slam champion always looked like she could not wait to escape the leafy confines of the All England Club during her five previous visits, which often followed her run to the French Open title. It was the only major where she had failed to reach at least the last four and there was little evidence that she had the desire to improve that record - until this year. On Monday, the Polish eighth seed found her grasscourt wings to fly into the Wimbledon quarter-finals with a soaring 6-4 6-1 victory over Danish 23rd seed Clara Tauson. "It's pretty amazing, this is the first time ever I've enjoyed London," she told the crowd who started laughing. "Sorry guys, I mean I've always enjoyed it. I feel good on the court when I feel good off the court." That feelgood factor was missing during her opening two service games with Danish 23rd seed Tauson on Monday as Swiatek kept misfiring her serve. Cries of "ohh" rang around Court One as she opened her account with two double faults en route to dropping her serve to love. When she produced another two successive double faults to drop her serve again in the third game the gasps grew louder and Tauson must have thought it was game on for her to knock out another Grand Slam champion following her success over 2022 Wimbledon champion Elena Rybakina two days ago. But from 3-1 down in the first set, and fuelled by her favourite Wimbledon diet of pasta tossed with strawberries and yoghurt, Swiatek sprinted away with eight of the last nine games. After extending her perfect record against Danish opponents to 4-0, she delved deeper into what had clicked for her on grass. "I felt this year that I could really develop as a player. I'm doing the job no matter what the results are going to be," said the Pole, who will next face Russian Liudmila Samsonova. "I feel like I'm doing a great job at just learning how to play on grass. First time I feel, like, more comfortable. I feel like the process has some kind of logic. "It's tough when the expectations are high and people talk to you like you're underperforming. I guess this year is just different." The transition from the clay to grass has not been easy for Swiatek, who has had to get out of her comfort zone to come up with a winning formula. While she has mastered the art of sliding across clay, tennis's slowest surface, in order to conjure up shots that are beyond the capability of most of her rivals, she has had to abandon that manoeuvre on the slicker turf courts. "I've been watching Carlos (Alcaraz) a little bit and Novak (Djokovic). I see them slide (on grass). Obviously it's possible but you just need to kind of trust it," she said. "Since I never played so many matches on grass as this year, I've never had time to really trust it." But at least she now has faith that she can do well on grass, especially as she has a great chance to reach the Wimbledon semi-finals for the first time considering she has a 4-0 record over Samsonova. Just in case any doubts lingered about Swiatek's chances of finally lifting the Venus Rosewater Dish come Saturday, Tauson said: "She's probably impossible to beat."
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Elon Musk has launched his own party – US history suggests it will fail
NOTTINGHAM, England: To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed. This makes Elon Musk's launch of his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with US President Donald Trump even more intriguing. What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box. Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level. But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person. A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away. The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9 per cent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level. When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether 'I often wish there were more political parties to choose from' describes their views, 37 per cent of respondents answered: 'Very well' and 31 per cent answered: 'Somewhat well'. In another poll, 25 per cent of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests. So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel. ODDS STACKED AGAINST THIRD-PARTY INSURGENCY The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place. Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support. The other multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn't even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf). Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it's a vanity project or lacks true mass appeal. There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a 'chicken and egg' situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it's difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage. The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him. Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or MAGA party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he's willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen. He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can't run for president. If he's serious about electoral success, he'd have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they'd lead his party. Musk's public persona suggests that he does not play well with others. Founding a third party isn't impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.
