23rd September 2024. Large Attendance at Save Wimbledon Park
Local residents came out in force to hear the Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) group’s analysis of the GLA Planning Officers’ report following its publication on Thursday (19th) and prior to the public meeting at City Hall on Friday (Sept 27th).
While SWP emphasised in the meeting that it has never been against tennis in Wimbledon, nor even against the principle of some expansion for AELTC, a number of serious issues were raised through the session addressing the report.
In particular SWP very clearly expressed their overriding disappointment by the manner in which many overall conclusions had been reached in the report which one speaker called ‘spineless’. In what has been described as ‘one of the most complex applications the GLA has ever dealt with’, the apparent lack of objectivity, analysis and independence are particularly striking when time and time again, great store was placed on AELTC submissions and little or none on those of any objectors, many of them specialists in their field.
ENVIRONMENT
In regard to environmental issues it was explained that where an application is made to develop an Irreplaceable Habitat, it should be refused save in “exceptional circumstances”. SWP experts provided detailed papers both to the London Boroughs and the GLA carefully arguing that as ancient parkland, never built upon since before 1600, this land is indeed Irreplaceable Habitat. The Planning Officers’ report has merely relied on the AELTC view, put forward by London Wildlife Trust on behalf of AELTC, and paid for by them, to say that they don’t agree with other views nor did they engage or consider whether the circumstances are exceptional.
A further important planning benchmark is Bio-Diversity Net Gain (or Loss). The AELTC has now made 4 attempts to calculate the BNG number, coming up with a different figure each time. Dr Dawson asses this as a 36% NET LOSS. This point is not debated, but again, GLA rely on the AELTC view put forward by LWT.
MOL, VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE & NEED
Christopher Coombe outlined that, as Metropolitan Open Land, the strongest planning rules apply preventing development except in Very Special Circumstances. There is no attempt in the report to analyse the Circumstances which justify approval or, put another way, to explore and analyse the need for the development, and importantly, the sheer scale of it. Not one of the reasons for the recommendation mention‘Need’ in the report.
Expert representations, from an experienced and professional tennis master-planner, were not even acknowledged, let alone debated in the report and, as there is no tennis master planning expertise at the GLA, it is hard to understand how the Planning Officers were able to make a balanced judgment on the AELTC application.
Coombe also highlighted that the report, dated 19 September, was published at the same time as GLA's legal opinion of 17 September where, from opinion para 65: "in my opinion, based on the law as presently stated, on the basis that the consequences implied by the un-argued parts of Day v Shropshire (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0031.html) are correct, members of the public have rights over the Golf Course, despite the 1981 [sic - 1986] lease and despite the 1993 transfer."
He explained that the report does not reflect the advice, nor still does (para 139 - 142) contemplate an Alternative Approach.
Christopher Coombe said, “The report tries to dismiss the Day argument as an issue about Open Space resolved by the "Permissive Public Park". This doesn’t work. Either the public have rights over the whole or none, not merely part. The opinion does not explain the impact of the public trust applying and, worse still, the report does not consider it. Any decision based on that lack of investigation is open to challenge and it would be a very brave mayor who decided to ignore the point!”
Paul Kohler, MP for Wimbledon, who was at the meeting said, “This report does not mean that all is lost. Even if the Deputy Mayor ignores our compelling arguments on Friday and decides in favour of the AELTC we have a number of legal avenues down which we can go. I have laid an EDM before parliament which has been signed by many MPs. Whilst even if all that fails there are still the covenants - ultimately the AELTC cannot build on the land unless Merton Council refuse to enforce the covenants. And that ultimately is a political question.”
The slides presented at the meeting can be downloaded:
Comments