Wimbledon chiefs are being pressured to go back to the drawing board over their controversial £200m expansion bid.
Bosses at the All England Club have been urged to 'start afresh' by local community group The Wimbledon Society - a group who oppose the expansion - over their plans to build a major new stadium and an extra 38 tennis courts at the SW19 site.
The project is already behind schedule, with local council planning meetings to consider the huge application already moved back again until February next year at the earliest - after 20 new documents were added to the original application taking the overall total to over 100.
That is just the latest setback for the troubled plans which have already been delayed for more than a year.
The controversy surrounds plans to turn neighbouring Wimbledon Park golf course into the site of the new stadium and courts, a move the All England Club (AELTC) say will bring in £38m to the local economy.
But now members of The Wimbledon Society are calling for the whole application to be resubmitted from the start following the submission of the new documents.
In a letter sent to various parties involved, they said: "We have written to Merton Council’s planners suggesting that the AELTC should now withdraw their flawed application and start afresh with a new application that is complete, coherent and which addresses the deficiencies highlighted by Merton’s consultant in the present application.
"Preferably it should also address the widespread local opposition to the current plans by not turning Metropolitan Open Land into an industrial tennis complex."
The All England Club insist the expansion is needed to keep the grass Grand Slam's place at the peak of the sport but local MPs have also voiced their concern for the poor handling of the planning application.
Putney’s Labour MP Fleur Anderson said of the bid: "I’m really disappointed Wimbledon hasn’t negotiated, they’ve come to consultations but they haven’t moved at all. Maybe there could be a pop-up stadium, maybe there could be protections."
0 Comments