Here is the Friends of Wimbledon Park response to the AELTC Wimbledon Park Project planning application, which was sent to Merton (LBM) and Wandsworth (LBW) Councils on 30 September 2021.
In addition, Dr. Dave Dawson (Environmental Scientist advising FOWP) submitted this response on biodiversity.
You may also be interested in the planning application responses submitted by a number of other organisations, including The Southfields Grid Residents Association, The Wimbledon Park Residents Association and The Capability Brown Society
An extract from the Friends on Wimbledon Park first response to the AELTC Wimbledon Park Project planning application:
“…1) We specifically object to the overdevelopment of heritage open space and the surviving views across it, which are essentially destroyed by the show court, too many grass courts, too many paths, too much intensive management, and related activities. So, we lose the open grassland. Keeping a scatter of veteran trees does not retain the parkland character. Parks are trees (not just veteran trees) set in a grassland or heathland matrix (just as at Richmond Park). We are essentially losing that matrix across most of the site. There’s also a significant impact on Capability Brown’s Lake, with much loss of open water. The edge of the proposed reedbed will become the visual edge of the open water of the lake. As the lake is set in a broad shallow valley and reeds grow 2m-4m high, there is little opportunity for views over the reeds to the grassland or water beyond. So, the designed views are replaced by much more restricted views. This is especially so for the southern arm of the lake, which will be detached visually by a wide belt of reedbed.
2) We object that the 8000-seater show court is for approval in outline. We need the detail to fully understand its impact. We object to it being built development, as indoor sports use and taking away openness, so eroding Metropolitan Open Land and compromising its purpose.
3) We object to the number of additional courts they want to have located on the land. This is excessive and far beyond what is currently used or can be justified. The new grass courts would be intensively managed and not contribute at all to biodiversity, rather the reverse.
4) We object to this project which involves levelling and concreting over much of the landscape to produce buildings, pathways, roadways, and huge areas of hard standing. Little of the current landscape will be left without some intervention or construction even if not visible after completion. This will cause massive disturbance to current flora, fauna, and mini beasts. The construction works lasting several years will affect the current ecology, as well as generating additional heavy traffic in Wimbledon & Southfields. The proposed use of concrete is contrary to our global priority to reduce CO2 emissions – 900kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement.
5) Despite the laudable intention to plant some 1500 trees, the applicant wishes to fell 296 trees all of which have Tree Preservation Orders. We need to conserve and protect mature trees in the current climate emergency and the felling of these trees should not be acceptable. There are landscape heritage and biodiversity reasons also. New planting takes decades, at least, to replace those lost. We object to this plan.
6) The intention to build a walkway around the lake is already required by an existing covenant and should not be regarded, in anyway, as contributing to ‘very special circumstances’. This should be a public walkway and the applicant should relinquish control over its access. Accordingly, we object to the boardwalk proposal.
7) De-silting (sediment removal) is needed, if not urgently, simply to arrest the natural process whereby shallow lakes turn slowly into swamps and then into dry land. There is not a water quality reason as this is determined by the inflow of water from the two brooks and drains. Removal of sediment is very expensive, and we object to the cheap and nasty option of moving the sediment around in the lake, rather than take it offsite. The reason being that the proposed reedbed on top of toxic sediment is no substitute for the open water of Brown’s design.
“
….read more
