The cost of playing tennis at council-run courts in the borough of Greenwich is set to go up.
The prices, which are already high in comparison to neighbouring boroughs, will rise in line with inflation meaning that the cost for adults will be up to £7.30 per hour for the use of a court.
Players at Plumstead Common, where charging hasn’t been in operation, have been shocked to discover that they too will now be paying the charge.
Forum users on the popular tennis website, London Tennis, have expressed their outrage at the decision to charge at Plumstead.
One contributor commented, “Really poor decision. They should be encouraging participation in sports rather than creating barriers. £7.30 and yet there are no facilities whatsoever.”
Another added, “the courts are so poor[.] not even level they must be joking”
A Greenwich Council Spokesperson said:
“Up until this year, fees for parks and leisure facilities had been frozen for the previous two years. However, all fees for parks and leisure facilities are reviewed annually by the council and it has been decided that tennis court fees will rise this year by inflation. This will apply from 1st April to all tennis courts across the borough, not just at Plumstead Common.”
Discounted rates will remain for junior players and Greenwich Card holders.
The tennis courts in Greenwich Park, which are not operated by the Council, are also increasing to an eye-watering £9.00 per hour for adults at peak times.
Whilst Olympic host borough Greenwich, which also plays host to the ATP World Tour Finals at the O2, is pushing up its prices, tennis remains free of charge at courts run by Lewisham Council and its contractor, Glendale.
Players can also enjoy tennis for free at courts in the borough of Bexley such as at Danson Park.
New Greenwich Council Prices
Adults per hour- £7.30
Adults per hour (Greenwich card holder) – £6.60
Juniors per hour – £4.70
Juniors per hour (Greenwich card holder) – £4.20
Thanks to Darryl’s FOI request, we now know that LOCOG refused to discharge planning condition 33 set by Greenwich Council on 23 March 2010,
“33. Within six months of the date of permission, a plan shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Sport England, detailing where, when and how existing sports users are to be provided with alternative sporting facilities for cricket and tennis during the period when these facilities are unavailable for sporting use in Greenwich Park.”
And this, below, is from the minutes of of the Local Societies Consultative Group (11.11.2010) which was attended by Fred Brown and Steve Pallett (which seems to indicate that Greenwich Council has connived at this breach of planning law),
“Condition 33 on alternative sports provision for cricket and tennis for the short period in Summer 2012 when current facilities will be loss has been discharged by the Council …”
This is an infringement of planning law which LOCOG seems to have compounded by making Greenwich Council take on all the work and cost of fulfilling condition 33. And the amenity society reps at that meeting just sat there like muppets without challenging LOCOG or holding Greenwich Council planning staff to account.
Organising alternative sports provision costs time and money, so this should have been properly scoped, costed and discussed in the appropriate committees at the Council. Instead of being arranged behind the scenes, with the Council (a) allowing a breach of planning law and (b) taking on this additional cost at a time of mega cut-backs so that they have had to scrape around for new sources of funding to pay for it – and one way was to put up the cost of using the tennis courts. Starting now so that it looks like decision that the Council could not avoid, instead of being the result of LOCOG skipping out of the conditions of its planning consents.
Making it more expensive for people to play sport will, I guarantee, cancel out any Olympic-inspired sports participation. At the same time, if LOCOG get their way in Greenwich Park, there will be no games of footie at the lower end of the Park (near the NMM) either this summer or next.
ridiculous… the Plumstead courts are only good enough for a fun knockaround. they slope, they’re too close together (not enough run off area) and theres no changing facilities, seating or flood lights. and yet the council wants to charge top dollar. and are they going to pay someone to collect this money ? silly, silly, silly
I travel from Kent regularly to compete in London Tennis League matches in Greenwich and Plumstead. The courts are in a poor state, unsafe especially in damp conditions, and lack supervision and security. Were these to be well maintained there would be some justification for applying charges in Plumstead and raising them in Greenwich. This is another example of Councils looking for ways to generate more income without considering the services they offer or giving value for money.
Will to Win manages the courts and provides adult and junior coaching programmes at Greenwich Park and also to the wider community. Yes, court hire prices have increased by £1 this year. This is needed, largely to help subsidise junior tennis activities.
Its the first price increase for over 3 years. Rising overhead costs mean its necessary to make the small adjustment ito continue to subsidise the junior coaching programme (less than £5 per hour) and provide free access to courts for under 16s – weekdays before 6pm.
Plus you may also be interested to know the courts are always left unlocked and in winter only manned on weekends. This in effect means, that the well maintained and cared for courts can often be used by the playing public at no charge!
I live in St Johns terrace a stones throw from the tennis courts on Plumstead Common. I noticed last weekend that the sign had appeared stating that charges would apply for the court from the 1st April and was totally gobsmacked, firstly by the stance of a so called Olympic borough deciding to impose a charge for courts a year before the Olympics are due to start and secondly how high the charges were. £7.30 an hour for adults!
How can a charge of that much be justified – it’s a hard tennis court. The most the council has to do with it is maybe push a broom round now and again. Maybe a nominal charge for upkeep I could live with but they are clearly seeing this as money making opportunity. Although I suspect what will happen is no one will use the court and it will just be a waste, when it could have continued to be used by the community.
After being able to see the courts from my house I can confirm that as long as weather permits they are always extremely busy and well used by all parts of the community from youngsters through to adults of all ages. It is quite obvious to me that any charge will cut massively the number of people young and old who use the courts. Then there is the question of how is charge going to be imposed?
Will the £7.30 an hour I will have to pay to play on a hard court with a slightly droopy net be used to pay for a council worker to sit in a hut next to the courts drinking tea and clocking people in and out? Or will it be as I suspect be run via the bowling green (which has got Olympic legacy status) by one of the council staff that seem to be there everyday making sure it has a perfect surface that a rival Wimbledon centre court.
Also there is no doubt that by enforcing this charge the courts will be locked for prolonged periods of time – restricting access to what should be a free open space.
Once again Indigo has firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick. As one of the local society reps described as a “muppet”, let me put the record straight. The report required under condition 33 was produced by LOCOG; it detailed where tennis and cricket facilities were available in the neighbourhood and included submissions from the cricket and tennis governing bodies stating that they were satisfied with the facilities available away from the Park. The report was, and probably still is, on the council website.
The council decided that the condition was discharged. What breach of planning law took place I cannot imagine.
Nor can I see what costs the Council has incurred because it hasnt provided any extra facilities. So none of this has anything to do with the Council’s decision to raise the charges for tennis courts.
Embarrassing for an olympic borough. Do you want to encourage sport or kill it off in Greenwich?
To Emily, the courts at Greenwich Park are at the top end of pricing but don’t have any facilities to speak of. Other places charge less and have changing facilities, toilets, showers, drinks machines, flood lights and fences to separate courts. I might have the will to win but I don’t have the money – not at your prices anyway.
@Richard Baglin
“The report was, and probably still is, on the council website.”
It is normal to provide a link.
“The council decided that the condition was discharged.”
We need to see the report. It never went to a planning board meeting to decide if the condition had been discharged. The decision would have been made at the Council by one, perhaps two, people.
Planning condition 22 says “detailing where, when and how existing sports users are to be provided with alternative sporting facilities for cricket and tennis”.
Are to be provided. Not are available.
If you went to stay at a hotel and were told that you would be provided with breakfast, you’d be a bit miffed if the hotel only gave you a list of where breakfast was available.
Interesting to see people bemoan the quality of the courts available in Plumstead but insist that they should not have to pay for the privilege of using them, as though the two facts are completely unrelated.
On the whole, I find it very difficult to get too upset about these charges. £7.30 per hour per court equates to £3.65 per person (£1.83 if you play doubles). That really doesn’t strike me as very expensive at all and seems to compare pretty favourably to most other forms of leisure activity. No doubt as Emily has suggested above there will also be all sorts of discounts and schemes available to benefit particular target groups.
Also, I don’t really see why tennis should get special treatment. Where are the free golf courses, swimming pools, football pitches and snooker tables?
Blisset I find your comment comedical. This is a open space council facility, with no separate courts and very little TLC. The over riding fact is that you may be able to pay this cost but many people will not, this is very true of young players, who undoutly use the court more than anyone else. The question you need to ask yourself is does the council warent charging these prices for a few courts that need little to no maintenance? I would say no, as I’ve said a nominal fee for adults I’ve no issues with but the current charges are a clear revenue making ploy. Again I also say is this the true legacy of an olmypic borough???
Generally I prefer only to report these events but since I do play tennis across the borough, I think I’m qualified to join the debate.
The first thing I would like to point out is that courts are priced by the hour but I have never played a match which lasted under one hour so realistically we are talking about tennis match costing £14.60 and quite feasibly almost £22 if you go over two hours.
It may be that some people, as Blissett says, don’t find that very expensive at all but that’s obviously a subjective judgement. What isn’t subjective and is an indisputable fact is that the price *is* expensive in relation to playing tennis in other boroughs such as Lewisham, Bromley, Bexley, Croydon and others.
I think people are entitled to ask why it costs more in Greenwich – is it because the facilities are of such high standard that they justify a higher price? Having played at many venues, I would tend to think that’s not the case.
Going from £7.00 to £7.30 is unfortunate but I would assume will be swallowed by people already pay £7.00. Going from zero to £7.30 an hour at very short notice with no consultation is rather less palatable for the users of Plumstead Common courts.
Tennis, unlike golf, swimming and snooker is traditionally a park sport. Other activities in the borough’s parks such as football, basketball, table tennis, outdoor gyms and playgrounds remain free so tennis players in Greenwich’s parks and green spaces don’t actually get special treatment, they get the exact opposite.
Paul – I have no idea what the Plumstead courts are like. I’ve never been there. All I’m saying is that people clearly think they are substandard but seem unwilling to pay a fee that *could* be used to improve them which is interesting. A debate on how much the fee should be set at can be had but you yourself have agreed that a “nominal” fee would be acceptable so I’m not sure what’s so controversial.
Rob – I agree entirely that questioning why courts are more expensive than other boroughs is valid. However, a 4.3% increase is barely more than inflation and the overall price does not seem to be excessive when compared to possible substitutes. I’m not saying I’m over the moon about the decision, I just can’t get overly upset about it when there appear to be much bigger issues elsewhere.
And sorry but I really don’t buy your argument that tennis players are hard done by. In my experience (admittedly outside Greenwich) football pitches for playing matches on (i.e. with line marking, goals, nets and a playable surface) are certainly not free.
Also, claiming tennis is a park sport is disingenuous. Yes courts are usually situated in parks but they are paved over, fenced off and have a net planted across the middle of them. They exist only for the benefit of tennis players and their existence denies others of the benefit of that space. The same is not true of most football pitches for example. I don’t begrudge this use of space but it seems entirely reasonable to charge for exclusivity.
Blissett
I don’t think it’s been suggested that you or anyone else need be upset about a 4.3% rise. It’s just been reported here as a statement of fact so people know about it.
It has been pointed out that the fees are already the most expensive around and will now be a bit more expensive, although as you pointed out, what constitutes “expensive” is not the same for everybody.
However, a rise from zero to £7.30 is, of course, significantly more than 4.3% and that may explain why some people who use Plumstead Common courts may indeed be upset.
It might be because it’s a bit late but I don’t actually understand your other point. I am not sure that the physical attributes of a tennis court preclude it from being part of a park. There’s more to parks than patches of grass – there’s often kid’s play areas, bandstands, basketball courts, outdoor gyms, ponds, cafes and yes, sometimes tennis courts.
I’d suggest that when I claimed tennis was a park sport, I was merely being accurate rather than disingenuous – and in fact to claim otherwise may even have been… disingenuous?
I don’t play tennis but I do see lots of people using the Plumstead Common court that you wouldn’t usually associate with this (what I believe is still) elitist sport, I see lots of people having a knock about who probably woudln’t have the confidence or the cash to join a tennis club and a lot of local youngsters who I am heartened to see playing sport outdoors rather than sitting at home on gaming machines.
This is where I think there will be a real loss to the community if the charge is implemented at Plumstead. I believe the courts will also be used much less frequently (during the summer they never seem to be empty) and as a result the area will be less safe for walkers, joggers and local people passing through.
I will be signing the petition at nopaytoplay@hotmail.com and urge that you do the same.
Nicky has hit the nail on the head – thankfully common sense is alive and well.
Yes the courts are not maybe upto club standard, really that doesnt matter to the vast majoirty of people who use them. They provide a place to play tennis to whatever standard and encourage people to be active.
Good news for players at Plumstead Common. I interviewed Cllr John Fahy, the Cabinet member for Culture and the Olympcs, this morning and although he confirmed that the official court fees are rising to £7.30, there are no plans to change the current areas or means of enforcement so in reality, this change will make no difference at Plumstead despite the sign that is currently displayed. He was surprised to hear the courts were padlocked shut the other day and said he will look into why that was.
He said he would like to increase participation in tennis and is considering new payment models in the future which may or may not include swipe cards and membership schemes.
Full quotes will be in my interview next week but the gist really is that there’s no change at Plumstead for now.
Brilliant news for Plumstead. Hurray!!!
Well done to everyone who posted comments and Rob.
Paxman better watch out!
Thanks Paul and thanks to the commenters on this thread – I think it’s been useful for the Cllr to see the feedback.
Good work Rob. And well done everyone on a heartfelt debate.
Appreciation to all who responded to the charges for the use of Tennis Courts in the Borough. It is self evident that the charges have increased in line with inflation. I am keen that Greenwich develops Centres opf Excellence for Tennis across the Borough. Work is underway to achieve thgis objective. I will be looking at models of good practise in other Boroughs. There are a number of venues in the Borough which is for casual use. As the facilities improve there must be a charging policy across the board which are fair and reasonable. I would welcome any thoughts people might have in improving the Tennis offer in the Borough.