124: Court Short

The team look at delays in the court system, the new news on the old proposals to redevelop Wimbledon’s tennis infrastructure, and the government’s investment rumble with P&O. Featuring, Adam, Andy, Jane Mackenzie and Sarah Shannon.

Episode Transcript

Maisie (00:05):
Page 94, the Private Eye Podcast

Andy (00:08):
Hello, and welcome to another episode of Page 94.
My name is Andrew Hunter Murray, and I'mhere in the private eye offices with Adam
MacQueen, Jane McKenzie and Sarah Shannon.
We're here to talk aboutall sorts of things.
We're gonna be talkingabout Wimbledon later on.
We're gonna be talking aboutdelays in the court system.
I should have made the Wimbledon Courtconnection before starting that sentence.

(00:28):
And we're also gonna be talking, rightnow about something that's happening
on the day we record this podcast.
So exciting.
The Government Investment Summit,the International Investment Summit
at Guild Hall, which is basically,the British government saying, please
can we have some investment in allour marvelous, stable government
for the next four and a half years.
and it's been derailedby a massive row about

Adam (00:49):
ferries.
It's not just a conference.
Literally as we speak, they've justunveiled the after party as well, which
is being held not at Guild Hall, but St.
Paul's Cathedral.
What?
With Elton John doing the music.
And the King turning up as well.
Yeah.
Not messing about with this one.
Wow.
Yeah.
No, is, this is Keir StarmerStarmer's big flagship.
let's get lots and lots of moneyinto the country and, and be positive

(01:10):
about things after, a few monthsof being negative about everything.
And it was, as you say, derailed veryslightly last week by, Louise Hay, the,
transport secretary going on ITV news andcalling P&O Ferries 'a cowboy operator'
and saying that she was cracking downon the way they treated employees.
Now, this, readers might remember, refersback to, the incident in March, 2022 when,

(01:31):
P&O ferries as opposed to P&O cruises,which is an entirely separate company.
I had to take adverts out atthe time saying, it's not us.
Honestly.
It's not us.
'cause everyone was so cross about this.
Rightly P&O Ferries laid off, nofewer than 786 crew, with no kind
of statutory, consultation periodover redundancies or anything.
It was just you are outta the door or outof the porthole, , and they were replaced

(01:53):
by agency staff, who recently the P&O,boss Peter Hathway admitted, are only
being paid about four pound 87 an hour.
The national wage, at this point being1146 an hour, , and Hebblethwaite
thought was quite open about this.
He admitted to a Commons committeeat the time that, they'd broken
the law over this because you dohave to have a consultation period.
and you also have to notify thegovernment, if you are gonna

(02:13):
make more than a hundred peopleredundant at the same time,
didn't do either of those things.

Andy (02:19):
And Labour were very critical of that at the time.
And then the problem is now thatwith the big International Investment
Summit, the owners of P&O, DP World,huge great shipping company, yeah.
They were poised supposedly toannounce a billion pounds of
investment in various ports.
There's a London gateway port thatwere gonna invest lots of money in.
And then they heard these comments byLouise Hay saying this is that we don't

(02:40):
really like working with rogue operators.
And we're very.
Keen to come down onsharp practice like this.
And they said, maybe we won'tinvest a billion pounds after all.
And that's the situationwe'd got to over the

Adam (02:51):
weekend.

Jane (02:52):
I remember this being quite a big story at the time.
What, were people saying about it then?

Adam (02:56):
As ever you read it here.
First in private art, 'causeI've just looked back.
March, 2022.
here's a piece saying, "Calls for P&O.
Ferry's owner DP Worlds to be strippedof its involvement in two new free ports,
one on the Thames and in Southamptonas punishment for its summary.
Dismissal of 800 seafarersmisses a critical point.
The group's deliberately illegal conductsurely disqualifies it from a role
that involves enforcing border laws.

(03:17):
none of that sort of an answers now.
We just want their cash.
We want them in and we want that port.
And that was very much the reactionof Keir Starmer Starmer, who, slapped
down Louise Hay, publicly and saidthat is not the government's position.
And, I did some sweet talking over theweekend to essentially ensure that DP
World did go ahead with this 1 billionpound investment, straight away.
But that is a very different tunefrom Keir Starmer at the time.

(03:38):
Who, here's, the quote from Keir Starmer.
when, when the redundancies weremade, "it's just disgusting.
It makes my blood boil.
It's, a complete betrayal ofthe workforce, was what he said.
It's not a very good, but,but he wasn't the only one.
This is the mostextraordinary thing, right?
This was an enormous scandal at the time.
The government at the time who were headedby a chap you might remember, called
Boris Johnson, were quite happy to bevery, critical of P&O and of DP World.

(04:02):
, their parent company.
Boris Johnson himself saidthat it was a callous decision.
Grant Shapps, who was Louise Hayes,predecessor as Transport Secretary,
said, we will take 'em to court.
We will defend the rightsof British workers.
Another quote from Grant shashere, P&O has ripped up workers'
rights and hung them out to dry.
Which are the sort ofthings that you might think.
Labour governments might, come upwith, especially in the week, the

(04:24):
very week last Friday, that they,they introduced their, their new,
employment rights bill into the commons.
which is, aimed cracking downon exactly this sort of thing.
But instead we just got pierceDermot rolling over and saying, no,
Let's not make a fuss about this.

Sarah (04:39):
And on, on a side note, is it really all right to have a party in St.
Paul's Cathedral?
I'm not seeing that as okay.
But also remembering back tothat time when the seafarers
all got, all, got the sack, it,happened by zoom or text message.
I mean it was particularly callous.
And then they sent security guardson board the ships with handcuffs.

(05:03):
Just in case anyone put up a struggle andneeded to be dragged away, and then they
wouldn't even let the poor seafarers backon to collect their belongings afterwards.
it really was.
The shoddiest kind of employer behavior.

Adam (05:15):
It absolutely was.
And it was universally condemned.
I'm not, I'm, this is the extraordinarything about it this week as it's been
presented as is everything at the momentas yet another disaster for Keir Starmer
and this very sort of Westminster centricstory of kind of fallouts between the
cabinet and how things are happening.
But it was absolutely universalcondemnation at the time.
I'd had a look back at some,some newspaper editorials.

(05:35):
The Telegraph was saying at thetime, "DP World should be penalized.
Government can take away lucrativecontracts to operate two of the
UK's planned free port schemes.
"Sarah: It's amazing when 1 billion pounds is, looming on the horizon.
Everyone sticks their fingersin their ears and goes, la.
And suddenly, I remember that.
It's a
Labour government's responsibility as well.
And of course, the telegraph likealways another disaster for scam.

(05:55):
here's the Daily Maileditorial at the time.
This makes it really, clear.
The, the government must "urgently reviewall lucrative contact it has with the firm
owned by sheikhs in Dubai, a passengerboycott a P&O would also send a message
about treating employees so shoddedly"you might remember, that was something
else, Louis, he said last week that she'dpersonally been boycotting P&O ferries.
and they said ministers shouldnow think twice about letting
so many of our key companies besnaffled up by foreign predators.

(06:20):
Louis Hayes, God is suggesting maybethey should, but No, not anymore.
Not anymore.

Andy (06:24):
Sarai, you've written a,
fair bit about the.
Kind of treatment that's dishedout to sailors sailors, seafarers,
they have such a rough time.
they're in internationalwaters all the time.
Shipping companiestreat them really badly.

Sarah (06:36):
Yes.
it was particularly apparentduring Covid when lots of them got
stuck on board ferries and cruiseships for months, if not years.
And they were Hanging out, pleasegive us some food notices on the
side of the ships because nobodyreally remembered them, but they were
necessary to keep the ships going.
but, more recently, in December,I wrote about, P&O Ferries.

(06:59):
and, what they'd been up to becausewe'd been contacted by the two trade
unions that look after the seafarers,and they were telling us that, P&O
was using this, recruitment agencycalled Fill Crew that is based in
Singapore and use itself recognizes this
trade union that's based in Slovenia,which, the International Transport

(07:20):
Workers Federation doesn't recognize,and funnily enough is completely okay
with seafarers being put on contractswhere they have to stay for 10 months at
sea and are paid under the minimum wage.
And these were the people that P&Owas using to recruit their workers.
So that was the, theview back in December.
And I'm sad to say I don'tthink much has changed.

Andy (07:41):
'cause when the story happened it was 2022 and there were big announcements
made about, what might happen next.
Grant Shapps actually came upwith some reasonable proposals
as Transport Secretary.
One of them was you come up with rootsbetween countries, which are kind of
minimum wage corridors, basically.
'cause Britain's rights onlyextend 12 miles offshore.
So you can only ensure thatpeople are given the minimum wage.

(08:02):
At that distance.
But if they're sailing toand from, look Dover to Cali.
and France passes a similar law.
You can, have a corridor if you like,of decent workers' rights along that
route, which is fair enough 'causequite a lot of ferries, particularly
go from Dover to Calais and so on.

Adam (08:17):
Thank you Dominic Raab, for that particular insight.

Andy (08:20):
And, there were reasonable proposals about this, but the fact is
that DP World kept being given hugeGovernment contracts for free ports,
all of which came with tens of billionsof pounds of Government support and
tax breaks and all this kind of thing.
So the changes weren't really beingenforced at the time, and this is just one
of those awkward situations where you'vegot legislation to protect seafarers,

(08:42):
which was introduced to the Commons aweek ago, which is why Louise Hay was
talking about this in the first place.
She wasn't trying to scpathe, the investment barney,
that wasn't really the plan.
But it's just one of thosethings where campaigning
comes into contact with reality

Adam (08:54):
'cause not to go completely Dave Spar on this, but it's this sort
of mandalian view that you make it aprinciple not to have any principles.
You just go, we're not gonna stand up.
'cause there was there.
There is a.
Another Blair, right term.
There was a middle way on this, surelythat you say, we are grateful for all.
it's great to have all of thesefantastic people who wanna invest in,
in Great Britain and a great future.

(09:15):
But also, we are gonna work with them on,employment laws and make sure that they
stick to our rules and pay their taxes.
there is a sort of, rather thanjust rolling over and going, no,
we have no criticism whatsoever.
And what it really, reminded me ofactually was that point when Tony Blair,
do you remember when he canceled theSerious Fraud o Office investigation into
the Al Yamar, arms deal, which dates allabout It was something our predecessor

(09:36):
Paul Foot was writing about right.
Back into the eighties.
Yeah.
And there was all sorts of stories
. it's, a different sort of storyto make that clear to, P&O story.
But it was all about.
Slush funds and bribes anddodgy arms deals and things.
and it had been going on for yearsand years, and Tony Benet just stepped
in 2006 and canceled the entirething on the grant that it was, could
potentially offend the Saudi Royalfamily and, risk the arms deals that

(09:59):
they were trying to do at the time.
And it just seemed so blatantlyKissinger-esque realpolitik.
Yeah.
But that was nine years in.
That was the point where Tony BA was abit kind of demob happy, and about to
hand over to Gordon Brown and wasn'tscared of making unpopular de decisions.
Starmer?
We've got there in a coupleof months, haven't we?

Andy (10:16):
maybe, but I think the DP World have had to change the hiring practices as a
response to this, they're no longer hiringinternational workers, which basically
means non-Europeans at a rate of aboutfour pounds an hour because of these
transport corridors that were announced.
So that, kind of is a difference there.
I would say

Sarah (10:32):
what I think is so interesting is how...
we're so craven, once somebody'sin government about, oh,
you've got money for us.
We're so grateful as if it's some sortof charitable gift they're bestowed.
In fact, they're doing itfor, commercial purposes.
They want you to do quite well outta this

Adam (10:48):
port.
They're going to make

Sarah (10:50):
a lot of money outta running Britain's largest container port.
so we, don't have to beentirely, schmoozey with them.
We can, have a few reservations.

Andy (11:00):
That was one of the thing, at the time.
Late prospective ConservativeParliamentary candidate, Iain
Dale, even he was saying maybewe should nationalize P&O.
It was like everyone took a reallystrong line because it was such
a clear cut story at the time.
That's

Adam (11:15):
what I find so extraordinary is it's, literally two years ago, and
yet the mood on it has changed around.
Suddenly it's just become thisWestminster story about yet
another disaster for Starmer.
His first 100 days.

Andy (11:26):
this.
Is something else I want to talk about;the first a hundred days because you
see so many reports on it and I assumedit was something that had been imported
from America within the last 10 years asjust a kind of, like irritating confected
holiday so that journalists have somethingto write about, basically like Halloween.
, but actually just a little quiz corner.

(11:46):
Does anyone know when it datesback to the first a hundred days?

Sarah (11:50):
I

Andy (11:50):
do actually.
Do you

Sarah (11:51):
Franklin

Andy (11:52):
Bingo.

Sarah (11:52):
Franklin do Roosevelt.
Yeah.
Yeah.
In the thirties, post depression.
This is

Andy (11:56):
why we don't have you on off more often, so you're too good at this.

Sarah (11:59):
It's Franklin d Roosevelt.
Yeah.
And he introduced, I don't know.

Andy (12:02):
If you know the number s of laws, if you know the number of bills he
introduced in the first a hundred days.
I'm gonna be gobsmacked.
No, I 77.
Oh.
And the huge changes,basically, stabilized the
economy, massive public works.
And that was the, that was wherethe first a hundred days came from.
But he introduced it as a concept ratherthan everyone else saying, we're gonna
judge you on your first a hundred days.
'Adam: cause
'it's such a random amount of time, isn't it?

(12:24):
It's three months and a little bit more.
Yeah, exactly.
Which, also.

Jane (12:27):
Lucy long summer holiday for everybody and conference season,
so they have to, you're so rights'.
There's very little actualparliamentary time in that a hundred

Sarah (12:36):
days.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I always summer holidayswhen people were rioting.

Andy (12:40):
I did have a look back at report reports of the previous a hundred
days of the last few Prime ministers,obviously with the exception of Liz Truss.
Normally, either I'm going to do thesemarvelous things in my first a hundred
days, or my opponent is gonna wreck thecountry in their first a hundred days, or
the first a hundred days have gone badly.
There has not been a single primeminister who's had a great a hundred day
report from the overwhelming majorityof the press Just doesn't happen

Sarah (13:03):
since Roosevelt.
Since Roosevelt, yeah.
Basically

Andy (13:06):
Boris Johnson rather typically got two first a hundred days.
One I after he became Prime Minister,and then one more after the election.

Adam (13:12):
Oh, so reset the clock.
Ah.

Andy (13:14):
But his first one.
But after, becoming Prime Minister,so that was in about July 2019.
you had, his brother quitting the cabinet.
You had lots of Brexit andthe Prorogation of Parliament.
You had revelations about Jenniferr Curie, who was his tech advisor
and kept getting, invitations totrade missions and public money.
They are often actually quite indicative,which I found quite irritating.

(13:36):
But I think they probably do set a tone.
Oh dear.
Oh God, that was depressing forthe next three years, isn't it?
Alright, let's talk about somethingmore cheerful in that case.
Let's talk about environmental pollution.

Producer (13:51):
Oh,

Andy (13:51):
Jane,

Jane (13:53):
a hundred days will be extremely quick going for, an
environment agency prosecution.
at the moment they'rerunning more, in the years.
A lot of, cases that have been wonrecently, and it's, great that they are
finally winning some prosecutions ofillegal dumpers and people polluting

(14:14):
and people stacking huge piles of tiresup in the countryside and so forth.
but if you look at the detailsof these cases, they're from.
Years ago.
It's taking so long to bring prosecutionsagainst people who are polluting.

Andy (14:29):
Now, I would've thought that if it's an environment agency backed prosecution
as it were, that they would be able to.
Do things quite quickly, but isit not really a function of that?
Is it more a case of what daysare available in the court
and no one gets priority?

Jane (14:42):
Yes.
some of these cases, I mean they reallydo seem to have been pretty slam dunk and
often have guilty pleas and the witnesses,environment agency officers who went on
site and had a good look at the pollution.
So they're not taking yearsbecause they're complicated
cases, they're just part of this.

(15:04):
Whole mess that the court services inwith, massive delays now, oh, we're
seeing the same issue with other kindsof criminal cases, prosecutions brought
by the police, prosecutions broughtby the health and safety executive.
I was writing about, a case, a series ofcases, involving construction accidents.

(15:26):
last issue

Andy (15:27):
was this, the Belfor

Jane (15:28):
Beatty one.
This is the Belfor Beatty story.
they've recently had to pay a, largefine for a awful accident in which a a
scissor lift was knocked over by a crane.
and one person died and one personwas really badly injured, and they've
finally been prosecuted for that.
But again, it's taken.
Years for that case to get to courtand in the meantime to have had two

(15:52):
other dreadful construction accidents.
Yeah, it

Andy (15:55):
was I in your piece, I think you said it was 2020
that this incident occurred.
Yeah.
And this is the fine hasjust been levied, Now

Adam (16:02):
Because as well as the sort of.
Retribution kind ofelement to prosecution.
Presumably there is a preventativeone that people are learning from
these mistakes and, Absolutely.
That's not the future one.
Absolutely.
This is what

Jane (16:14):
the health and safety sort of prosecution process
is supposed to be about.
Both the company involved and the sectorshould be learning from the cases.
So if they don't make it through thesystem for four years, then those learning
points are not public for four years.
But you've,

Andy (16:31):
you gave a rundown of all the.
Various fines levied against Pal Beatty.
And the, learning appears to be slow.
The learning appears infact, not to be happening.
They could do better.
They could, I think.
Yeah.

Sarah (16:42):
Do the delays in the system mean that, it's harder to prosecute
because, witnesses memories have faded.
Just like with a criminal case, withhistoric cases are so much more difficult
because, defenses can always usetheir well, your memories absolutely.
Recollections seem to vary.
These

Andy (16:58):
were all years ago, your Honor.
We can't, yeah.

Jane (17:01):
Yeah, it's a horrible situation.
It's eyewitnesses, recollections, victims'recollections, and indeed the victims
got to wait years and years knowingthat it's looming to give evidence.
And does this relate to their

Sarah (17:16):
compensation as well, that they might be getting

Jane (17:18):
the civil courts and compensation cases for sort of injuries and things like
that also have years and years of delay?
At the moment, the whole system is.
it's the worst it's ever been.
Is this,

Andy (17:32):
is it a covid thing?

Jane (17:34):
So Covid was a big impact.
The barrister strikehad a big impact, right?
So that kind of caused a big, backlog.
and then there were some other issues.
There is a shortage of judges.
Because, they have, it hasn't been fundingfor trading up and providing new judges
and there's a shortage of courtroomsbecause some of them are falling down.

Andy (17:57):
Is that the concrete?

Jane (17:59):
That is partly the concrete.
It's so nice when two things dovetail.
it's not nice, but it's just,all stories are one big story.

Andy (18:07):
okay.
yeah.

Jane (18:08):
apparently half of all courtrooms are at risk of sudden closure at any time.
My goodness.
And that's worse in winter because oneof the things that can cause closure
is that the heating system conks out.
All the buildings leak.
Yeah, but you don't need special rooms.

Andy (18:25):
I know you do need special rooms, but surely you could just have a can.
Can't we use the Nightingale hospitals?
I know they've been sold off, butbasically can't, we have, large
open air trials happening, so justgive over Wembley for a few months.
One

Jane (18:36):
of the things that's happening to try and tackle this there is there
are a number of Nightingale courts.
Which are running.
Oh, really?
Now they're, they can onlyhandle because they're in hotels.
Get me into the

Andy (18:46):
policy now.
Sorry.

Sarah (18:48):
Don't you think they could have come up with a different name for them?
Considering the Nightingale Hospital

Jane (18:53):
reputation, sorry.
They're in hotels in like conferencerooms, in hotels, there's a number
of, they can only hold the kinds ofcases that don't need like a custody
sweep beneath or things like that.
But for those kinds ofcases, and there are.
Plenty of cases where you just need to alltroop in and stand in front of a judge,

Andy (19:10):
right

Jane (19:10):
yes, they're using a number of hotels around the country.
'cause there

Adam (19:13):
is an awful lot of just administrative stuff that has
to take place in a courtroom,but can be done quite quickly.
we've all done court reporting andquite often you'll turn up for the
kind of the day's main event, butbefore that there are three or four
kind of, processing bits or sentencingsor, formalities that have to be done
in front of a judge that they get.
But presumably that takesup an awful lot of time.
As well, doesn't it?

(19:34):
Yes.
absolutely.
Those are the things that ly

Jane (19:36):
if, your case is canceled that day and there's, no room to hold it
and no judge to host it, then, allthose little bits also get pushed
back and cause chaos with scheduling.
Just

Sarah (19:49):
a join.
All stories together aren't, ourold friend Serco are slightly at
fault 'cause they don't manage tobring the prisoners in the vans.
To the courtrooms.

Jane (19:58):
That is certainly another issue that causes cases to be days, to be wasted.

Andy (20:02):
Why they're not doing that?

Sarah (20:03):
they can't find the prisoners sometimes in an overcrowded prison
or they've got underqualified driversthat find it hard to get a sort of
difficult, defendant to get in thevan and they dunno how to handle them.
So it has to be, delayed.

Andy (20:18):
Wow.
There is one proposal that what hasbeen covered in, I think it's in this
month, so this is, by Bar Cart, theLady Chief Justice, fantastic title.
She has asked, hasn't she, for a, boostin the number of sitting days Yes.
That Crown Courts are able to sit on.
That's right
. But she has asked for a boost of five and a half thousand sitting days per year.

(20:40):
She's been told that the increasein sitting days is actually
gonna be 500, slightly under 10%of what she says is required.
Which

Jane (20:48):
means they're not gonna be able to clear this backlog.

Andy (20:51):
Doesn't sound like it anytime

Jane (20:52):
soon.

Andy (20:53):
No.
And the backlog, we should say atthe moment, just for anyone counting
is, expected to hit 80,000 next year.
Which is a lot.
Gosh.
Yeah.
Just to put it in context,

Sarah (21:01):
justice delayed is justice denied and pre, presumably

Adam (21:04):
in the case of criminal trials, this means a lot of people
being held on remand as well in, themassively overpopulated prisons that
we're having to release people from

Jane (21:11):
also at the highest number ever, there's over 17,000 people currently
un remanded, and there is a deadlinewhen you've got people on remind, you
can't hold them for three years until acourtroom and a judge become available.
It's six

Andy (21:25):
months, isn't it?
Yeah.
You have to let them go after six months.

Adam (21:28):
Because they may be innocent.
They haven't actually beenconvicted of anything.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm still getting over this ideathat all stories are one story.
I, we were living in aprivate I extended universe.
This is fantastic.

Andy (21:41):
Yeah, it does.
it does feel if there increasingthe number of days by 500, and we
should say in context, the number,the total number of days that Crown
Courts sit each year is 106,000.
So an increase in 500 is.
A small boost, basically, half apercent, which doesn't feel like it's
quite in scale to deal with the problem.
Are the Nightingale Courts potentiallygoing to help matters here,

Jane (22:02):
but they're really only helping to pick up for the Slack for things
like Harrow Crown Court having a
RAAC concrete problemand things like that.

Andy (22:10):
So they solve the spacious issue, but not the personnel one.
Not the personnel issue.
They don't

Jane (22:15):
solve, they're really expensive, aren't they?
I would imagine they're paying for hotelspace is not, not the cheapest approach.

Andy (22:22):
Okay.
Him, me, out crime ferries.
So we take all the ferries that we'veseized from P&O to national arts, and
we just make them into roving, courts.
Oh, I think Charles Dickenswas quite big on sort of prison
hawks in the marshes, wasn't he?
I'm not

Sarah (22:36):
sure this is the direction everyone's a Chris wanna go in.
Maybe we could more it in Portlandbecause that went really well.

Andy (22:44):
okay.
But no, we, do try and look fora sort of, ray of sunlight at
the end of some of these stories.
Jane, I feel like you're gonnaresist giving us one here.

Adam (22:53):
how many have everyone stopped doing crime?
And like causing industrial workplaceaccidents and that sort of thing.
That would be really, yeah, I idea.
Just to be helpful to the country.
Yes.
And I'm as that patriotic duty, you could

Jane (23:03):
stop with the waste dumping and we could all just catch up with the ones
that still need to go through the system.

Andy (23:10):
Okay.
That's probably about as goodas we're gonna get, isn't it?
alright.
Now I think we genuinely can turnto something a bit more cheerful.
Tennis Sarai, are you gonnaruin tennis for us now?

Sarah (23:22):
No.
We all love the tennis, andWimbledon, obviously beautiful
grounds there in SW 19, , andthe All England Lawn Tennis Club.
Look after that., and in theirwisdom, they decided that they
needed more land for tennis courts.
And this is because they'reworried apparently, that they're
gonna fall behind in the sortof league table of Grand Slams.

(23:45):
which they've obviously got in theirhead, but everybody else still seems
to think Wimbledon's right up there.
But anyway, the, AllEngland Club are worried.
So they've bought a golf club,which sat a local golf club,
which was directly opposite.
Wimbledon grounds, in Wimbledon Park.
and they bought that back in the ninetiesfrom Merton Council, with a covenant

(24:05):
attached saying that there would notbe any development on that ground.
Qui forward a few years and they, paid65 million pounds to buy out the golf
club members who included, Gus O'Donnell,former cabinet secretary, and God

Adam (24:23):
as he used to,

Sarah (24:25):
and, TV presenters, Anton Deck, they all got 85,000 pounds each.
out.

Adam (24:31):
They do need a bit.
Yeah, I know.
It's better, don't they?

Sarah (24:35):
Exactly.
and anyway.
They sold up.
And that meant that the golf clubwas in Wimbledon's hands completely
at that point and their plan.
But they weren't, but

Andy (24:45):
they weren't allowed to build on that

Sarah (24:47):
n
the development plan, as was unveiled,involves putting 38, grass courts
on that land and building wait forit, an 8,000 seat stadium, which is.
A hundred meters long and also, ninekilometers of paths and driveways to

(25:10):
service and go between all the courts.
So that was quite a lot of development andI know there are patches of green grass
in between those, albeit with very short.
Grass, but the local people did feel thatthis was a bit of a travesty considering
there wasn't supposed to be development.
It's in a conservation area and it'smetropolitan open land, and as, anyone

(25:31):
that lives in a city knows green spaceis, something that we have to hang onto.
And the idea that a bigcommercial organization can
trample on that is really unfair.

Andy (25:43):
I've got a few questions about this.
The F.
First of all, we should say whywe talk about this now, which
is that the fantastically namednow, is it Jules Pipe or Ju Peep?

Sarah (25:55):
I presume it's Jules Pipe,

Andy (25:57):
deputy Mayor of London.
Either way, yes, because s Khansrecused himself from this matter.
'cause he said a few years ago,I think it's quite a good idea.
He did.
So he's now removed himself entirelyfrom the decision we reported

Sarah (26:05):
it.
So Sadik had to withdraw from

Andy (26:08):
Yeah.
The discussion.
so Juul or.
Les Pipe or Peep has announced that it isgoing ahead or rather it, it can go ahead.
There might be something like a judicialreview to hold it up or that kind of
thing, but basically it has cleared.
Yes.
Jump in that.
So first, yeah, so

Sarah (26:25):
it has jumped in that.
So first, Merton Council passed it, andthen because Wimbledon Park falls between
two boroughs, Wandsworth Council had tohave a look at it and they didn't pass it.
With a split decision, it had to go tothe umpire to, and that was city hall.
And they've, did they make it sit

Adam (26:45):
on a really tall chair?

Sarah (26:47):
I wish they had No, they, said yes, despite the fact that the local
campaigners had got 21,000 people to signa petition saying Please don't do this.
and they'd drawn up lovelyplans how they could re.
Door, the park to its original state.
It used to be a CapabilityBrown landscape park.
And, and both local Mps, Tory andLabour support supported these

(27:12):
campaigners, and spoke out against.
The development, Flo Andersonhas, spoken to Private Eye a bit
about what she thought about it.
And she was, at the hearing at City Halland she said it was just very unfair
because she felt that the burden of proofthat the campaign has had to provide
about damage to environment and lossof open space and so on was much lower

(27:36):
than what the All England Club had toprovide about, their claims about boosts
of employment and how they had to keep.
This fabulous right.
Reputation for Wimbledon.

Andy (27:47):
I've been on the website of the lawn tennis club, and I've been reading
their myth busting page, not all of whichis convincing, but one of the things they
point out is it's just a golf course.
Yeah.
As in, at the moment,it's not a public park.
We are not gonna be using a public park.
Yeah.
They say no public park is gonna be lost.
It's gonna be golf turning into tennis.
Why should I, as a non-competent.
Non-competent.
I meant non-competent ineither of these ports.

(28:09):
I'm also coincidentallynon-competent at them.
Why should anyone mind that care?
Really?
Yeah.
Yeah.

Sarah (28:16):
I think green space is, green space what?
Whatever it's being used for.
It's a

Andy (28:20):
golf course.
I'm not allowed into it.
I'm not allowed to go and play.
You're allowed to wander.

Sarah (28:23):
You're usually allowed to wander on public paths around it.
Oh, are you around the fairways?
If you're careful when they shoutfor and interesting a dodge.

Jane (28:33):
Tennis court must be one of the sort of least biodiverse,
forms of green space imaginable.
golf courses aren't terrific forbiodiversity, but there's don't exactly
possible for like birds to flap about.
Exactly.

Sarah (28:48):
And to put it into context, they're having to cut down 800 trees
to do their development and that'sgot to be a massive biodiversity loss.
And also if there isn't gonna be a golfclub there anymore because they bought
'em out, it could have been a public park.

Andy (29:03):
how do they get around the covenant saying.
You're not allowed to build on this.
Aren't those binding or,covenant sounds binding.

Sarah (29:10):
It does sound binding, but I think that, Wimbledon was persuasive and has
big funds and excellent marketing andgood myth busting pages on its website.
And, and the, campaign is.
They've been, I feel sorry for them.
They've been slightly dismissedas NIMBYs that they only care
'cause of the view or whatever.

(29:31):
But yeah, they are gonna haveeight years of development,
Lori's trundling past them.
and they are, but actuallythey're not all sort of rich
Wimbledon dwellers in big houses.
It's quite intensive housing around there.
There's lots of flats andit is, a, a green open area.
Within the, that where they live, andthat's now gonna be, and Wimbledon have

(29:53):
really they've said they're putting somethings out there for the community, but
it's Right slightly crumbs from the table.
It's things like, I think it's20% of the, area is gonna be.
For public access, except duringWimbledon when that becomes a car park.
And also the, public is gonna be allowedto use some of the tennis courts.

(30:14):
that's really nice, isn't it?
But they're gonna be allowed touse seven of the tennis courts for
a few weeks after the tournament,and then they're closed again.
So I don't think that's, because that is

Adam (30:23):
actually the only time anyone plays tennis is they get inspired by when born.
I'm like, I've got a racket in the attic.
And then they either haveheart attacks or get bored.

Sarah (30:30):
Yeah.
But if we're trying to, fightchildhood obesity and, yeah.
And anyway, the whole point is thatthese courts are here to, become the
new, qualifying tournament for Wimbledon.
And that currently takes placejust down the road at Ro Hampton.
there's a sort of case ofwhy do you need to do this?
And the, campaign is.

(30:51):
A suspicious that it means, more corporateexpansion of, the, nice Marques where
you have your PIMS and strawberries.
So you can

Adam (31:01):
this be straight in the hospitality box.

Andy (31:04):
And I think they've said, haven't they, that they're gonna get people, more
people watching the qualifying stages.
Because at the moment, Roham canaccommodate about 2000 people.
Yes.
To watch the qualifying.
Yes.
If, this goes ahead, it'll be more like10,000 people are able to watch it.
Yes.
So it's basically more tennisall the time for everybody.
Yes.
But,

Sarah (31:21):
and they also say that, it makes young players feel
a part of the tournament.
but I know the cynic in me things well.
It's the All England, Tennis Club.
They don't have to just be an SW 19.
They could have, done their qualifyingtournament in Rochdale or something
and actually taken country, takentennis to a new area and encourage,

(31:43):
been a bit more inclusive.

Andy (31:45):
So is it going to go ahead, do you think?
Is it yes.
Going to go to judicial, review?
I as threatened.

Sarah (31:51):
I don't think it will, but I do think now the campaign and the mps that
were against it will swivel towardsmaking sure that Wimbledon live up to
their promises for community use andperhaps pushing them on those and,
persuading them to do a little bitmore, to make their neighbors happy.

Adam (32:12):
Can I just point out that if it did go to judicial review Yes.
It would clog up a courtroomand thus become part of the
Private Eye extended universe.

Andy (32:21):
Jane, you write a lot about, about, architecture development.
Dodgy or otherwise,

Jane (32:28):
I

Andy (32:28):
do.
What can be done to prevent this goingahead with your extensive Rolodex
of sharp practice by developers?
How would you advise thecampaigners to proceed?

Jane (32:39):
There's nothing

Andy (32:40):
to go on fire, really, unfortunately.
'cause it's all grass.

Jane (32:42):
No, I mean that there is that.
It is that planning process.
You can object to all the stages.
And, but ultimately if you don't have themoney to take things to judicial review,
then you come unstuck at that stage.
so yes, the next it wouldbe to convince a benefactor.

(33:04):
I.
Or, or many with throughcrowdfunding to fund your next step.

Adam (33:09):
It's interesting 'cause it's maybe someone who really
hates tennis, loves golf.
somebody loves really crossfor that fortnight when there's
nothing else on telling it's golf.

Andy (33:17):
That's it.
Both of these sports are very, badin terms of land use for the number
of people you get playing the sport.
They're both really quite elite, Whereasif you are all playing something,
it, what's a much denser game?
football is a lot more dense.
It's rugby got more people in rugbythan you other football rugby, that's
30 people, isn't it, on a pitch?

(33:37):
That's quite, quite a good use of land.
Yeah.
Okay.
How many are in Abadi team?
Or a shin team, or probablythe Eaton wall game is actually
incredibly dense in terms of land.
So maybe that's, it's actuallya much more egalitarian sport.
Yeah.
Than we, that would be verygood for the environment there.
Okay.
So is it Watch this space for the moment?
Yes.

Sarah (33:54):
For now.
Watch this space.

Andy (33:57):
Watch this space or if you would like to invest.
Private Eye Magazine for muchless than a billion pounds.
You can have access to aprime bit of real estate.
it's delivered to your door.
It's incredibly reasonably priced and it'sfull of fascinating stories, just like
the ones we've been talking about today.
Go to private hyphen i.co ukand get your subscription now.

(34:20):
For now, that is it for thisweek's episode of the podcast.
Thank you so much to Adam, Jane,and Sarai to you for listening.
And as always, to Matt Hill ofRethink Audio for producing.
Bye for now.