The future of Udney Park has been up for debate in recent months and now Jonathan Dunn, chairman of Thamesians RFC has weighed in on the matter.

You can red the original article HERE

Here's what he told Nub News:

I read the report in the Teddington Nub News concerning the future of Udney Park with great interest - in particular the quote from Simon Cartmell.

Simon Cartmell, from Teddington Rugby Club also wants more space for clubs to play, but argues that green space and fields are difficult to maintain.

He would like to see an all-weather surface with floodlights for weekday evening training instead.

"South West London is really poorly served for those types of facilities," he said.

"We're blessed with lots of green space, Bushy Park, Richmond Park, but we are not blessed with 4G multi-use facilities with flood lights. So this seemed like an opportunity to develop one of those alongside a pristine, fit-for-purpose clubhouse which would become a community hub."

Here is my response:

Teddington Rugby Club (who by the way do a fantastic job in their contribution to community sport) stood apart from all the other local clubs in supporting the Quantum proposal as it solved their need for mid-week floodlight training, however it sets a poor precedent if developers are to be encouraged to build on playing fields on the basis that they simply allocate some space within the development for a floodlight training pitch whilst building on the rest of the land.

For this reason Sports England, the LTA, The ECB, the FA and English Netball all opposed the development. The RFU have also indicated a preference for all the playing fields to be retained for sport.

The 4G pitch itself was ill-conceived. The run off to the sides of the proposed pitch are so small (3m in lieu of 5m) that the fence surround would have to be padded to provide a run off – thus forming a solid barrier.

Within this compound the size of the proposed pitch is inadequate for competitive games and has dimensions of 88m x 63m (as opposed to the RFU minimum size of 94m x 68m). Most importantly the majority of the fields on the 12.5 acre site are then built upon for private profit.

Simon Cartmell's club would apparently require this facility each evening Monday to Thursday and for the remainder of the time it would be privately let much in the manner of a 'Goals' facility.

We already have 'Goals' locally at Gillette Corner, Tolworth, Wimbledon, Sutton, Sunbury, and Hampton Court. Do we need another one?

I would also imagine that the local community would like to see the existing historic pavilion as the community hub rather than this building being converted in to more flats, whilst a new soulless structure is put up as the 'community hub'.

The developers knew this was a highly speculative development at the outset – their prospectus to potential investors says so. The nature of speculative development proposals is that they do not always succeed.

There is an offer to buy the fields, not just for the benefit of Thamesians RFC but for a whole host of local sports clubs. Under this alternative the fields would be placed in to a Charitable Trust which would have the sole purpose of guaranteeing the fields for perpetuity as playing fields. Below this would sit an operating company run by the clubs themselves.

They would not need for the clubs to fund the acquisition under this plan. The demand for this playing space is enormous.

By way of example Hearts of Teddlothians have about 700 kids playing football every Saturday morning that they attempt to accommodate on a patchwork of fields across the borough.

Thamesians themselves have just lost their home pitch at Waldegrave School – as the school is remodelling due to Covid-19. The plan also included facilities for tennis, netball, cricket and a 1m perimeter track for a mini park run, as well as converting the pavilion in to a community facility to be proud of. The outline of these plans are in the public domain.

Hopefully there can be some engagement to take these ideas forward outside of media exchanges or revisiting planning debates. It is not a case of asking the developer 'to bugger off with the tail within their legs' as Mr Cartmell describes it. It is simply that the developer needs to accept the reality of LGS status and planning rejection, and acknowledge that on this occasion his speculative investment has not worked out.

The fields were bequeathed as playing fields by Lord Beaverbrook many years ago. Hopefully now this aspiration can be fulfilled. What cannot be tolerated is the continuance of the running down of this facility whilst so many clubs require a home.

It would also be nice for Teddington RFC to reconsider their position. They have had enormous support in the financing of their own facilities at Bushy Park and it would be great to see them come alongside the other local clubs in moving the Udney Park proposal forward rather than giving life blood to the developers plans.

You can find out more about Thamesians RFC HERE