Resurfacing Courts 1 and 2; Artificial Clay vs Hard-Courts

Courts 1&2 urgently need repair/replacement.

We need to consider our choice of surface and would like to hear the opinions of as many members as possible re what surface we should go for.

Once a decision has been reached we can progress the proposal and plan the necessary work.

Do we:

Stay with hard-court surface or switch to artificial clay, a synthetic carpet with coloured sand infill?

Below are the pros and cons of each option; you may have other reasons for your preference having experienced these courts personally.

Follow the link below to the feedback form and have your say.

Have Your Say Form

There will be an opportunity to ask questions and discuss further at the AGM in the Clubhouse at 5 pm on 18th October.  

Artificial Clay Tennis Courts

Pros:

• Slower ball speed and higher bounce than hard courts, creating longer rallies and more strategic play, which many players find more enjoyable.
• Softer surface, less physically jarring and easier on joints, knees, and ankles, reducing injury risk.
• Players can slide into shots, easier on the body than sudden stops on hard courts.
• Balls leave marks (can help with line calls).
• Suitable for wet and frosty weather conditions 
• Playing style that rewards consistency, spin, and court positioning over pure power.
• Heavily used courts known to last beyond 15 years, if appropriately maintained.
• Members (and teams) would have a choice of playing surface.
• Variety of surface might attract new members.
• Successful application led by Roy Reynolds, for £10,000 grant from CDC, can only to be paid to the club when working plan in place or completed, and £2,500 from the Woodger Trust paid to the club but to be returned if work not carried out. Grants stipulate artificial clay surface as this is considered an improvement cost (ashphalt is considered a maintenance cost which is ineligible) 

Cons:

• Requires drag brushing by players after every game for redistribution of infill across the carpet, ensuring optimal playing conditions. If not done, the surface can become slippery, patchy/uneven requiring more serious maintenance.
• Periodically line sweeping needed; ensures lines remain visible and clear from sand.
• Strong winds displace sand infill, altering playing conditions and adding to debris accumulating and degrading on the court meaning more specific maintenance needed
• Regular removal of moss and vegetation and replenishment of materials may be necessary.
• The ball bounce can be unpredictable, may be frustrating.
• Sand gets in your shoes.
• Sand can discolour balls and shoes.
• Initial installation cost higher than hard-courts – Approx £50,000 minus £12,500 grants.
• Might be difficult to book if demand is high (only two courts of each type, not four of one).
• No choice of surface if needing lights on in the winter.

Hard (Painted Asphalt) Tennis Courts

Pros:

• Well known and familiar surface to all members.
• Minimal maintenance required beyond occasional cleaning and crack repair.
• Consistent, predictable playing surface that doesn't vary much with weather conditions.
• All four courts the same, so no issues with booking.
• Quick drying after rain, and suitable in most conditions.
• Lower long-term maintenance costs and labour requirements.
• Faster court speed and lower bounce rewards powerful play.
• Durable surface that can withstand heavy use.
• Cheaper to install than artificial clay – Approximately £30,000 but ineligible for grants. 

Cons:

• Hard surface, more stress on knees, ankles, and back, increased injury risk and less forgiving for existing joint issues.
• Faster pace and low ball bounce can lead to shorter points, which some players find less satisfying.
• Cracks can develop over time from ground settling or temperature changes, affecting ball bounce.
• Resurfacing required approximately every 10 years.
• No sliding possible, requiring sudden directional changes that can be harder on the body.
• All courts would be the same, so no choice for members or teams.