Should Pickleball Come to Delhi Park?

A debate that began with a recreational proposal has become a larger conversation about what Delhi Park should be.

Should the park accommodate six dedicated pickleball courts on its former ball diamond, or should Prince Edward County reconsider the location to protect quiet green space, community gardens and wildlife?

Council has already confirmed Delhi Park as the site. The planned $400,000 project would be financed through $266,500 raised by Prince Edward Pickleball and $133,500 from the County’s Parkland Reserve Fund. The community organization had reportedly raised about $200,000 by late July.

Community Reaction and Public Opinion

Supporters believe Delhi is a logical choice. The land has previously been used for organized sport, and the proposed footprint is a former ball diamond rather than an untouched forest. County staff say it is the only municipally owned Picton location that satisfies all their requirements for space, parking, accessibility and active transportation.

There is also clear demand. Prince Edward Pickleball says the local playing community has grown from roughly 30 people to more than 300. National participation is rising as well, with a Pickleball Canada survey estimating 1.8 million Canadian players in 2026.

For many players, the sport is more than a trend. It is exercise, social contact and an activity that can be played across generations. Research has linked participation with active lifestyles and wellbeing, especially among older adults, although the developing evidence should not be interpreted as proof that pickleball uniquely produces those outcomes.

Opponents say the issue is not whether pickleball is worthwhile. It is whether six courts belong in Delhi. The park contains Marsh Creek, community gardens, wildlife and informal green space. During the County’s pathways consultation, keeping Delhi natural and honouring the creek were the most commonly expressed priorities.

Noise Concerns 

Residents also question the noise. Pickleball creates a repeated popping sound that can continue for long periods when several courts are active. The sport’s own governing body has developed quieter-equipment categories and acoustic-mitigation guidance, an acknowledgment that conventional equipment can be disruptive in sensitive surroundings.

Supporters respond that parks are supposed to contain recreation and that Delhi once hosted regular baseball activity. They ask why pickleball should face a higher standard than ball games, skateboarding, festivals, traffic or other ordinary community sounds.

Opponents answer that the character of a sound matters as much as its maximum volume. They also say a former use does not permanently determine a park’s future, particularly when the community now places greater value on the gardens, pathways, Marsh Creek and wildlife.

Some residents are also uncomfortable with the order of decision-making. Council approved the location in 2024, but the most visible neighbourhood discussion did not occur until 2026. County officials say the project has been discussed through public council proceedings and broader recreation planning. Critics say the public was never directly asked whether six courts should occupy this particular area of Delhi Park.

Similar Ontario disputes suggest that both the concern and the possibility of compromise are real. Peterborough’s Bonnerworth Park project was redesigned after opposition, with fewer courts, increased setbacks, an acoustic fence, berms and landscaping. Consultants predicted that the mitigated plan would avoid a significant noise increase at nearby receptors.

• Would a comparable approach work in Delhi?

• Would residents support the courts if independent studies showed that sound and lighting could be controlled?

• Would quieter paddles and balls, limited hours and no late-evening play change opinions?

• Would fewer than six courts be an acceptable compromise?

• Should the County study the Picton Fairgrounds, the former Queen Elizabeth School property or another site again, even if those locations are less convenient or require additional investment?

• Should Delhi receive a complete park master plan before any major new facility is built?

There is also a question about what counts as fair evidence of public opinion. A petition against the courts measures organized opposition. Fundraising and pickleball membership demonstrate organized support. Comments reveal strong feelings but do not represent a random sample of residents.

A fair community decision may therefore require more than counting signatures or social-media reactions. It may require a clearly worded public survey presenting the same verified information to everyone, including cost, court dimensions, hours, lighting, expected usage, noise predictions, wildlife findings, alternative locations and mitigation options.

Like how residents opposed to the proposal have also been gathering signatures through a local petition. In a recent Facebook post, organizers invited anyone who has not yet signed to visit Picton No Frills on August 10 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm to add their name and call for Council to review the decision.

The choice does not need to be framed as pickleball players against environmentalists. A person can value recreation while believing Delhi is the wrong location. A person can value Delhi’s wildlife while believing a former sports field can accommodate carefully designed courts.

The central question is this: Do you agree or disagree with establishing six dedicated pickleball courts in Delhi Park?

Residents commenting on the issue should explain not only their answer, but what evidence or conditions could change it. That information may be more useful to Council than a simple yes or no.