On Friday 27 September, Jules Pipe, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, decided to overrule Wandsworth Council’s refusal and the vast opposition from the local residents to allow the extension of Wimbledon Tennis Club into the park.
The plans, presented by the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), aim to expand across Church Road to build an 8,000-seat stadium (104 metres wide and 28 metres high), an additional 38 grass courts, 10 other buildings including a 30,000 sq ft maintenance hub, and 9 km of roads and paths at the former location of the Wimbledon Park Golf Course. The Wimbledon Tennis site would almost triple in size.
Merton Council approved the application last year after an extended debate where 6 Labour councillors voted in favour while 4 others (including one Labour, the 2 Liberal Democrats and the single Conservative councillor) voted against. The decision was based on the benefits they think it would generate. In the words of Merton’s officers’ reports, the development would be “inappropriate” and cause “physical harm” to the Metropolitan Open Land, but all of that could be outweighed by the “very substantial public benefits” of the proposal.
A few weeks later, Wandsworth Planning Committee had to consider the application too, as the land in question straddles the two boroughs. Councillors took the opposite view and refused planning permission, following the recommendation of Wandsworth’s officers who disagreed with their colleagues from Merton.
With the two neighbouring boroughs taking opposite decisions, it was a matter for the Greater London Authority to eventually make a decision. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had previously expressed public support for the Tennis Club extension, therefore he decided to recuse himself from the process, leaving the matter in Pipe’s hands. During a video interview with The Wimbledon Channel in July 2021, Khan said:
“We have been working really closely with Wimbledon and I give them credit for the collegiate way they have been working with the local community, with the local councils, with us and City Hall, to make sure we can add value to the world’s premier tennis tournament. I think this development will future proof Wimbledon for years to come. It will be amazing in years to come to see the qualifying events taking place here in Wimbledon.”
Ahead of the examination by the GLA, the developers introduced several revisions to the plans intended to enhance public access to the site from nearby Wimbledon Park (including access for at least seven tennis courts for a few weeks during the summer). However, at the GLA hearing, Wandsworth planning officials maintained their original stance, describing Allies & Morrison’s changes as “minor” and insufficient to address the council’s concerns.
Dismissing the arguments put forward for the refusal, the Greater London Authority (GLA) planning officers stated that there were “no material considerations that are considered to justify the refusal of consent“.
While acknowledging that the proposal will cause substantial harm to the protected land, London’s planning officers brushed aside the environmental concerns and years of disruption to the park, as they highlighted that it would bring benefits in the form of “40 year-round jobs and 256 Championships jobs“.
Ahead of the City Hall hearing, Paul Kohler, the Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon, urged the Deputy Mayor to reject the recommendation. He said that failure to do so would be a “flagrant disregard of the AELTC’s historic promises not to build on the land“, and will be “showing complete contempt to the people of Wimbledon“.
My statement regarding the forthcoming GLA hearing on the AELTC’s plans regarding Wimbledon Park.
Supported by @HinaBokhariLD, @Gareth_Roberts_ , @AJ_Fairclough, @sammacart, @jil_hall & @tonyreiss_uk pic.twitter.com/jJD31NOGu8
— Paul Kohler🔶MP for Wimbledon (@PaulKohlerSW19) September 20, 2024
Questions on the legality of the proposal
At the impassioned and sometimes heated four-hour hearing at City Hall on 27 September, Richard Rees said the pressure on Wimbledon’s existing site from an influx of 8,000 new visitors had been “ignored”. He also said that “Wimbledon’s status as a premier Grand Slam stems from its history and unique playing surface. Players aspire to win on grass, clay, and hard courts, and Wimbledon’s grass-court tradition is a part of that. The Grand Slams won’t let themselves shrink or be broken up, and they are similar in size with comparable seating in their main show courts. None of the other Grand Slam sites have any more space to expand, nor can they increase their player draws.” and compared with Rolland Garros third tennis court (Mathieu) that has only 5000 seats, far less that the proposed 8000 for the new permanent structure intended on the park. Mr Reeves is not just a campaigner against the encroachment of the tennis club on the park, but also the architect who masterplanned the championship’s 1990s overhaul which included the No 1 Court and Henman Hill, as well as the tennis centre for the 2004 Athens Olympics. He was also an advisor to both the Beijing Olympics and Rio de Janeiro games, as reported by the online media Building.
On the other hand, when AELTC chief executive Sally Bolton claimed that 39 courts, including the show court, was the “minimum that we could work with“, it was greeted with laughter from most of the audience.
When Debbie Jevans, chair of the AELTC, said that it will “create a beautiful new parkland that will be free for everyone to enjoy for ever“, it appears in frontal contradiction with the fact that the site will be closed to the public for a large part of the summer period before, during and after the championship, at the very period when people want to enjoy the park.
While the main argument presented by the applicants was that they absolutely needed this expansion in order to keep Wimbledon as the best tennis tournament in the world, the question remained regarding the so-called “exceptional circumstances” and benefits that the AELTC needed to present to justify building on the park. While the AELTC claims that 39 new tennis courts is the minimum, Richard Rees explained that “As for the six proposed practice courts, these have been temporarily arranged on AELTC grounds thus far. Additionally, there has been no alternative proposal for the location and scale of the new 8,000-seat, roofed No. 2 court, which would be larger than the Albert Hall and remain unused for 50 weeks each year—a questionable level of sustainability.”
Samantha MacArthur, councillor for Merton, said:
“The Lakeside Walk is actually a pre-existing obligation from the 1993 sale agreement, not a new benefit. The promised parkland access is purely at the developer’s discretion. Public use of the 38 grass tennis courts is restricted to only seven courts for seven weeks each year, while the Section 106 funds include off-site projects, some of which Merton Council had already planned to implement next year.”
In several occasions, objectors highlighted that the CGI (computer-generated images) where misleading at least. “These are merely idealised artistic impressions, showing the project 25 years post-completion, in the 2060s. The grassy tennis courts shown in the visuals are misleading; they will have different surfacing, and fencing is unlikely to be removed, making the idea of children playing around Wimbledon’s Championship courts a fantasy,” said Leonie Cooper, councillor for Wandsworth and London Assembly member.
Talking on behalf of the Tennis Club, Jon Roshier, director at planning consultant Rolfe Judd, confirmed that the grounds would be restricted for the majority of the year (at least 72% of the time). He explained that “illustrations of members of the public who were shown enjoying the expanded grounds in a video presentation of the proposals represented people on ‘curated tours’“. Again, audible amusement was heard from the attendees.
Fleur Anderson, MP for Putney, highlighted the fact that there is an alternative plan which is to keep the qualifying tournament in Roehampton and improve the facility. She said:
“There is a feasible alternative that could provide both economic benefits and environmental protection—develop the land at Roehampton, maintaining the qualifiers close to the National Tennis Centre. This option would be very welcome in Roehampton, where it could support the renewal plans we have for the area. Yet, Wimbledon has never seriously addressed this option, dismissing it far too easily in this application.”
The opponents have long argued that the extension of the plan was not only inappropriate but also illegal.
When Merton Council sold the freehold to AELTC, the tennis club entered into a legal covenant that prohibited any use of the land aside from leisure, recreation, or as an open space.
The convenant is a legal document that was agreed by the then Leader of Merton Council and AELTC on 24 September 1993. It said that:
“The golf course land will be retained as open space. The whole stretch has been designated Metropolitan Open Land. We have declared it a conservation area and placed strong covenants on the sale.”
Wandsworth officers, while acknowledging that the covenant carries little weight in the planning consideration, nevertheless highlighted that “that the restrictive covenants as they relate to deliverability may be capable of being a material consideration.”
Local campaigners are considering legal challenge
After a two-hour deliberation period, Mr Pipe decided to follow the decisions of the officers and grant permission. He made a statement repeating multiple times: “I agree with my officers…” He said that the scheme would provide “very significant” public benefits that would “clearly outweigh” any harm done to public land.
During the meeting at the GLA, Fleur Anderson, the MP for Putney, claimed allowing the scheme would set “a dangerous London-wide and national precedent”. However, after Pipe’s decision to grant permission was announced, she showed disappointment but no hint of further involvement to overturn the decision.
@SaveWimbldnPark pic.twitter.com/HusHkwMuF6
— Fleur Anderson MP (@PutneyFleur) September 27, 2024
Paul Kohler, MP for Wimbledon, was a little bit more vindicative. Quoted in the Guardian following the Deputy mayor of London’s decision, he repeated his statement from the hearing and said:
“Call me old-fashioned but I believe promises should be kept. In 1993 the then-chairman of the AELTC, John Curry, said: ‘We completely understand and support everyone’s determination to keep the land open and we have purchased the land on that basis.’ And in 2018 the AELTC also promised to deliver proposals with the local community.”
During a special meeting organised by Merton Council on 15 November, it was explained that there are 2 ways to circumvent the legal requirement: Either ask the council to release or modify the covenant, as the council is the party with the benefit of the covenant in its capacity as landowner of the adjoining Wimbledon Park; and/or seek a discharge by making an application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Following Merton’s approval last year, Councillor Ross Garrod, the Labour leader of the Merton Council, seemed to question the legality of the decision of his own councillors. In his letter, Councillor Garrod wrote:
“The Wimbledon Park Golf Course is subject to restrictive covenants established in the 1993 transfer to All England Lawn Tennis Ground (AELTG). These restrictive covenants include requirements for the owner to use the land only for leisure and recreation or as an open space and places restrictions on the erection of buildings. The development for which planning consent has been granted cannot commence without addressing the restrictive covenants in the 1993 transfer.
I would be grateful if you could advise how you intend to implement the planning consent, if granted, without breaching the restrictive covenants.”
Although AELTC has never explained how they intend to proceed, they have always declared that they do not see any real issue with the convenant.
The Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) campaign group have announced three ways to derail the Tennis Club expansion. Beside the issue with the covenant that we explained above, a legal opinion given to the GLA that the land is held in a Trust is also creating an issue that might only be resolved with a decision by the High Court of Justice. Mr Timothy Morshead KC, a very senior barrister, explained that “members of the public have rights over the golf course, despite the 1986 lease and despite the 1993 transfer. It follows that the owner [AELTC] must make the land available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis“.
It is worth highlighting the comment made by Nick Calder, the Head of Development Management in Wandsworth borough, when he made his representation before the GLA:
“We note the legal opinion received by the GLA which states that the land is held subject to a statutory trust for its use as public recreation. This contradicts the legal opinion received by Merton and the applicants that concludes that the site is not held in a public trust.”
This is significant as land held in a statutory trust for public recreation has a special legal status that provides additional protection against development or change of use. This status is typically established by legislation or a specific legal instrument, making it more difficult to repurpose the land for other uses. If the land is indeed held in a statutory trust for public recreation, as suggested by the GLA’s legal opinion, it would likely face greater hurdles for development and require a more stringent approval process. This could potentially impact the viability and permissibility of proposed developments on the site.
It would also put under scrutiny the terms of the 1993 purchase. When Merton Council sold the freehold to AELTC for £5.2 million in 1993, the tennis club entered into a legal covenant that prohibited any use of the land aside from leisure, recreation, or as an open space, prohibiting construction on the Grade II* listed parkland.
The AELTC paid a vastly reduced price for Wimbledon Park because they made legally enforceable promises not to build on it.
Despite their premature rejoicing, today’s decision has no bearing on the covenants provided @Merton_Council enforce them. https://t.co/sF55HLrgVE
— Paul Kohler🔶MP for Wimbledon (@PaulKohlerSW19) September 27, 2024
As explained in the media i, a 2023 court ruling on a Shropshire development could set a precedent for a potential Supreme Court appeal against the Wimbledon expansion. Opponents may argue that the council failed to follow proper procedures in selling the land, similar to the Day vs Shropshire case where the court ruled that land should be subject to restrictions due to the council’s failure to protect public rights during the sale.
It must also be noted that, during a previous ruling in 2017 regarding a planning case on Wandsworth Common, a judge prevented the erection of a nursery on the park, stating that unlike golf courses which can’t stop the public from using them, giving a lease for a private facility would “prevent any public use of the premises for a significant period of time“.
Similar to the convenant, during the planning meeting that concluded to approved the initial plan, the Councillors were told that the restrictions in the Long Act were not a planning consideration. However, during the judicial review verdict, the decision was based on the fact that the local authority does not have powers under the 1967 Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Provisional Order (“the Long Act”). The “Long Act” is a piece of legislation that provides uniform powers to London borough councils for managing parks and open spaces in the capital.
Even the GLA officers seem confused as they stated:
“The matter is far from clear-cut, and there are arguments pointing in both directions [and] ultimately the matter can only be resolved by the court”
A third option could be a call-in by Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. However, this appears unlikely as she withdrew her demand for suspension of the decision just days before the GLA hearing and her intervention on the case would go against the Labour government’s commitment to streamline the planning process.
While the AELTC has secured a significant victory with the approval of their expansion plans by the Deputy Mayor of London, they are aware that some legal hurdles may still remain.
Save Wimbledon Park campaign group said that although the Deputy Mayor of London approved the AELTC’s expansion on to the heritage Wimbledon Park former golf course, that is not the end of the story.
“[The comments made by a senior barrister about the Trust] move the application on to the next stage, the review of the planning decision for legality (“Judicial Review”), the enforcement of the 1993 restrictive covenants in which the All England promised not to develop, and the enforcement of the public trust, the fourth and fifth sets of this lengthy match. Save Wimbledon Park is reviewing all options carefully and anticipates further action” they said.
Local campaigners are currently taking legal advice to find the best way to challenge the legality of the plan.
You can view a curated extract of the GLA hearing below with reactions form the public, arguments from objectors and questions from Jules Pipe.
The whole debate (4 hours long) is available on the London Assembly website:
As a Wimbledon Park resident I wanted to thank you for such a thorough piece of journalism. The issues are complex but this article provides an excellent overview of the debate so far.
For the record, I’m personally against the development and appalled at the GLA overturning Wandsworth council’s decision as well as disregarding those of us who will be directly impacted by this inappropriate expansion.
You’re welcome. Your comments are a great encouragement to the work done with CJI.