Save Wimbledon Park formally launched a judicial review in January 2025, challenging the GLA’s approval of the expansion and citing a statutory public recreation trust and a 1993 restrictive covenant. The High Court has now allowed the case to proceed on all three legal grounds.
In September 2024, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, Jules Pipe, overturned Wandsworth Council’s refusal to allow the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) to expand into Wimbledon Park. The controversial plan—already approved by Merton Council—includes a new 8,000-seat stadium, 38 additional grass courts, multiple buildings, and roadways, effectively tripling the Tennis Club’s footprint.
Despite AELTC’s assurances of public benefits, including limited free access to some courts and parkland, critics pointed to covenants and legal protections on the land, as well as environmental and heritage concerns, branding the proposal both “inappropriate” and potentially illegal.
By January 2025, the residents’ group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) had formally launched legal action (Judicial Review – JR) challenging the Mayor’s decision. Citing a 2023 Supreme Court precedent (Day v Shropshire) and a 1993 restrictive covenant prohibiting construction, they argue the park is held in a statutory public recreation trust—making any large-scale development unlawful.
The resident’s group is challenging the (GLA) on three grounds of legal significance:
- To take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants, both of which prevent the proposed development;
- To note that recent golf course development was in planning policy terms “deliberate damage” to this historic heritage asset, such that the rectification of such damage should not count as a benefit;
- To appreciate that the proposed private tennis entertainment complex was not an “alternative sports and recreational provision” as required by planning policy.
Meanwhile, the AELTC has stated it should go to court over the statutory trust issue—first brought to its attention on 12 April 2023 and again in a letter to SWP on 11 December 2024.
In what has been a surprisingly short period, the High Court has now issued an Order confirming that SWP may proceed on all three Grounds for JR of the GLA’s decision, stating: “The Claimant has raised arguable grounds which merit consideration at a full hearing.”
A High Court judge has allowed the case to proceed on all grounds.
The JR is naming the AELTC along with the boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth. It must be noted that the two councils have decided not to contest the claim and therefore are not participating in the proceedings.
Jeremy Hudson of SWP commented:
“This is a significant milestone as we seek to encourage the AELTC to think again and comply with legal policies and obligations. However, we firmly believe that disputes are best settled by discussion, not by resorting to lawyers and the courts.”
Meanwhile, the AELTC has yet to begin its own proposed legal action regarding the land’s trust status. SWP continues to encourage dialogue to resolve the dispute.
SWP’s request for costs protection under the Aarhus Convention was not challenged and the Court’s order also confirmed that they have successfully achieved this protection. As a consequence, SWP’s liability for the costs incurred by the AELTC is limited to £10,000 and AELTC’s liability for the costs incurred by SWP is limited to £35,000.
SWP will have to fill arguments and evidences not less that 21 days before the date of the hearing, which has still to be determined.
In the meantime, the AELTC has yet to initiate application to court. If they does proceed, two court cases may run simultaneously, but SWP continues to urge dialogue as the best way forward.
