Local residents are fighting to protect Wimbledon Park from the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s expansion plans, highlighting the financial challenges of defending public spaces. A recent meeting aimed to raise funds for the upcoming Judicial Review.

In the heat of the British Summer, while most of the eyes will be directed at the joy and drama of Wimbledon tennis championship, another critical play will happen central London, at the High Court: The oldest, most prestigious and powerful tennis tournament in the world, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), will defend their plan to expand on most of Wimbledon Park. Although they have been granted planning permission by the Mayor of London, the decision will go through a judicial review process instigated but campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP).

Is £200,000 the cost for democracy?

While the AELTC has the backing of political power and deep financial resources, local residents face a very different reality. During the last week of March, SWP organised two meetings in order to update their supporters and raise funds for the forthcoming legal battle.

SWP is a local community group campaigning to stop the proposed development of the former Wimbledon Park golf course into an industrial-scale tennis complex. After the approval of the Tennis club plans by Merton Council, and the refusal by Wandsworth Council in November 2023, the proposal was eventually approved by Jules Pipe, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, on September 27th last year.

• Read more about the controversy and debates in Merton and Wandsworth councils here: Wandsworth Council rejects controversial expansion plan for Wimbledon Tennis Club

“We believe that disputes are best settle by discussion, not by legal action. Despite our repeated requests over 4 years, we have not been able to persuade AELTC to meet with us to try and resolve the matter” said the local group. Therefore, they claim that they have been left with no choice but to challenge the planning permission with a legal action.

As a result, in January 2025, SWP launched a Judicial Review against the Mayor of London’s approval of the Tennis Club’s expansion plans.

• Read more: City Hall approves the controversial Wimbledon Tennis Club expansion, but legal challenges loom

The residents are challenging the Greater London Authority (GLA) on three significant legal grounds:

1. To take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants, both of which prevent the proposed development;
2. 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;
3. To appreciate that the proposed private tennis entertainment complex was not an “alternative sports and recreational provision” as required by planning policy.

• Read our article: Residents’ group launches legal action against Wimbledon Tennis Club expansion

If the court upholds any of these grounds, the AELTC would need to redesign their proposal—a scenario they currently claim is impossible.

Despite receiving significant pro bono support from Russell-Cooke solicitors and two senior King’s Counsel, the campaign faces a staggering £200,000 bill to present their case before the High Court.

“Unless we can raise the funds to go to court, all the hard work of the last four years will have be in vain” said SWP.

The campaign group has set up a Crowd Justice account and is asking everyone sympathetic to the protection of Wimbledon Park to contribute to the Judicial Review cost (link HERE and at the bottom of this article – the £120,000 goal is on top of the £80,000 that were previously received, making the total of £200,000).

“Should the price for democracy be £200,000?” questioned Simon Wright of the Southfields Grid Residents Association. “I don’t personally think so.”

In an early win for residents, a High Court judge has allowed the case to proceed on all grounds and granted cost protection, limiting SWP’s liability for AELTC’s costs to £10,000 and capping AELTC’s liability for SWP’s costs at £35,000.

• Read more: Green flag for High Court proceedings triggered by resident’s group

However, this cost protection arrangement carries significant financial implications for the campaign group. Even if SWP wins the case, the £35,000 cap means they could still be liable for the remaining £165,000 of their own legal costs. Should the AELTC seek leave to appeal (which the court could refuse), the group could also face a further substantial financial outlay.

This underscores the considerable risk community groups assume when challenging powerful organisations through the judicial review process, even when they have a strong case and ultimately succeed in court.

Substantial costs, although not to that extent, are not unprecedented. In 2016, when Wandsworth approved converting Neal’s Lodge & Cottage on Wandsworth Common into a large private nursery, local residents launched a successful judicial review. Despite winning, campaigners were left approximately £35,000 out of pocket. Sandy Muir who funded most of the court case with the help of another campaigner, said:

“The total cost of the JR in the first instance ended up at c£65,000. I had been granted a Protective Cost Order which limited my exposure to WBC’s costs to £5,000. The quid pro quo was that WBC’s exposure to my costs was limited to £35,000. I was ultimately awarded £30,000 because a second (procedural) ground failed which resulted in £5000 being netted off the £35,000.”

When the Battersea Park Action Group (BPAG) issued a claim at court to save Battersea Park from being used as a motor track for Formula E events, they needed to raise £30,000. The threat of judicial review ultimately led to Formula E agreeing not to return to Battersea Park after the 2016 race.

• Read our article: Residents launch several judicial reviews against Wandsworth Council

These examples illustrate a worrying pattern: in theory, democracy gives power to the people; in practice, justice depends on whether a community can afford it.

Jeremy Hudson, who is part of the Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) campaign, said:

“If we win, the planning application goes back to the Mayor for reconsideration. In view of our grounds for JR we would expect the Mayor to refuse planning permission second time round. But there is no guarantee that the AELTC will not, come back with a slightly modified application. That is why we are fighting another (parallel) action regarding the statutory trust; if we succeed on that, we believe this would kill off any development on this site which impacts on public access.”

A legal opinion provided to the Greater London Authority (GLA) last year suggests the land is held in a statutory trust for public recreation – a status that gives it special legal protection and makes it more difficult to develop or change its use.

So what exactly are the residents fighting to protect—and why is the Tennis Club pushing so hard for expansion?

About the proposal

At the centre of the controversy is AELTC’s ambitious plans to expand across Church Road, transforming the former Wimbledon Park Golf Course into an 8,000-seat show court (measuring 104 metres wide and 28 metres high), 38 additional grass courts, 10 new buildings—including a 30,000 sq ft maintenance hub—and nine kilometres of roads and pathways.

If approved in full, the development would nearly triple the size of the current Wimbledon tennis grounds.

This development would enable Wimbledon to hold its qualifying tournaments on the grand slam site (SW19 location) instead of their present location a few miles away in Roehampton. AELTC Chief Executive Sally Bolton stated that 39 courts, including the new show court, represent “the minimum we could work with” to maintain Wimbledon’s status as the world’s premier tennis tournament.

Currently, Wimbledon’s grounds cover 42 acres and feature 38 courts, including 18 Championship grass courts and 20 practice courts. The proposed expansion could push Wimbledon far beyond its fellow Grand Slam venues with a staggering total of 77 courts:

• Roland Garros, in Paris, spans only 30 acres and has 18 courts, even after its major extension (also very controversial) in 2019 and only 9 additional practice courts, for a total of 27 courts. Its third tennis court (Mathieu) has only 5000 seats, far less that the proposed 8000 for the new permanent structure intended on the park.
• Flushing Meadows, in New York, is similar in size to the current English grand slam with 22 courts (plus 12 practice courts) set across 46.5 acres, for a total of 34 courts.
• The total number of courts at Melbourne Park during the Australian Open includes 16 Championship courts and 13 practice courts, making a combined total of 29 courts.

And most importantly, none of  them have any more space to expand, explained Richard Rees, who master-planned Wimbledon’s 1990s redevelopment, including the No. 1 Court, Henman Hill, and the Athens Olympic Tennis Centre.

• Read our article: City Hall approves the controversial Wimbledon Tennis Club expansion, but legal challenges loom

Environmental and public access concerns

SWP warns that the environmental cost would be immense. During the 90-minute public meeting, SWP members highlighted that about 800 trees would be removed from roughly 70% of Wimbledon Park, a Grade II* listed Metropolitan Open Land, to make way for the development. The plans cover 75 acres of heritage parkland, much of which will be excavated for new infrastructure.

Two large new entrances with hardstanding areas and six miles of pathways are also planned. SWP claims that most of the park’s wildlife will be lost during the estimated four years of construction.

“The only green element of the Tennis Club’s proposal is the colour of the grass on the new courts,” said one SWP representative.

They also questioned the realism of AELTC’s promises, noting that the proposed parkland restoration might not be fully realised until 2060—and even then, there’s no guarantee that natural grass courts will still be viable.

Concerns about public access were also raised. At the GLA hearing last autumn, Jon Roshier, planning consultant from Rolfe Judd, admitted that public access to the expanded site would be heavily restricted for much of the year—up to 72% of the time. The promotional video showing the public enjoying the grounds, he clarified, depicted visitors on “curated tours”, rather than the unrestricted public access many had been led to expect.

Furthermore, the site would be completely closed to the public in the weeks leading up to, during, and after the tournament—precisely when local residents would most want to use the park.

Critics also dispute the urgency of AELTC’s claim that qualifying in Roehampton puts Wimbledon at a disadvantage. British comedian Andy Hamilton, speaking at the SWP event, countered with a dose of humour:

“Nobody’s going to say, ‘I won’t go to Wimbledon because I don’t want to go to the qualifying in Roehampton.’”

Broken promises

Wimbledon MP Paul Kohler has joined a growing chorus of critics opposing the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s (AELTC) plans to expand into Wimbledon Park, citing broken promises and a betrayal of public trust.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe promises should be kept,” Kohler told The Guardian. “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.’”

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

Merton Council bought the land in 1965 on trust for the public. The All England Club purchased the freehold of the golf course from Merton Council for £5.2 million in 1993. When the 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. Knowing the restriction imposed on the land usage, the Tennis Club bought the site with the promise that they will never built on it.

Campaigners argue that the current proposal flagrantly violates those legal covenants. Far from preserving open space, the AELTC intends to build a permanent 8,000-seat concrete stadium, along with 38 additional grass courts. Each court requires a foundation with a thick layer of gravel beneath the grass—far from a natural surface (click on the link for more details about grass tennis court construction).

Moreover, as much of the expanded site will be inaccessible to the public, particularly during the tournament period, the campaign group argues this directly contradicts the spirit of the original covenant and the promises made to residents.

SWP also raised questions about the intended use of the stadium outside the two-week Wimbledon Championships. With a capacity similar to the Royal Albert Hall, critics doubt it will sit idle for the rest of the year. However, AELTC has so far offered no details on what events, if any, would occupy the venue in the off-season.

Last but not least, when asked whether the Club has future plans to build a hotel or further commercial structures, SWP said AELTC gave a tellingly vague response: they simply said they have “no plans” at this time.

“At every stage, they refused to engage,” said Andy Hamilton. “They said they have no Plan B. Only an idiot has no Plan B—or it’s incompetence.”

A question of democracy

Democracy originates from the ancient Greek term dēmokratía, which combines dēmos (meaning “people”) and kratos (meaning “rule” or “power”). Together, it translates to “rule by the people” or “power of the people.” However, this principle is undermined in practice by structural imbalances, particularly evident in the UK planning system.

As the High Court prepares to hear this David vs Goliath battle, the financial inequity in the appeals process has once again become glaringly apparent. Developers and corporations can easily lodge planning appeals at minimal cost, while local residents face the daunting prospect of pursuing a Judicial Review—a procedure that can cost tens of thousands of pounds with no guarantee of success. This disparity places ordinary citizens at a severe disadvantage when challenging unwanted developments in their communities.

This creates a troubling paradox: in a democracy where power supposedly belongs to the people, meaningful participation in decisions affecting communities depends not on legitimate concerns but on financial resources—placing corporate interests beyond democratic accountability.

The AELTC has stated they are prepared to pursue their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The outcome of this battle will not only determine the future of Wimbledon Park but also highlight the broader challenges faced by communities seeking to protect their local environments in the face of corporate interests. As the eyes of the world turn to Wimbledon this summer, the stakes extend far beyond the tennis court.

The campaign group has set up a Crowd Justice account and is asking everyone sympathetic to the protection of Wimbledon Park to contribute to the Judicial Review cost (the £120,000 goal is on top of the £80,000 that were previously received, making the total of £200,000): https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-wimbledon-park/

Update 11/04/2025: Following a message from the AELTC we have corrected the following parts:

• There are 38 courts in Wimbledon, not 55 as originally written. The number of courts is made of 18 Championship grass courts used for competitive matches during The Championships. Additionally, there are 20 grass practice courts, with 14 located in Aorangi Park and 6 temporarily set up on Croquet Lawns during the tournament.
• We initially wrote: “SWP members highlighted that thousands of trees would be removed“. However, AELTC told us that the proposals will necessitate the removal of 296 trees. This is not disputed by SWP, who confirmed that it was the number of the original application. However, SWP also explained that an additional 4 will be felled and a further ~500 will be uprooted bringing the total tree loss to ~800. The article has been corrected accordingly.
• Regarding the quote from Jon Roshier, planning consultant from Rolfe Judd, we stand by what we wrote, as proven by the video of the meeting. The deputy Mayor asked specifically: “I mean, the picture showed people seated, enjoying themselves, walking through what’s in the closed part of the development. Who were those people that were on the grass enjoying themselves?“, to which Mr Roshier answered: “Last question first: in terms of that what we have offered as well in the section 106 is curated tours around the site. Wimbledon being the premier tennis tournament at the moment attracts a lot of visitors throughout the whole year; they go to The Wimbledon Museum and they walk the grounds and they’re escorted around the grounds and what we’ve done and what we’re looking at is curated tours across [the site]“. Check by yourself:

On Wednesday, 9th April, we received a detailed email from the All England Lawn Tennis Club regarding our article above. We would like to thank the AELTC for their comprehensive response , as their feedback has led to changes, which we have explained in the preceding text. We are publishing the full email below (excluding the sections already mentioned and addressed above).

Email from AELTC – 9 April 2025

Scope of plans:

We continue to emphasise that the planning application relates to land that has been a private members’ golf course for more than 100 years and which the public has never had free access to unless they were a member of the golf club or paid a green fee. We have been very clear that the Council-owned Wimbledon Park is not part of these plans (except for a number of enhancements which have been captured as part of the s106 agreement – more on that below). These plans will grant the community more access to green space, not less, in fact 50% more green space than they have had previously.

Legal matters:

The planning application process has been running since 2021 and the proposals have been subject to extensive public consultation, both by the All England Club and formally through the London Boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth, as well as the Greater London Authority. The views presented and comments submitted by residents, interest groups and statutory bodies were taken into account by both Councils and the GLA during the consideration of the planning application.

A quote in article suggests that the legal matters underway could be resolved through a meeting. This is the status currently:

• Judicial Review: Save Wimbledon Park Ltd have applied for a judicial review to challenge the GLA’s decision to grant planning permission. This matter can only be resolved by following the established planning process.
• Statutory Trust: To resolve the question of whether a statutory trust exists on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club land, the All England Club currently considers that it is in the public and local community interest to put that question before the court for a decision. Save Wimbledon Park Ltd has agreed to act as a representative defendant in this case, and accordingly, the All England Club has agreed to cover Save Wimbledon Park’s legal costs in order to ensure fair opportunity for both sides to put their case to the court. Both parties agree that having this matter resolved is an important step in establishing the status of the land.

Community benefits secured by s106 agreement:

The article lists some of the items within the planning application, but unfortunately none of the significant community benefits. They include:

• 27 acres of newly accessible parkland, this is made up of:
  • 23 acre park in the south (accessible year-round).
  • 4 acre park in the north (accessible outside of The Championships period).

This equates to a 50% increase in publicly accessible green space in the local area for residents to enjoy.

• £15m of improvements to the existing municipal Wimbledon Park.
  • Desilting Wimbledon Park Lake to improve the lake’s health and to safeguard water sports on the lake for generations to come. This includes the opportunity to bring open water swimming to the lake.
  • New public toilet facilities in Wimbledon Park.
  • A new state of the art playground.
  • A new water sports centre.
  • An accessible boardwalk all the way around the lake.
  • Upgrades to pathways and landscaping.
• The proposals will deliver significant biodiversity enhancements including the planting of 1,500 trees of vary ages and sizes.
• There will be public access to at least seven practice courts after The Championships. This will be the first time the public has ever been able to book and play on Championships grass courts at Wimbledon.
• Bookable community spaces in the Parkland Show Court and former Wimbledon Park golf clubhouse.
• 500 tickets for local people each day of The Championships in the new Parkland Show Court.
• 1000 tickets for local schools during each day of Qualifying.

Number of courts:

Comparing the number of courts at Wimbledon to the other Grand Slams is a false comparison unless the difference in surface is acknowledged. Clay and hard courts obviously don’t wear like grass, a living surface. On clay and hard surfaces the same courts can be used for practice, Qualifying and Main Draw matches, which is not the case at Wimbledon.

Trees/ecology:

We have researched and analysed the existing tree stock on-site very carefully, particularly the more mature trees and those with veteran status (some of which date from or before Capability Brown).

The proposals will necessitate the removal of 296 trees (the majority of which are either Category C or U trees meaning they either have a short life-expectancy or are of poor quality). Some of the tree removal is also recommended to improve the health of the retained veteran trees and to prevent their canopies and/or root systems from becoming overcrowded.

To off-set these trees being removed, we propose to plant 1,500 new trees at a variety of sizes (between 2yr old trees and extra heavy standards, plus several thousand additional trees and shrubs planted as bare-root whips). The new planting will be more naturalistic and will follow the aspiration to adopt Brownian principles within the future landscape design.

All 41 ancient and veteran trees are being retained and individual management plans have been prepared to protect and enhance each tree. These trees hold important genetic heritage and could live for a further few hundred years. The veteran trees have also provided the acorns and seed banks for new trees to be planted on-site. This means that many of trees to be planted will be based on the DNA from the existing tree stock, making them more robust and climate change resilient.

We are being closely advised in relation to our tree removal, planting and preservation proposals by expert tree and landscape consultants.

Understanding the ecology and existing habitats on-site has been a key component in the design process. The team have undertaken over 1,000 hours of surveys on-site and reviewed over 30,000 hours of nature cam footage. All historical data sources have also been examined. All surveys have been undertaken by accredited professionals and in accordance with best practice and British standards. This is the most comprehensive surveying and data collection undertaken on this land. These plans have been reviewed and endorsed by the London Wildlife Trust, who spoke in support of the plans at the GLA hearing.

Public access:

The article states: “Concerns about public access were also raised. At the GLA hearing last autumn, Jon Roshier, planning consultant from Rolfe Judd, admitted that public access to the expanded site would be heavily restricted for much of the year—up to 72% of the time. The promotional video showing the public enjoying the grounds, he clarified, depicted visitors on “curated tours”, rather than the unrestricted public access many had been led to expect. Furthermore, the site would be completely closed to the public in the weeks leading up to, during, and after the tournament—precisely when local residents would most want to use the park.”

We would suggest this is not an accurate interpretation of what was said at the hearing. The video of the hearing is available to view at: https://webcasts.london.gov.uk/Mayoral/Event/Index/ff0cbbb6-9cb0-4bc8-a7c9-12c893f1d8d1

The ‘curated tour’ comment related to one CGI image of the Parkland Show Court, where people are shown walking around on tour outside of The Championships.

In terms of public access, the proposals include:

• 27 acres of newly accessible parkland, this is made up of:
  • 23 acre park in the south (accessible year-round)
  • 4 acre park in the north (accessible outside of The Championships period).

This equates to a 50% increase in publicly accessible green space in the local area for residents to enjoy.

Roehampton site and whether it puts Wimbledon at a disadvantage:

It is indisputable that operating The Championships Qualifying Competition on a time-limited leased site puts Wimbledon at a disadvantage. The arrangements mean we cannot invest in the long-term improvements that we need to provide a world class environment for our Qualifying competitors.

Concerns about Parkland Show Court year-round usage / future hotel or commercial structures:

We have been clear that the facilities will only be used for tennis and not any other non-sport activities. This is exactly the same as Centre Court and No.1 Court on the main site. This position is secured by a condition attached to the grant of planning permission.

The only exception is that we have committed via the s106 agreement to provide a new community bookable space within the Parkland Show Court.  

We have been clear that plans for a hotel or a shopping centre have never been part of our proposals. This information is available publicly on our website.

Consultation and Information:

We have now spoken to more than 10,000 people as part of our consultation and information events. These include more than 100 guided tours of the proposed southern parkland, various open days, ‘meet the expert’ events, and residents groups. We’ve even gone individually to local residents’ houses to discuss any concerns they might have and to explain our plans in detail to them.

YouGov ran a poll in November 2024 with local residents living in Merton and Wandsworth. Of those residents surveyed, twice as many local residents said they support the plans than those who oppose them.

YouGov ran a similar London-wide poll in November 2023 which indicated that five times as many London adults were in support of the All England Club’s proposed Wimbledon expansion (58%) compared to those who oppose the plans (11%).