“The line is experiencing severe delays due to an incident on the track…” echoed through station speakers – a message all too familiar to London commuters. But this time even the Mayor of London apologised for the horrendous disruption on the District Line (the worst performance in a decade, it was reported). That’s bad luck and at the beginning of July it sends an unfortunate message to the many tourists in the British Capital, especially as this is a crucial link to the Wimbledon Tennis tournament site.
Fortunately, the campaigners of the Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) were prepared for delays and had allowed plenty of time to meet in central London, at the Royal Courts of Justice. Besides the difficulties in fitting all the placards within the carriages, the only mitigation was the decision by Simon Wright not to travel in his strawberry outfit in the congested trains. Upon arrival, Simon was pleased to see the very large crowd, which was much above the expectation of the SWP residents’ group, he told us, with about 150 people, including comedian, writer and SWP advocate Andy Hamilton, meeting in front of the Royal Courts entrance.
Tuesday 8th July was indeed an important day as this was the first of the 2 days’ hearing to decide the legacy of the AELTC plan to expand the Wimbledon tennis site over the park, taking over more than half of the current size of the park (including the golf club) and nearly tripling the size of the current championship site.
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 controversial AELTC proposal was first approved by Merton Council (although, awkwardly, its leader expressed doubt about the legality of the plan at the time). 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. Undoubtfully, money was an incentive over residents’ concerns for the 6 Labour councillors who voted in favour. As there was no such incentive on the Wandsworth side of the scheme, Wandsworth Council refused it in November 2023.
The decision was eventually the choice of the Mayor of London, in that instance represented by Jules Pipe (Sadiq Kahn having publicly expressed support for the expansion), London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, on 27th September last year. And without much surprise, Mr Pipe granted permission for the AELTC plan on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Appalling conditions at the hearing
The court was packed. As the many journalists and campaigners could not be accommodated in Court 68, the court staff found Court 74 was empty and could be used as overflow. But not only did this create delays as nothing was prepared and they had to install the necessary internal audio and video links, but soon the second room became full and overflowing. All this on one of the hottest days of the year. “It’s just appalling,” said Philip White, chair of the Wandsworth Society, who was already there before 8.30am and intended to stay all day. “At 11am, I was still waiting and no-one was getting any information. I decided to leave and go back home,” he added.
During the hearing, AELTC chief executive Sally Bolton claimed that 39 courts, including the show court, were the “minimum that we could work with“. Debbie Jevans, chair of the AELTC, added that it will “create a beautiful new parkland that will be free for everyone to enjoy for ever“, which appeared in direct 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.
However, it was not the end of the story for the many campaigners against the proposal.
- Read: City Hall approves the controversial Wimbledon Tennis Club expansion, but legal challenges loom
Despite AELTC’s assurances of public benefits, including limited free access to some courts and parkland, critics pointed to the many faults within the GLA decision, with issues concerning the covenants and legal protections on the land, as well as environmental and heritage concerns, branding the proposal both “inappropriate” and potentially “illegal“.
In January 2025, the residents’ group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) had formally launched legal action (Judicial Review – JR) challenging the Mayor’s decision.
However, last week, the court did not consider the environmental damage or go over the many other objections to the planning application, albeit the issue was important. The purpose of the JR was to establish whether the GLA’s grant of planning permission was unlawful because they chose to ignore the status of the land as being held in trust for public recreation and also they ignored the restrictive covenants entered into. The Court had to test whether the GLA made errors of law and planning policy because they failed to:
- appreciate that the proposed private tennis development was not an “alternative sports and recreational provision” as required by planning policy (NPPF 2024 #103-5). This policy promotes access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity for the health and well-being of communities, not the creation of private entertainment complexes; and
- recognise that recent golf course development was in planning policy terms “deliberate damage” to this historic heritage asset, so that the rectification of such damage should not count as a benefit; and
- take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants, both of which prevent the proposed development.
As the initiator of the judicial procedure, the residents’ group said:
“SWP’s research and legal opinions concluded that Merton’s grant of the lease in 1986 and sale of the freehold in 1993 failed to cancel the public recreation trust on which Merton acquired the entire Wimbledon Park Estate in 1965. The GLA’s own KC’s opinion agreed with the SWP conclusion. If the Court decides that the AELTC holds the former golf course on this trust, public access and recreation across the whole should be assured, sending the current private development scheme back to the drawing board.”
A repeat by the barristers of all the previous arguments heard during local authorities’ planning reviews
During the hearing, Sasha White KC, the group’s lawyer, told the judge:
“You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.”
He explained that “the covenants maintain the openness of the golf course land, prevent development and restrict its use so as not to impair the appreciation by the general public of the extent or openness of the golf course land.” Commenting on the decision made by Mr Pipe, the Deputy Mayor, he said that he “failed to properly consider the potential implications” of the trust and covenants on the proposals, an error which “vitiated” the decision. He said:
“A judgment had to be made, and a judgment not to consider it a material consideration was irrational.”
He added that, as a consequence, the permission should be quashed.
Representing the GLA, Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, contested the argument, saying that Mr Pipe received “detailed advice” over the “relevance” of the “alleged” trust and covenants. He added that the decision was a “planning judgment properly exercised and having regard to the appropriate and relevant factors“.
Most interesting is the representation chosen by the AELTC, in the person of Russell Harris, KC. Some Wandsworth residents would remember that he was the barrister representing Minerva, the developer wanting to build two gigantic towers at the Ram Brewery. Following a two weeks’ Public Inquiry that resulted from a call-in by the Mayor of London in 2009, the Inspector’s report recommended that the application should be refused and Minerva’s planning application was dismissed.
The AELTC barrister reiterated the argument put forward by Merton planning officers and the GLA officers – to which Wandsworth officers disagreed with last year – that there were “no material considerations that are considered to justify the refusal of consent“.
A dirty trick played by the GLA, at the last minute
The case has already cost most of the £200,000 raised by the local group (and that is despite receiving significant pro bono support from Russell-Cooke solicitors and two senior King’s Counsel) who decided to challenge the GLA decision. Fortunately, SWP’s campaign received massive support and reached over 1200 donations. In that David vs Goliath battle, most of the cost went toward the fees paid to the judicial counsel to represent the residents (SWP’s request for costs protection was granted to the maximum of £10,000 in liability).
In a final trick, Mr Westmoreland Smith, the KC representing the Mayor of London, tried to prevent SWP from defending the case by asking for the cost protection to be lifted (opening the case to unlimited damage if they lose, which the community group cannot afford).
Did AELTC and the Mayor of London not expect local residents to be able to afford the fight? SWP said:
“On 23 June and without prior notice, the Mayor applied direct to court to lift the cap of £10,000 [cost protection]. The Mayor’s application was heard at the conclusion of the full hearing of the JR claim taking place on the 8 and 9 July. The Mayor’s late application has taken up precious court time.”
Fortunately for SWP, Mr Justice Saini ruled that there had been no “significant change of circumstances” and refused to lift or modify the cap protection. The wording chosen in the decision is unequivocal: “It would be wrong in principle for the Claimant to be faced with the risk that the costs cap might be retrospectively raised,” and the judge said that such a claim was unrealistic. SWP has had to incur extra legal costs in contesting it, which the court has ordered the Mayor to reimburse.
Christopher Coombe, director of SWP, said:
“We’ve had to work tirelessly to raise the funds needed to defend ourselves. That increase came solely from relentless grassroots fundraising, not because we suddenly became wealthy. We are disappointed that the application was made, and we’re relieved and proud that this tactic has failed.”
When their costs application was dismissed, the GLA representatives appeared visibly deflated, while the AELTC contingent seemed to avoid eye contact, their gazes fixed downward. Notably, the AELTC chair came for the first day but didn’t turn up for the second..
A decision by the end of the month… but it might not be the end of the story
Mr Justice Saini said he realised that all parties wanted a really quick decision and that he “will do [his] best to hand down judgment before the end of July“, expecting to hand down his judgment on the judicial review hearing itself before the end of July and at the end of September at the latest.
Recalling that the GLA officers took no account of any urgency on the part of the AELTC and were confident that any impediment could be overcome at some stage, SWP commented:
“The irony of the judge’s understanding of the need for urgency should not be lost. Our barrister counted that the expression ‘pressing need’ was used 17 times in the AELTC Planning Statement. The AELTC lease at Roehampton ends in 2036.”
Before the hearing began, Mr Coombe explained that the Tennis Club faces five separate legal obstacles (three judicial review challenges, together with disputes concerning the Statutory Trust and the Restrictive Covenant). If it loses even one, their plans could be stopped—while SWP only need to win on a single point to succeed in blocking the project. As Mr Coombe summarised:
“We need only one favourable result. They require a clean sweep.”
Whatever the decision, it might not be the end of the story as the AELTC will have another crack at the Trust issue next January. However, this time the Tennis Club agreed to pay for SWP’s legal costs to act as a representative defendant in this case to formally decide whether a statutory trust exists on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club land.
In addition, there will remain the covenant, which is the legal document set to protect the land when Merton Council sold the freehold to AELTC for £5.2 million in 1993 (a vastly reduced price) that prohibited any use of the land aside from leisure, recreation, or as an open space, prohibiting construction on the Grade II* listed parkland. SWP explained:
“Wimbledon Park, a historic Capability Brown landscape, was purchased in 1914 under a special act of parliament using local ratepayers’ funds to serve as a public park and prevent development. Part of it was later leased to a local golf club. Beginning in 1993, the AELTC acquired the golf course land from the London Borough of Merton, giving binding covenants not to develop. Years later, the AELTC paid £65 million to the golf club to surrender the final 20 years of its lease—paving the way for a development proposal.”
Contacted about the case, a GLA spokesperson confirmed the Mayor is still convinced that the proposal “will bring a significant range of benefits“, and said:
“As we are awaiting a decision on the court hearing, we are unable to comment on specific questions at this stage”
