The High Court may have cleared the way for Wimbledon’s £200 million expansion, but campaigners are not retreating. Save Wimbledon Park has already applied to appeal, with judges expected to decide within months whether a new legal showdown will take place next year — and, in addition, a separate High Court case in January will test whether a statutory trust still protects the land.
While the judge had promised a decision before the end of July if possible, it came even sooner: less than two weeks after the court hearing on the Wimbledon expansion project, the High Court dismissed the judicial review brought by the Save Wimbledon Park community group.
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 further buildings including a 30,000 sq ft maintenance hub, and 9 km of roads and paths on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Course.
At the beginning of July, during the Wimbledon Championships, both the AELTC and the community group appeared at the High Court in a judicial review (JR) contesting the planning permission granted by the Mayor of London.
The JR considered whether the Greater London Authority (GLA) acted unlawfully by disregarding the land’s legal status as being held in trust for public recreation and by overlooking restrictive covenants. It examined whether the GLA had erred in law and planning policy by failing to recognise that the proposed private tennis development did not meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s definition of an alternative sports and recreational provision, which prioritises public access to quality open spaces over private facilities.
It also addressed whether the GLA ignored evidence of heritage damage caused by development of the golf course, which should not be treated as a “benefit”, and whether the legal restrictions imposed by the trust and covenants — both of which prohibit the scheme — had been overlooked (and the subtilty must be noted here: the aim was not to decide whether the exist and prevent the development!) .
During the hearing, Sasha White KC, representing Save Wimbledon Park, argued that permission should be quashed as the land was fully protected and legal restrictions had not been taken into account as material considerations. He said the decision was “irrational”. Citing several similar case law, he said:
“The ability of that need actually to be met on the site (i.e. whether the benefits can be delivered) is plainly relevant to the weight which can be attached to the benefit. The existence of the Statutory Trust means that the site is unable to accommodate the development […]. It was obviously material to consider.”
He concluded that:
“No rational planning authority could treat the delivery of a development as a planning benefit while disregarding the fact that the delivery is legally impermissible.”
The role of a planning authority is not to say if it feasible or not, stated the judge
However, in his 31-page ruling, Mr Justice Saini rejected all three claims.
Referring to earlier case law, he emphasised that it is not the role of a planning authority to refuse an application merely because there may be difficulties implementing it — even, on the face of it, impossibility. In other words, their role is simply to determine whether the proposal is desirable and in the public interest, regardless of any difficulties in its implementation.
Quoting precedent, he said:
“The function of the planning authority is to decide whether the proposed development is desirable in the public interest. The answer to that question is not to be affected by the consideration that the landowner of the land is determined not to allow the development so that permission for it, if granted, would not have reasonable prospects of being implemented.”
(British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 3 PLR 125)
On that basis, he found it “illogical” to reduce the weight given to planning benefits on the grounds that the scheme may not, ultimately, be deliverable and explained:
“A local planning authority may lawfully conclude that a development is acceptable in land use planning terms and grant planning permission even if the development is incompatible with a different (non-planning) restriction on the use of land.”
In addition, Mr Justice Saini chose to dismiss the Tennis Club’s claim of a “pressing need,” noting that GLA planning officers did not consider the proposal “time sensitive” when recommending approval.
Furthermore, he dismissed claims of deliberate neglect of the park, pointing out that lawful use of the golf course was established in 1898—well before the park was listed in 1987—and therefore could not be regarded as damage to a heritage asset since the listing did not exist at that time.
On the final point, which was also rejected, he stated that even when considering commercial use of the site, the overall benefits outweighed any harm and were sufficient to qualify the development as “alternative sport and recreational use.”
Summarising, he said:
“In short, the defendant’s decision on the relevance of deliverability, applying to both the statutory trust and the restrictive covenants, was a planning judgment rationally exercised and having regard to appropriate and relevant factors.”
Deborah Jevans, chairwoman of the All England Club, said she was “delighted” with the decision.
Obviously, SWP expressed strong disappointment. Christopher Coombe, the group’s director, said::
“This judgment would, if it stands, set a worrying precedent for the unwanted development of protected green belt and public open spaces around London and across the country.”
The story isn’t over: another judicial battle is set for January, and the SWP has applied for permission to appeal
Despite the ruling, it seems very premature to follow the Evening Standard and write “Game, Set and Match”.
One might assume that establishing whether a proposal is lawful and capable of implementation would be a crucial pre-condition for any planning consent. However, planning officers at Merton Council, like those at the Greater London Authority, have disagreed, deeming these points not to be “planning material” considerations of significance.
The latest advice to the Deputy Mayor of London stated:
“Whether or not a restrictive covenant impacts an applicant’s ability to implement a planning permission is irrelevant to the decision to whether to grant permission.”
It explained that unless the proposal is actually implemented — and any breach of trust or covenant thereby becomes apparent — “there is no legal requirement that planning permission be refused” and “potential difficulties of implementation are not relevant to the planning merits of the decision.”
This view was echoed by Mr Justice Saini, who noted:
“These matters are however agreed not to be among the issues for my decision in this judicial review claim.”
One local resident commented:
“It’s like approving plans to knock down a house without checking if it’s a protected historic building — and only asking the question once the demolition crew is on site.”
Ultimately, the issue boils down to whether the statutory protections — the trust and covenant established when the AELTC purchased the land — can be lifted to permit redevelopment.
SWP has applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with a decision expected within two to four months. If permission is granted, the appeal hearing is likely to take place next year. Legal advice has confirmed that there is a realistic prospect of success.
Jeremy Hudson, a Director of SWP, said:
“Above all, this is a public interest case. Planning is ultimately concerned with whether a development is in the public interest. The existence of rights of the public, imposed through the statutory trust and the restrictive covenants in the public interest, should plainly be very material to the planning decision. Unwanted development of public open spaces is proposed all over London: Wimbledon Park is just one example.”
SWP confirmed that its successful judicial review crowdfunding campaign has raised enough to cover the application for permission to appeal and to secure fresh Aarhus cost protection of £10,000. If permission is granted, the group will extend its crowdfunding to support the full appeal.
Meanwhile, a separate High Court proceeding is underway to determine if a statutory trust actually exists on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club land. The community group has been advised that
The Club’s position is that no such trust exists. Yet, as Mr Justice Saini observed in his judgment, the GLA “granted planning permission on the presumption that the Golf Course Land is subject to a statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreational use.”
Ms Jevans declared:
“We now turn our attention to separate legal proceedings to give everyone reassurance that there is not, nor has there ever been, a statutory trust over the former golf course land. This hearing is due to take place in January 2026.”
In case a trust exists, the tennis club also seems to imply that there is no “insuperable difficulties in releasing the relevant land” from existing trust and covenant.
SWP argues otherwise. Its research suggests that when Merton Council granted a lease in 1986 and sold the freehold in 1993, it failed to cancel the trust established when the estate was acquired in 1965.
The GLA’s own KC, Timothy Morshead, supported that view in September 2024, explaining that under 19th-century legislation the land remains legally held for public recreation. He said Merton Council should have publicly advertised its plans to lease out the land in both 1981 and 1993, but appears not to have done so. Taken at face value, it means the 1981 lease — and the Council’s ownership once that lease ends — are both covered by a legal trust requiring the land to be kept for public recreation. This trust also applies to whoever currently leases or owns the land.
If a statutory trust is confirmed, the AELTC has already admitted the project would be “incompatible with the development of the proposal“. This time the Tennis Club agreed to pay for SWP’s legal costs (which was close to £200,000 for the JR that just happened) to act as a representative defendant in this case.
On top of the trust issue, a 1993 covenant was imposed by Merton Council to ensure that the AELTC kept to its promise never to develop the land. Paul Kohler, the MP for Wimbledon, said:
“Call me old-fashioned but I believe promises should be kept.”
He also argued that the AELTC benefited from paying a reduced price for Wimbledon Park because it made binding promises not to build. Even Merton Council leader Ross Garrod has written to the Club questioning how it intends to overcome the covenants, saying:
“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.”
In the end, Merton Council itself may yet prove to be the ultimate arbiter of the AELTC’s grand ambitions.
Beyond the specifics of this case, a broader question emerges: should planning permission be granted without clear confirmation that the land can legally be developed? This apparent paradox, as ruled by the High Court, creates uncertainty, leads to increased costs and frustration, paves the way for expensive legal battles—as this case illustrates—and ultimately risks undermining the coherence and efficiency of the entire planning system. Perhaps this is a question for legislators to address sooner rather than later…
