A campaign group opposing the proposed expansion of Wimbledon tennis facilities has successfully garnered £200,000 in funding for an impending judicial review.

Last September, plans were sanctioned for the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC)—the organizer of the renowned tournament—to construct 39 additional tennis courts and an 8,000-capacity stadium on safeguarded open land within Wimbledon Park.

The AELTC, the land’s owner, maintains that the development will enable public access to an area that has been “inaccessible for nearly a century.” However, Save Wimbledon Park has expressed concerns regarding the project’s environmental ramifications.

The judicial review, scheduled for early July, will assess whether the decision-making process was procedurally flawed or unreasonable.

Until 2018, AELTC leased the land to a private golf club.

The tennis club aims to establish the new courts on land adjacent to its current location so qualifying matches for the tournament can be held there. Presently, those matches are conducted approximately three-and-a-half miles (5.6 km) away at Roehampton’s Community Sports Centre.

While the current venue accommodates about 2,000 spectators daily, the proposed development could increase that capacity to 10,000, allowing the overall grounds to host up to 50,000 visitors per day.

In contrast, the other three Grand Slam tournaments—the Australian, French, and US Opens—conduct qualifying matches on-site alongside their main courts.

The project would also upgrade facilities for the players.

Debbie Jevans, chair of the AELTC, commented, “We are facing significant space constraints. Our goal is to match the standards set by other Grand Slams to keep Wimbledon at the forefront of the sport.”

She further stated, “While we often focus on Wimbledon’s history and traditions, we must adapt and enhance this area, previously a private golf course, to yield economic advantages both locally and nationally.”

The initial proposal for site expansion was submitted in December 2018, when AELTC paid £65 million to acquire the remaining lease of Wimbledon Park Golf Club, which was set to continue until 2041.

In 2021, a planning proposal was presented to the Merton and Wandsworth councils, which Wandsworth rejected while Merton approved it.

Following this, the Greater London Authority (GLA) gave its approval last September.

Christopher Coombe from Save Wimbledon Park remarked, “We have overwhelming community support urging us to contest this plan. The Supreme Court has clarified that local authorities must protect public land and act responsibly; Merton failed to do so.”

He continued, “We all appreciate tennis and recognize the good work done across the road—there’s no need for them to expand here. We’ve gathered 22,000 petition signatures, received 1,100 separate donations to our fund, and have solid backing from local councillors and MPs.”

However, Ms. Jevans expressed confidence in the plans submitted to the GLA.

“When the court examines them, the thorough due diligence we’ve conducted will be evident,” she asserted.

AELTC conducted a recent survey involving approximately 10,000 residents in Merton and Wandsworth, revealing that support for the development rose from 50% to 62% over the previous six months. The highest levels of support came from residents under 44, with 74% in favor. The primary reason for this backing was the club’s “commitment to protecting and enhancing local green spaces,” according to AELTC.

“The environmental impact will be beneficial, with a projected 10% increase in biodiversity,” she noted.

Nonetheless, many are apprehensive about the project increasing flood risks and threatening wildlife, trees, and open areas.

“If the plans are approved, there’s a possibility the entire 73 acres may be excavated to depths ranging from one to nine meters, resulting in the removal of 300 trees and the uprooting of an additional 500, which would release 500,000 kg of carbon into the atmosphere,” cautioned Susan Cusack from Save Wimbledon Park.

“Each grass tennis court requires 105 tonnes of concrete and is covered with eight millimeters of heavily pesticide-treated grass. Only about 5% of the material is organic; thus, the only ‘green’ aspect of a tennis court is its color.”

Simon Wright, another member of Save Wimbledon Park, expressed concerns about the anticipated environmental impact, saying, “We are looking at approximately 44,000 truck movements over an eight to ten-year period. The consequences for air quality will be severe.”

He pointed out that the proposed truck routes would pass by elementary schools and nurseries, emphasizing the necessity of being mindful of air pollution’s effects on young children.

In response, Ms. Jevans stated that “we will be minimizing truck movements by bringing much of the necessary equipment on-site, which will lead to less back and forth—there are more than 493 buses operating in the area compared to the number of trucks.”

When acquiring the land in Wimbledon Park in 1993, AELTC made a covenant—a formal agreement—that they would not develop it.

Ms. Jevans is adamant that this covenant should not obstruct their intended development. “A covenant is primarily intended to safeguard the public interest, and our current proposal aligns with enhancing that public interest,” she explained. “We can convincingly demonstrate the advantages to the community and the environment through the repurposing of the land.”

Mr. Wright expressed a differing opinion, stressing the significance of the case. “AELTC is attempting to construct on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), which holds the same status as greenbelt. If they succeed, it could set a dangerous precedent for the other 50 MOL sites in London.”

He expressed further concerns regarding the use of the park: “AELTC claims they will create a new park, but much of this land will only allow permissive access, meaning it will only be open when they choose to make it available.”

“This is the only Grand Slam operated by a private members’ club, lacking public scrutiny and governance. We believe it’s unjust for a private entity to impose negative consequences on so many lives for just two weeks a year.”

In reply, Ms. Jevans stated, “The majority of the park will remain open to the public indefinitely. There will be neither a hotel nor a railway station—merely a 23-acre public park.”

She added, “I acknowledge and respect the concerns of others, and I want to ensure that their worries are grounded in facts.”

In addition to the judicial review, another court case is set for January to determine if the land benefits from statutory trust protection for public recreational use.

AELTC is the instigator of this litigation, arguing that no such protection exists. If the court rules against them, the current plans may not be viable.