The High Court has been informed that land designated for the expansion of the Wimbledon tennis venue is legally safeguarded from development.
The campaign organization Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) has initiated legal proceedings against the Greater London Authority (GLA) in response to its decision last year to permit the All England Club to significantly expand its premises.
SWP argues that the proposed development of 38 courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the site of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club is unlawful. However, both the GLA and the All England Club contest this assertion, claiming that no such restrictions are in place.
During the High Court session on Tuesday, SWP’s legal representatives stated that Wimbledon Park, a Grade II*-listed site partly designed by the renowned landscape architect Lancelot “Capability” Brown, is subject to limitations regarding its use.
They appealed to the judge to annul the initial approval of the development and to remit the decision back to the GLA for further evaluation.
Sasha White KC, representing SWP, told the court that the proposed plans encompass a “remarkably large area of land,” equivalent to 50 football pitches, which would increase the number of tennis courts from 41 to 80.
He emphasized that it falls upon the All England Club to substantiate the proposal, which carries a significant burden of proof.
The development plans were initially submitted to both Merton and Wandsworth councils in 2021, following the All England Club’s acquisition of golf club memberships with the aim of repurposing the land.
In addition to the new courts and supporting infrastructure, the plans include seven maintenance facilities, access points, and a park area with public access.
The proposal also entails modifications to Wimbledon Lake, including the construction of a boardwalk around and over it.
After Merton Council approved the plans and Wandsworth Council rejected them, the mayor’s office in London took over the matter. Sir Sadiq Khan subsequently recused himself in 2023, having previously shown public backing for the initiative.
Last year, planning permission was granted by the city’s deputy mayor for planning, who noted that the benefits of the proposal “clearly outweigh the harm.”
In official submissions, Mr. White pointed out that the All England Club obtained the freehold for the golf course in 1993 and the leasehold in 2021. He argued that the land is bound by a statutory trust mandating it to remain available for public recreational use, and that upon acquiring the freehold, the club agreed to restrictive covenants dictating its usage.
“The covenants ensure the golf course land remains open and accessible; prevent any development, and restrict its use in a manner that does not detract from the public’s enjoyment of the openness of the golf course.”
Mr. White also mentioned that separate High Court proceedings are ongoing regarding the existence of the statutory trust. He contended that the GLA “did not adequately consider” the potential impacts of the trust and covenants on the development plans, a misstep that undermines its decision and warrants it being overturned.
Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, representing the GLA, asserted that the decision reflected a “properly exercised planning judgment.” Meanwhile, Russell Harris KC, on behalf of the All England Club, stated that planning officials had recognized and considered the trust and covenants but concluded they were not relevant. He affirmed that the GLA had the legal authority to grant planning permission “even if the development contrasts with a separate, non-planning restriction regarding the land’s use.”
Numerous activists attended Tuesday’s hearing presided over by Mr. Justice Saini, which is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a written judgment anticipated at a later time.
