Plans to expand Wimbledon can go ahead, judge rules

Following the dismissal of a campaign group’s legal challenge to the decision to grant planning permission, a High Court judge will now decide whether to proceed with plans to almost triple the size of the Wimbledon tennis court.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) had approved the proposal, which included an 8-thousand-seat stadium and thirty-eight new tennis courts.

The proposed development on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club in west London was deemed unlawful by Save Wimbledon Park (SWP), who had brought the case in court.

Wimbledon Park, a Grade II*-listed heritage site partially designed by Lancelot “Capability” Brown, was subject to restrictions on how it could be used, according to SWP’s lawyers who earlier told the High Court earlier this month. The decision to approve the plans was “irrational” and should be overturned.

Mr. Justice Saini, who rejected the challenge, said that “the defendant’s decision regarding the relevance of deliverability, which took into account both the statutory trust and the restrictive covenants, was a planning judgment that was rationally applied and taken into account in terms of appropriate and relevant factors.”

In addition to the courts and related infrastructure, the proposals would also include the construction of seven maintenance buildings, access points, and a parkland with permissive public access.

Following the ruling on Monday, SWP stated that it was “advised that it should” file a lawsuit against the decision and that it thought the GLA “did make a significant legal error in the way it handled the special legal status of the park.”

City Hall took over the application after Merton Council approved the plans but Wandsworth Council rejected them.

He claimed that the proposals “would facilitate very significant benefits” that “clearly outweigh the harm.”

Sasha White KC claimed in written submissions that the All England Club had purchased the course’s leasehold in 1993 and that it had been sold to the All England Club in 2021.

The club entered into “restrictive covenants” governing its use after the two-day hearing that the land was “subject to a statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreation use.”

He claimed that this meant that any plans could not “restrict its use so as not to diminish the appreciation of the golf course’s land’s extent or openness.”

He continued that separate High Court proceedings were taking place regarding the existence of a statutory trust, and that the All England Club has “accepted” that this would be “incompatible with the development of the proposal.”

In that case, a hearing is scheduled for January 2026.

He claimed in court that, to be honest, “you could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system.”

According to Mark Westmoreland Smith KC of the GLA, Mr. Pipe received “detailed advice” regarding the “alleged” trust and covenants, and he presumptioned that they were real when he made his decision.

The barrister claimed that the decision was based on “planning judgment that was exercised with care and consideration of the appropriate and relevant factors.”

Planning officers “acknowledged and had regard to” the trust and covenants, according to Russell Harris KC of the All England Club in his written arguments.

Following the decision, SWP director Christopher Coombe stated: “If it stands, this judgment would set a worrying precedent for the unwarranted development of protected green belt and public open spaces around London and across the country.”

The decision, according to Sir Sadiq, is “welcome news” and will “cement Wimbledon’s reputation as the world’s greatest tennis competition.”