Wimbledon expansion plans to almost triple the size of the tennis site have been given the go ahead following a bitter High Court Battle.
The £200 million plans will see the All England Club build 38 new grass courts on land purchased from Wimbledon Park Golf Club in 2018.
Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) took legal action against the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) decision to grant planning permission last year.
The proposals, submitted by the All England Club, would see the construction of 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the grounds of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club, which would allow it to host Wimbledon qualifiers on site.
Barristers for SWP told the High Court earlier this month that the decision to approve the plans was ‘irrational’ and should be quashed, as Wimbledon Park – a Grade II*-listed heritage site partly designed by Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown – was covered by restrictions on how it could be used.
The GLA and the All England Club defended the challenge, with the court told that the decision was a ‘planning judgment properly exercised’ and that the restrictions were not ‘material’.
In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Saini dismissed the challenge.
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.’
Wimbledon expansion plans to almost triple the size of the tennis site have been given the go ahead following a bitter High Court Battle
Plans to build 38 new courts at Wimbledon were approved in September by the Mayor’s office
The proposals would see seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access constructed, in addition to the courts and associated infrastructure.
They would also include work on Wimbledon Lake, which would involve building a boardwalk around and across it.
After Merton Council approved the plans, but Wandsworth Council rejected them, the Mayor of London’s office took charge of the application, but Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan recused himself from the process after previously expressing public support for the development.
Planning permission for the scheme was granted by Jules Pipe, London’s deputy mayor for planning, who said that the proposals ‘would facilitate very significant benefits’ which ‘clearly outweigh the harm’.
Debbie Jevans, chair of the All England Club, said at the time that the proposals would deliver 27 acres of ‘newly accessible parkland for the community’, and would allow the qualifying tournament for Wimbledon – currently staged at Roehampton – to be held on site.
In written submissions, Sasha White KC said that the All England Club acquired the freehold for the golf course in 1993 and the leasehold in 2021.
The barrister told the two-day hearing in London that the land was subject to a ‘statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreation use’ and that when the freehold was acquired, the club entered into ‘restrictive covenants’ governing its use.
He said this meant any plans could not ‘restrict its use so as not to impair the appreciation of the general public of the extent or openness of the golf course land’.
He continued that separate High Court proceedings were ongoing over whether a statutory trust existed, and that if it does, the All England Club has ‘accepted’ that this is ‘incompatible with the development of the proposal’.
The proposals would see seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access constructed
The GLA and the All England Club defended the challenge, with the court told that the decision was a ‘planning judgment properly exercised’ and that the restrictions were not ‘material’
In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Saini dismissed the challenge
In court, he said: ‘You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.’
Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the GLA, said in written submissions that Mr Pipe received ‘detailed advice’ over the ‘relevance’ of the ‘alleged’ trust and covenants, and made his decision on the assumption that they existed.
The barrister said that the decision was a ‘planning judgment properly exercised and having regard to the appropriate and relevant factors’.
He said: ‘Officers advised that the alleged obstacle that they may present to delivery of the development was not itself a material consideration which should weigh against the grant of planning permission.’
In his written arguments, Russell Harris KC, for the All England Club, said that planning officers ‘acknowledged and had regard to’ the trust and covenants, but deemed they were not ‘material’.
