Ruling on Wimbledon expansion challenge could come by end of July, judge says
Mr Justice Saini said he would do his 'very best' to hand down a ruling by the end of July in a legal battle between campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Barristers for SWP argued at a two-day hearing in London that the GLA made an 'irrational' decision to grant planning permission for the All England Club's proposal to build 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club.
The GLA and the All England Club are defending the challenge, with barristers for the authority describing the decision as a 'planning judgment properly exercised'.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Mr Justice Saini said he would hand down a written judgment at a later date, adding: 'I will use my best efforts to get it done before the end of the month.'
The plans for the expansion of the site were approved by Jules Pipe, London's deputy mayor for planning, last year.
In addition to the courts and associated infrastructure, seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access would be constructed.
The proposals also include work on Wimbledon Lake, which would involve building a boardwalk around and across it.
But Sasha White KC, for SWP, said that the land is protected by restrictions which govern how the land can be used, telling the court: 'You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.'
In written submissions, the barrister continued that the land is 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 added that the GLA 'failed properly to consider the potential implications' that the trust and covenants could have on the proposals, an error which 'vitiated' its decision and meant it should be quashed and sent back to the authority for reconsideration.
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.
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 the GLA could lawfully grant planning permission 'even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land'.
At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Saini dismissed a bid by the GLA to remove SWP's 'costs cap', which meant it would only have to pay £10,000 of the authority's costs if it loses its legal challenge.
Mr Westmoreland Smith told the court that SWP had crowdfunded more than £210,000 to pay for the legal action, which meant that the cap should be increased.
He said: 'The defendant is a public authority. Incurring the costs of the litigation is a significant burden that is passed on to the taxpayer.'
He continued: 'It is right that those who bring litigation should bear some cost, rather than almost exclusively the ratepayer.'
Mr White said that the bid was 'unattractive' and 'disincentivises crowdfunding'.
He said: 'We have over 1,000 contributors. They would be horrified to understand that the money that they gave to support the claimant's claim is being diverted to the defendant.'
He continued: 'I can't see any justification in the public interest to up the cap.'
Mr Justice Saini ruled that the bid 'falls at the very first hurdle' as there had been no 'significant change of circumstances'.
He said: 'It does not seem to me appropriate for me to modify the cap.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 minutes ago
- The Sun
One in 7 high street shops now stands empty… we don't need government tweaks to a broken system – we need radical reform
OUR high streets have had a tough time in recent years — battered by a global pandemic, war, energy shocks and soaring inflation. Yet despite it all, shops have kept going — serving their communities, creating jobs, and showing remarkable resilience. 3 3 But resilience isn't a plan for growth, and nostalgia won't pay the bills. If we are serious about bringing our high streets back to life, we need to stop papering over the cracks and fix the system for good. That means a tax regime built for today, not for the 1500s — a time before supermarkets, retail parks and the internet. Right now, retail accounts for just five per cent of the UK economy but pays more than 20 per cent of all business rates. That's an immense burden and it falls most heavily on the very businesses that invest in local places, local jobs and local people. It is no wonder that there were around 100,000 fewer jobs in retail at the start of 2025 than the year before, the equivalent of losing every job in the UK steel industry three times over. Since 2015, the sector has shed around 350,000 jobs, and new research suggests another 160,000 part-time roles could vanish if costs rise further — exactly the kinds of jobs that provide flexibility to hardworking families. Physical retailers are businesses that play by the rules, open their doors every morning and form the backbone of our communities. Meanwhile, online sales have more than doubled in the past decade. Why are so many shops going bust? At the height of the pandemic, they made up 37 per cent of all retail — and while that has dipped slightly since, online is still booming. Yet the digital giants face nothing like the same tax burden, and contribute next to nothing to the Government's tax receipts that pay for the NHS, our emergency services, roads and welfare. This clearly, is not fair. The health of the high street is also a bellwether for the health of the wider economy This is a system designed for a different age. Business rates were first introduced in the 1500s, when physical property was a proxy for wealth. Today, that logic just doesn't hold. We now see a massive imbalance that punishes our local communities. To be clear, this isn't about the high street asking for a handout. It's about giving retail a fair shot. Fair deal Our sector is the UK's largest private employer — supporting three million jobs; in sales, marketing, accounting, logistics and many more. Retail has all the career disciplines needed for a growing economy. The health of the high street is also a bellwether for the health of the wider economy. When shops shut, town centres hollow out. Footfall fell by 1.7 per cent in July, and one in seven high street units now stands empty. The ripple effect has an immediate impact on the community: nearby independents see sales fall, bus routes get quieter, and the whole centre loses momentum. That affects everything from local policing and public transport to housing demand and health outcomes. The Centre for Retail Research now predicts that store closures will rise to around 17,350 this year — the highest level in more than a decade. That is nearly 50 shops a day closing their doors for good, leaving empty units, boarded windows and fewer reasons for people to visit their town centres. The loss is not just economic — it chips away at the social fabric, reducing spaces where people meet, work and spend time. Once a shop shuts, it is far harder and costlier to bring it back, meaning each closure represents a long-term wound to the health of the high street. To their credit, the current Labour government has done more than its predecessors, with proposals to support smaller stores with targeted business rates relief, which are of course welcome. But we cannot end up with just tweaks to a system that needs radical reform and reset. You can't fix a broken model with just a few sticking plasters. We need to ask a bigger question: what should a modern, fair retail tax look like? One that reflects how we all actually shop, and one that rewards investment in jobs and premises. After everything the high street has been through, asking it to carry even more weight would be the final straw for many. The Government must ensure that no shop pays more in the upcoming Autumn Budget. Retail isn't asking to be saved, it's asking for the rules to be fair. If you give the high street a fair deal, it will more than repay you — with jobs, opportunity, and of course a vibrant local community. Let's not forget that a healthy high street with tills ringing means more money into the coffers of the Treasury, giving the economy a much needed boost to growth. Theo Paphitis, TV Dragon and owner of Ryman, Robert Dyas & Boux Avenue 3
Times
2 minutes ago
- Times
Free speech blow as national library bans book opposing gender self-ID
Scotland's national library banned a book about feminists' fight against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID law after staff complained its contents were 'hate speech' comparable to racism. The National Library of Scotland (NLS) has been accused of a 'shameful' capitulation to censorship after it emerged that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, a collection of essays by gender-critical women, had been cut from a major exhibition celebrating the institution's centenary. Members of the public had been asked by the library, which promotes itself as a national forum for 'ideas, debate and discussion', to nominate books which had shaped their lives for inclusion in a ten-month public display intended as a 'love letter' to the power of reading. However, despite The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht receiving double the number of nominations necessary to guarantee inclusion in the Dear Library public display, Amina Shah, Scotland's national librarian and the NLS chief executive, decided not to include the book after a staff backlash.
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
TOM HARRIS: Frankly, I'm not buying a meek and mild Nicola Sturgeon
It's just as well that Nicola Sturgeon believes her own hype. Because if early reaction to her less-than-frank memoirs, Frankly, is anything to go by, few others do. The individual described in the 446-page opus will seem unfamiliar to most Scots. The Nicola Sturgeon of Frankly is a nervous, frightened woman completely lacking in confidence, forever seeking the approval of others and almost permanently on the brink of tears. She spends sleepless nights fretting about whether she is good enough to do the job of a politician and she is deeply hurt when anyone says mean things about her. Back on the planet earth, however, those who have observed Ms Sturgeon from her earliest days as an SNP activist all the way through to her dominance of her party as First Minister are more familiar with the 'nippy sweetie', the fierce and unforgiving woman so obsessed with independence that she seemed rarely to allow herself even the occasional smile, except, perhaps, when political opponents humiliatingly lost their seats. But it is the meek and mild Nicola Sturgeon that appears throughout the book. The reader is invited to swallow this attempt to reinvent our former First Minister entirely as someone who only ever sought consensus and who was always loyal to friends and colleagues, until they behaved too badly to tolerate. And even then they were abandoned only with the heaviest heart. For about the first third of the book, I found myself falling for this sleight of hand, starting to feel genuine sympathy for a misunderstood leader thrust almost unwillingly into the public eye. But that's when I began to see the pattern so carefully followed by Ms Sturgeon: the unexpected displays of emotional intelligence – something she has arguably failed to exhibit in public in the last 30 years – were convincing because they were so unexpected. But seen as a whole, the book is no more than an attempt to rewrite crucial parts of Scottish political history and enable the finger of blame to be pointed at anyone but her. Those who might have been looking forward to a detailed explanation of the genuinely perplexing fall-out between Ms Sturgeon and her former friend, mentor and patron, Alex Salmond, will be disappointed. Not only does the author point the finger of blame at the late SNP leader over the leaking to the media of sensitive information regarding complaints of sexual misconduct made about him, but she dismisses as a 'witch hunt' the Holyrood committee set up to investigate the Scottish Government's handling of those complaints after it concluded she had broken the Ministerial Code. A far more, reliable, independent review concluded the opposite, and that's enough for Ms Sturgeon. And on her greatest and most controversial political defeat – her failed attempt to introduce self-ID for trans people – she energetically blames everyone else for sins of which she is herself guilty. It was ordinary, decent Scottish women who raised concerns about the impact on women's rights if men who identified as women were allowed further access to women's spaces like rape shelters and changing rooms. Yet to Ms Sturgeon, 'it is beyond argument that the trans debate has been hijacked by voices on the far right . . . like Putin, Trump and Orbán.' On one page she repeats her appalling assertion that many who campaigned against her Gender Recognition Reform Bill were 'raging homophobes' and 'racists', while on the very next she bemoans a failure of opponents to 'elevate the debate or illuminate the issues at the heart of it.' More glaring than her tendency to point the finger of blame at others is her propensity not to mention certain things at all. The scandal of her and her ministers' deleted WhatsApp messages during the Covid pandemic, for example. In the end, Frankly is a valiant, though failed, attempt to restore the reputation of an individual who promised so very much to party and country but who ultimately delivered very little. Had she been honest about her failings, perhaps Scotland could have forgiven her. But forgiveness demands repentance first, and there's precious little of that in this book.
