Judge set to rule on High Court challenge over Wimbledon expansion

Independent

2 days ago

Campaigners are due to discover whether they have been successful in a legal challenge against the decision to approve plans to almost triple the size of the Wimbledon tennis site on Monday.
Barristers for Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) told the High Court earlier this month that the Greater London Authority (GLA)'s decision to approve the plans last year was 'irrational'.
The All England Club's proposal would see 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium built on the grounds of 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'.
Mr Justice Saini is set to hand down his ruling at 2pm on Monday.
The plans were first submitted to both Merton and Wandsworth councils, with the park straddling the boroughs, in 2021, after the All England Club bought out golf club members with the intention of developing the land.
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.
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'.
But a two-day hearing in London heard that the decision to grant planning permission was unlawful 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.
Sasha White KC, for SWP, said in written submissions 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.
In court, the barrister 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'.
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'.