After years of increasingly bitter confrontation, the Save Wimbledon Park campaign has secured 8-9 July for its High Court challenge against the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s (AELTC) contentious expansion plans. The judicial review, scheduled during the Wimbledon fortnight, marks what may be the final chapter in a saga that has transformed relations between one of sport’s most prestigious institutions and the community it calls home.
As the tennis world’s attention focuses on SW19, campaigners hope to spotlight what they characterize as the environmental and community damage that would result from AELTC’s ambitious development. With 923 donors already contributing toward a £200,000 legal fund, the stage is set for a confrontation that will determine the future of Metropolitan Open Land that opponents argue should remain protected from development.
A Grand Slam Vision or Overdevelopment?
The central question facing the court is whether AELTC’s plans represent necessary modernisation or unjustifiable encroachment on protected land. Following its £65 million purchase of the 73-acre Wimbledon Park Golf Course in 2018, the club unveiled sweeping plans to transform the site into an expanded tennis complex.
The proposal includes 39 new grass courts, an 8,000-seat sunken “Parkland Show Court” that would rise approximately 28 meters high (equivalent to an 8-9 story building), and facilities to bring the qualifying tournament on-site. Currently, qualifiers are held at Roehampton’s Bank of England Sports Ground, a situation AELTC argues undermines the prestige of the preliminary competition.
“Creating an exceptional three-week event” has been a consistent AELTC talking point. With the new facilities, qualifying attendance could increase from about 2,000 daily spectators to 10,000, while players would benefit from practicing and competing at the main site from the outset.
AELTC Chair Debbie Jevans has described the project as “one of the greatest transformations since the London [2012] Games,” with completion targeted for the early 2030s. The club has emphasised that the plan remains in keeping with Wimbledon’s character, stating in 2018: “for the avoidance of doubt, there never has been and never will be any plans to build multi-story car parks, shopping villages or other structures completely out of character.”
Following the Greater London Authority’s approval in September 2024, Jevans announced: “we are delighted” and thanked the GLA for approving plans to “transform the former golf course.”
Keeping Pace in the Grand Slam Arms Race
Understanding AELTC’s determination requires examining the broader context of Grand Slam tournament development. While Wimbledon remains tennis’s most prestigious event, its competitors have aggressively expanded their facilities in recent years.
The Australian Open’s Melbourne Park spans over 100 acres with three stadium courts. The US Open’s Billie Jean King National Tennis Center covers 46.5 acres and features 22 courts, including the 23,771-seat Arthur Ashe Stadium. Roland Garros, despite its constrained Parisian location, recently completed a controversial expansion into the adjacent Serres d’Auteuil botanical gardens, adding a new 5,000-seat court and modernising facilities.
Telegraph tennis correspondent Simon Briggs has noted that the All England Club fears being “left behind” by its rivals, and “desperately needs to catch up” with events like the “sprawling Australian Open.”
The Paris expansion offers particularly relevant lessons. Roland Garros faced intense opposition from environmentalists and heritage groups over its plans to expand into protected botanical gardens. After years of legal challenges and compromises, a scaled-back version proceeded – but not before causing significant reputational damage and delays. AELTC appears to have learned that securing political support early is crucial, but perhaps underestimated the determination of local opposition groups to pursue legal remedies.
| Grand Slam (Location) | Site Area (ha)² | Total Courts (all)³ | Main Stadium (Capacity) | Qualifying Tournament |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wimbledon (London) | ~28.5 ha (current) / 57.4 ha (planned) | 18 championship courts (grass) + 38 new planned | Centre Court (14,979 seats) | No (held off-site at Roehampton) – Yes on-site if expansion proceeds |
| Roland Garros (Paris) | ~13.5 ha | 20 courts (clay) | Court Philippe Chatrier (15,000, roofed) | Yes (on-site at Stade Roland Garros) |
| US Open (New York) | ~18.8 ha (USTA site) | 22 courts inside grounds + 11 adjacent | Arthur Ashe Stadium (23,771, roofed) | Yes (on-site at USTA National Tennis Center) |
| Australian Open (Melbourne) | ~20+ ha (Melbourne Park)¹ | 35 outdoor courts (hard + some clay) | Rod Laver Arena (14,820, roofed) ; plus 2 more stadiums (10,500 & 7,500 seats, roofed) | Yes (on-site at Melbourne Park) |
Notes: ¹Melbourne Park is part of a larger sports precinct; exact tennis site area is ~20 hectares (the Australian Open draws on adjacent parkland for fan zones). ²Site area: approximations of main venue grounds. ³Total courts includes show courts, match courts, and practice courts on-site. Grand Slam venues compared. Wimbledon current lacks a third large show court but the expansion will make it significantly larger than the others.
“Tennis in an English Garden” vs. “Corporate Ecocide”
From the moment AELTC’s plans became public in 2021, they sparked fierce resistance. The site isn’t just any parcel of land – it’s Metropolitan Open Land (London’s equivalent of Green Belt), part of a Grade II* listed historic park designed by famed 18th-century landscape architect Capability Brown, and believed by campaigners to be subject to legal covenants and a statutory public recreation trust dating back to its original council ownership.
Opposition groups have crystallised their argument around several key points:
- The planned removal of nearly 300 mature trees, which some locals have characterised as “corporate ecocide.” While AELTC promises to plant 1,500 new trees and claims most trees being cut are of “poor quality,” environmentalists note that established ecosystems would be irreparably damaged.
- The conversion of protected open space into a partially private sports venue. Though AELTC touts the creation of a new 9.4-hectare public park, opponents calculate that only about 28% of the acquired land would actually be freely accessible to the public.
- The potential violation of legal covenants from 1993, when Merton Council sold the land to AELTC with restrictions that it be preserved as open recreational space.
Most fundamentally, many residents see the proposal as betraying Wimbledon’s traditional charm – transforming “tennis in an English garden” into what they describe as an “industrial tennis complex.”
Public Meetings and Growing Opposition
The groundswell of opposition to AELTC’s plans has been remarkable in both its scale and persistence. Throughout 2023 and 2024, Save Wimbledon Park organised seven public meetings, each drawing hundreds of concerned residents. These gatherings became forums for community members to voice their frustrations and organise resistance.
One particularly notable meeting in 2023 became symbolic of the growing divide between AELTC and the community. When AELTC representatives failed to appear despite being invited, organizers placed a single tennis racket on an empty chair – a powerful visual representation of what many saw as the club’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The campaign’s efforts extended beyond meetings to direct action. When Merton Council’s planning committee considered the application, protesters gathered outside the town hall, many carrying signs highlighting the environmental impact of the proposed development. Similar scenes unfolded at Wandsworth Council, where the unanimous rejection of the plans was met with applause from assembled campaigners.
By early 2022, thousands of objection letters had been lodged with both councils, and a petition opposing the development gathered over 21,000 signatures – an extraordinary number for a local planning issue. High-profile supporters joined the campaign, including comedian Andy Hamilton and 100-year-old actress Thelma Ruby, who spoke at rallies against the expansion.
Political Support Overrides Local Opposition
By late 2023, the application had reached a critical juncture. Merton Council approved AELTC’s plans despite significant local opposition. Wandsworth Council, which had jurisdiction over a smaller portion of the site, unanimously rejected the proposal after its planning officers recommended refusal, calling the development harmful and inconsistent with planning policies.
This cross-borough contradiction triggered intervention from London’s City Hall. In a packed September 2024 hearing, Deputy Mayor for Planning Jules Pipe delivered a verdict that stunned opponents – approving the expansion on the grounds that its “very significant benefits” to public space, sports facilities, heritage, ecology, and the economy “clearly outweigh the harm” to Metropolitan Open Land.
As Pipe announced the decision, shouts of “Shame! Shame!” erupted from the gallery, reflecting the deep sense of betrayal felt by many attendees.
Paul Kohler, Merton councillor and now Wimbledon MP has been a leading voice in the campaign and outspoken about what he sees as the failure of local democratic processes. At public meetings, he has consistently emphasised the legal obligations attached to the land, arguing that the site is bound by both restrictive covenants and statutory trust arrangements that should prevent development.
The GLA’s decision was particularly controversial given that its own legal advisors had identified what they termed a potential “major stumbling block” – the possibility that the land remains subject to a statutory public recreation trust that could prevent development. Rather than resolving this issue before granting permission, the GLA advised that it should be “resolved by the courts” separately.
The Case for Expansion: AELTC’s Perspective
AELTC has maintained throughout the process that its plans represent responsible stewardship of the land and necessary modernisation of the tournament. The club emphasises several key benefits:
- Environmental Improvements: AELTC promises ecological enhancements, including improving the health of the park’s ornamental lake and creating new wildlife habitats. According to AELTC Chair Debbie Jevans, “every stage of this project will be delivered with…the utmost respect for both our neighbours and the environment.”
- Public Access: The creation of a new 9.4-hectare public park would, in AELTC’s view, convert what was previously a members-only golf course into space the “local community is champing at the bit” to enjoy.
- Tournament Enhancement: Bringing qualifying matches on-site would create what AELTC calls “an exceptional three-week event” and allow up to 10,000 fans daily to experience the preliminary stages of the tournament, compared to around 2,000 at the current Roehampton venue.
AELTC’s chief executive Sally Bolton celebrated the GLA approval, saying “we can look forward to delivering [this project]…which I think we’re all very excited about.”
The Legal Battle Lines
With political avenues exhausted, Save Wimbledon Park formally lodged its Judicial Review application in January 2025, raising three primary legal grounds:
- That decision-makers failed to properly account for the statutory public recreation trust and restrictive covenants which they argue should prevent development.
- That recent changes to the golf course landscape should not be counted as “benefits” when AELTC offers to fix them.
- That the proposed tennis complex does not qualify as an “alternative sports and recreational provision” under planning policy exceptions for building on Metropolitan Open Land.
In February 2025, a High Court judge granted permission for the review on all grounds, finding that the campaigners had “arguable grounds which merit consideration at a full hearing.” Neither Merton nor Wandsworth councils opted to contest the review, effectively leaving AELTC to defend the planning approval alone.
“This is a significant milestone as we seek to encourage the AELTC to think again and comply with legal policies and obligations,” campaign representative Jeremy Hudson noted in an update to supporters.
A History of Complex Relations
What makes this conflict particularly noteworthy is how it represents the breakdown of what was once a generally harmonious relationship. Historical expansions of the Wimbledon grounds, while not without controversy, never sparked opposition of this magnitude.
The deterioration began with what many locals perceived as AELTC’s high-handed approach to community consultation. Rather than engaging in substantive dialogue about potential compromises, critics argue that the club opted for a public relations campaign, including sponsorship of local events such as Christmas lights and shopping guides – efforts that some view as attempts to buy goodwill rather than address fundamental concerns.
Meanwhile, the planning process ground forward, with AELTC submitting over 200 documents of environmental assessments and plan revisions in response to technical questions, but making no significant concessions to the core community objections.
The handling of the application by Merton Council has also drawn criticism. In a recent campaign update, Save Wimbledon Park pointed out that despite Merton saying it expects restrictive covenants from 1993 to be respected, the council has not taken action to enforce them.
AELTC, for its part, has signalled its intent to initiate separate legal action regarding the trust status of the land, suggesting a willingness to fight through multiple legal fronts rather than substantially modify its plans.
Looking Forward: The Court’s Decision
As the July court date approaches, both sides are intensifying their preparations. The Save Wimbledon Park campaign is planning demonstrations outside the High Court during the hearings, urging supporters to attend with “witty slogans for your banners” to capture media attention during the high-profile Wimbledon fortnight.
Legal experts offer mixed assessments of the campaign’s chances. While judicial reviews of planning decisions are notoriously difficult to win, with success rates typically below 30%, several factors may work in the campaigners’ favor. The Metropolitan Open Land designation carries substantial weight in planning law, and courts have shown increasing receptiveness to environmental arguments in recent years.
A particularly important precedent may be the recent Supreme Court case (Day v Shropshire, 2023), which affirmed that if a council failed to formally remove a statutory trust before selling land, the trust continues to bind the land. Save Wimbledon Park argues this is exactly the case here – that Merton never properly removed the statutory trust when it sold the freehold to AELTC in 1993.
Whatever the outcome, the case represents a defining moment in the relationship between prestigious sporting institutions and the communities they inhabit. For AELTC, it raises questions about whether the global prestige of The Championships can be maintained without alienating its neighbours. For residents, it tests whether community opposition can prevail against the combined forces of corporate ambition and political support.
On 8-9 July, as the world’s best tennis players compete on Wimbledon’s hallowed courts, the battle for Wimbledon Park’s future will play out in the more austere setting of the High Court – a final showdown between two visions of what it means to preserve a sporting institution’s heritage while planning for its future.
