The long-running battle over the future of Wimbledon Park is set to reach the High Court this summer, as campaigners seeking to stop the controversial expansion of the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) have been given their court date.
The Save Wimbledon Park campaign confirmed today that its judicial review will be heard on 8 and 9 July 2025 at the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand. Crucially, the two-day hearing will unfold right in the middle of this year’s Wimbledon Championships — during the tournament’s pivotal quarter-final and semi-final stages, when global media attention on the event reaches its peak.
The campaign, which is opposing AELTC’s plans to build a new 8,000-seat show court and 38 additional grass courts on former Capability Brown-designed parkland, is challenging the decision by the Greater London Authority to approve the scheme in 2024. The proposals were previously rejected by Wandsworth Council but approved by neighbouring Merton, before being signed off by the Mayor of London.
In a statement to supporters, campaign spokesperson Simon Wright said:
“It promises to be an exciting and media-friendly two days – not least because this is Wimbledon fortnight! We need as many people as possible outside the Courts to show the world’s media that we do not accept the takeover of community green space by an industrial-scale tennis complex.”
The campaign estimates that the legal costs of the judicial review will exceed £200,000. As of early May, over 923 supporters have contributed more than £115,000 via a public CrowdJustice appeal:
A Battle Years in the Making
The AELTC purchased the 73-acre former Wimbledon Park Golf Club site in 2018 for £65 million, but its development proposals have been met with fierce opposition from local residents, environmental groups, and heritage advocates. Concerns have focused on the loss of open green space, the scale of the development, and its impact on the historic landscape.
The Save Wimbledon Park campaign’s legal challenge argues that the Greater London Authority acted unlawfully in approving the development. The judicial review will focus on three main points: that the statutory public recreation trust and restrictive covenants were not properly considered and should prohibit the proposed development; that AELTC should not benefit from recent changes it made to the landscape which it now offers to restore; and that the proposed complex does not meet planning policy tests for building on Metropolitan Open Land, which only permit development in limited “alternative sport and recreational” circumstances.
Will the Judicial Review Succeed?
Legal experts suggest that while judicial reviews do not overturn decisions based on planning merits, they can succeed if a public body has acted unlawfully or irrationally. The case hinges on whether the GLA adequately considered the relevant policies and legal constraints — including a 1993 legal agreement between the AELTC and Merton Council that may restrict development.
Given that planning law tends to favour the discretion of decision-makers, the odds are challenging. However, previous legal cases (such as the High Court’s intervention in the Westferry Printworks development in 2021) show that courts are willing to quash decisions if process flaws or legal oversights are demonstrated.
Regardless of the outcome, the symbolism and timing of the hearing — as Centre Court hosts the world’s top players just a few miles away — is likely to draw headlines, reinforcing public scrutiny of the AELTC’s ambitions and the future of one of London’s most historic green spaces.
We’ve put together a full history of the Save Wimbledon Park saga—initial plans, public meetings, political approval and court battle to halt the AELTC expansion. Read it here.
Correction: This story initially reported that Merton Council had refused the application and Wandsworth Council had approved it. In fact, it is the other way around. In addition, the story inaccurately summarised the basis of the judicial review. The legal challenge does not focus solely on Metropolitan Open Land protections but also argues that statutory public trusts and restrictive covenants were overlooked, and that claimed landscape “benefits” should not be counted where the developer caused prior harm. This has now been clarified.
