The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) against the Mayor of London’s decision to grant planning permission for the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s controversial expansion onto Metropolitan Open Land.
In a 95-paragraph judgment [pdf] handed down on 21 July, Mr Justice Saini rejected all three grounds advanced by SWP and upheld the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) decision to approve the £200 million scheme. The proposals, which include 38 new grass courts, an 8,000-seat stadium, and a new public park, would expand the Wimbledon Championships site onto the former Wimbledon Park Golf Course.
SWP had argued that the Mayor’s office acted unlawfully by: failing to consider whether the land could legally be built on at all; ignoring signs of deliberate neglect to a protected historic landscape; and wrongly applying planning rules that protect public open space. The court disagreed on every point.
Three grounds, all dismissed
SWP’s judicial review focused on three main arguments:
- That the GLA failed to properly consider legal obstacles — specifically a statutory trust and restrictive covenants — affecting the site’s deliverability;
- That it wrongly assessed potential deliberate neglect of a heritage asset in violation of planning policy;
- That it misapplied national planning policy on the loss of open space and recreational land.
On the first ground, the judge found that GLA officers had lawfully considered whether legal impediments such as the statutory trust and covenants would affect the deliverability of the development. While the officers had acknowledged the existence of such constraints, they concluded that these did not materially affect the land-use planning merits of the scheme.
The judge ruled this was a lawful and rational exercise of judgment, stating:
“It was legitimate… to determine whether the development would be acceptable in land use terms on the assumption that it will come forward at some point.”
The judgment emphasised that planning permission determines only the acceptability of a development in land-use terms and does not override separate legal restrictions such as property rights or statutory trusts.
No evidence of deliberate neglect
On the second ground, concerning potential harm to the Grade II*-listed Wimbledon Park landscape, the judge dismissed SWP’s claim that the GLA failed to consider whether the site had been subject to deliberate neglect, contrary to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
“It is implicit in this account that Officers did not consider that there had been any ‘conscious decision to fail to take proper care of a heritage asset’ or damage it. Rather, the ‘erosion’ of features of the RPG had been caused by planting which facilitated the lawful use of the land, not in order to cause it damage.” (para. 72)
Mr Justice Saini found that planning officers did assess the current condition of the historic landscape and its causes, concluding that any degradation stemmed from long-standing and lawful land management — particularly the operation of the former golf course — rather than intentional harm. The court accepted that this interpretation fell within the bounds of the policy and the evidence.
“In short, in my judgment, there was no obligation to descend into any further detail in relation to paragraph 202 of the NPPF where there was no evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to the RPG.” (para. 74)
Sport, recreation and public benefit
The third ground of challenge centred on whether the GLA had misapplied paragraph 103 of the NPPF, which restricts development on existing open space unless it is replaced or outweighed by better provision. SWP argued that the AELTC scheme amounted to a commercial operation and that community benefits were overstated.
“In my judgment, the Defendant properly considered the implications of the development on public open space on each of the Precautionary and the Alternative Approaches.” (para. 84)
However, the judge held that the GLA had been entitled to treat the proposed development — including public parkland and community tennis access — as “alternative sports and recreational provision”. He also rejected SWP’s interpretation that commercial sports venues should be excluded from the scope of the policy, finding no basis for such a limitation in the NPPF’s wording.
“Paragraph 103 of the NPPF is simply stated. It does not exclude commercial enterprises and could easily have done so had that been the intention.” (para. 90)
The judgment confirmed that GLA officers had properly considered both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of public open space and sports provision, and lawfully concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm, including the scheme’s impact on Metropolitan Open Land.
Conclusion
Summing up, Mr Justice Saini wrote:
“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.”
The claim was dismissed in full. A separate legal case concerning the status of the statutory trust over the land is scheduled for hearing in January 2026.
Analysis
The biggest blow to campaigners in this decision is the judge’s refusal to treat the AELTC scheme as an inappropriately commercial use of protected open space.
That finding, if it carries weight in future cases, may make it harder to argue that the land’s legal protections rule out this kind of development altogether.
The other two grounds — concerning legal obstacles and heritage — were more technical, and the outcome less surprising given the High Court’s narrow focus on law rather than the local specifics of what is happening on the ground at Wimbledon Park.
