A member of the House of Lords is set to sponsor legislation next week that could directly benefit the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s ongoing legal battle over Wimbledon Park – while simultaneously serving as a director of three companies controlled by the club.
Lord Gus O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, is one of four peers backing Amendment 250 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, due for debate on Monday or Wednesday. The amendment would override a landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling that protects public recreation land from development without proper consultation.
If passed, the change would be backdated to 1980 and could decisively affect Save Wimbledon Park’s case against the All England Club, scheduled for the High Court in January. The campaign argues the former golf course land remains protected by a statutory trust for public recreation, despite being sold to the club in 1993.
Companies House records confirm Lord O’Donnell serves as a director of three All England entities: The All England Lawn Tennis Ground PLC, The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited, and The All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club Limited.
The peer previously disclosed his All England connection in the House of Lords Register of Interests, listing himself as a committee member. However, that entry was removed on 5 April 2025 – the same day new rules came into force eliminating the requirement for Lords to register non-financial interests.
Under the updated code of conduct, unpaid directorships no longer need to be disclosed. But the timing of Lord O’Donnell’s sponsorship of legislation that would benefit an organisation he directs has prompted sharp criticism from both local MPs.
‘Scandalous back door attempt’
Paul Kohler, Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon, said: “I am alarmed by this scandalous back door attempt to secretly rewrite the law and allow the AELTC to ride roughshod over the rights of the public.
“I have raised my concerns with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House of Lords who will challenge this amendment next week. We should be protecting the public’s right to public land rather than giving those rights away to private developers.
“I am concerned by the support given to the amendment by Lord O’Donnell who is a member and on the board of AELTC. As the AELTC will directly benefit from the change to the law he is sponsoring there appears to be a clear conflict of interest.”
“I am also doubtful as to whether Lord O’Donnell is abiding by his duty of selflessness and impartiality, as required under the House of Lords code of conduct, though of course he would make no personal gain.
“The AELTC should be talking to the community to reach a compromise, not undermining our democracy and the Supreme Court, by clandestinely seeking to rewrite the law in their favour.”
Fleur Anderson, Labour MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, added: “This is a desperate attempt by AELTC to change the rules so they can push their development through. Everyone who loves their local green space should be worried by this. This proposed law would reduce protection for all green spaces owned by Councils.”
What the amendment would do
Amendment 250 would fundamentally alter Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, which governs how councils sell land.
Currently, when a council disposes of open space held under either the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906, the land is protected by a statutory trust for public enjoyment. If the council fails to follow proper consultation procedures – advertising the sale and considering objections – the land remains subject to that trust and cannot be developed.
This principle was established by the Supreme Court in 2023 in the Day v Shropshire case, when justices ruled that Shrewsbury Town Council’s failure to properly consult meant a recreation ground remained protected by its public trust, blocking housing development.
The proposed amendment would override that ruling. Even where councils fail to consult properly, buyers would take the land “free of any trusts” for public recreation. The change would apply retrospectively to all land transactions since November 1980.
According to a briefing [pdf] from the Open Spaces Society, the effect would be to “make it much easier for local authorities to sell open spaces to developers, ignoring and negating any public rights there.”
Kate Ashbrook, the society’s general secretary, warned: “Local authorities are pressed for funds, and already are tempted to sell open space for development. Through neglect, ignorance or wilful non-compliance, they may sell the land without following the statutory process, and public rights will be lost without the public having an opportunity to make representations.”
The society said the amendment would affect a “significant” area of open space across England and Wales, particularly in “urban areas of deprivation, where open space is especially valuable for local people’s recreation, health, and well-being.”
The Wimbledon Park case
The amendment’s most immediate local impact would be on the ongoing dispute over Wimbledon Park’s former golf course.
Save Wimbledon Park argues the 73-acre site – sold by Merton Council to the All England Club in 1993 for £5.2 million – remains subject to a statutory trust for public recreation under the Public Health Act 1875. They say the council failed to follow proper consultation procedures before the sale.
The campaign is challenging the club’s plans to build 38 grass courts on the land as part of a major expansion of the Championships. Their case, scheduled for the High Court in January, relies directly on the Supreme Court’s Day v Shropshire ruling.
If Amendment 250 passes before that hearing, it would retrospectively validate the 1993 sale and remove the statutory trust protection – effectively ending Save Wimbledon Park’s legal challenge.
Jeremy Hudson, a director of Save Wimbledon Park Ltd, said: “This retroactive amendment defies the rule of law. It seems highly probable that this amendment is specifically intended to assist the AELTC in its proposed development of the golf course land, given that one of the sponsors of the amendment is Lord Gus O’Donnell, a Director of AELTC. This is allowing private development on public land and should not be allowed.”
The campaign also claims Lord O’Donnell, as a former member of Wimbledon Park Golf Club, would have been eligible for the £86,000 payout made to all members in 2018 when the All England Club bought out an early termination of the lease.
Awaiting responses
Putney.news contacted Lord O’Donnell with questions about the conflict of interest concerns, whether his All England directorships are paid positions, and whether he considered making a voluntary declaration of his connection to the club when sponsoring the amendment. At the time of publication, we had not received a response.
The All England Lawn Tennis Club was also contacted with questions about whether they requested or encouraged the amendment, whether they were aware of Lord O’Donnell’s sponsorship, and how they would respond to the MPs’ criticism. At the time of publication, we had not received a response.
The amendment is co-sponsored by three other peers: Lord Banner, Lord Pannick KC, and Lord Grabiner KC – all prominent lawyers. The accompanying explanatory statement describes it as seeking to “clarify purchasers’ protection machinery in the Local Government Act 1972 following the Supreme Court’s decision.”
Amendment 250 is expected to be debated during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords, which continues on Monday 27 October and Wednesday 29 October.
Lord O’Donnell and the All England Lawn Tennis Club were contacted for comment. This story will be updated if responses are received.
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that Save Wimbledon Park’s legal case relies on the Open Spaces Act 1906. The campaign argues the land is protected under the Public Health Act 1875. This has been corrected.
Gus O’Donnell has just illustrated why the House of Lords needs radical reform. A brazen attempt to overturn the Supreme Court by the back door to benefit a private company he is director of. After years of benefiting from AELTC hospitality, it is time for GOD to pay the piper. Well done Kieran for shining a light on this shameful mess.
Thank you Kieran for this great article. It is indeed shocking to read and digest. What happened to speaking with the local community and collaboration? The sheer arrogance and entitlement the AELTC work from is sad indeed. They say they are the people’s tournament!! Speak to the people don’t bulldoze them.
Thank you Kieren. I’m so tired of people in public life acting without the integrity, honestly, impartiality, objectivity and selflessness that they take an oath to uphold as part of being appointed. Why do they think they can behave like this?
Thank you for this in-depth and incredibly informative report. I wish all journalists could cover this story with as much objectivity and attention to detail.