Lord Gus O’Donnell has confirmed he received an £86,000 payout from the Wimbledon Park land at the centre of a conflict of interest row, as he defended his sponsorship of controversial legislation due to be debated in the House of Lords.
The former Cabinet Secretary responded to questions from Putney.news on Monday evening, ahead of Wednesday’s crucial debate on Amendment 250 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The amendment would retrospectively validate the 1993 sale of the former golf course land to the All England Lawn Tennis Club – the same land from which he received an £86,000 windfall in 2018.
Lord O’Donnell confirmed he received the payout as a member of Wimbledon Park Golf Club when the All England Club bought out an early termination of the lease. All golf club members received the payment, giving him a direct financial connection to the land now subject to Save Wimbledon Park’s legal challenge.
The recusal defence
In his response, Lord O’Donnell said he recused himself from discussions at Wimbledon Park Golf Club about accepting the All England Club’s 2018 buyout offer, and did not vote on whether the golf club should accept the payment.
However, he is now sponsoring legislation that would retrospectively validate the 1993 sale of the land from Merton Council to the All England Club – making it impossible for campaigners to argue that sale was invalid. If the amendment passes, it would protect the land transaction that enabled the All England Club to later offer the golf club buyout from which he benefited financially.
Lord O’Donnell defended the amendment on public interest grounds, arguing it addresses a “rather messy situation” created by the Supreme Court’s 2023 Day v Shropshire ruling.
“There are very many parcels of land around the country where there is now uncertainty created as a direct result of the Day case and this is holding the country back in achieving the economic growth that we need,” he said. “This includes the former Wimbledon Park golf course land.”
The amendment would override the Supreme Court ruling by allowing land to be sold “free of any trusts” for public recreation, even where councils have failed to follow proper consultation procedures. The change would be backdated to 1980.
Supreme Court quote taken out of context
Lord O’Donnell’s defence cites a “rather messy situation” created by the Supreme Court ruling – language also used by Lord Pannick during the September Committee Stage debate to justify the amendment.
Lord Pannick told peers: “The Supreme Court concluded its judgment by recognising that it would leave a ‘rather messy situation’. This amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up that mess.”
When challenged by another peer about characterising the Supreme Court judgment as a “mess,” Lord Pannick clarified: “It was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.”
However, the Supreme Court’s full judgment tells a different story. Lady Rose, writing the Day v Shropshire ruling, did acknowledge the decision “leaves a rather messy situation” for purchasers who bought land expecting to develop it.
But she immediately placed responsibility on the local authority, describing it as “a consequence of Shrewsbury TC’s acknowledged failure to do the investigatory work” – not a flaw in the law protecting public recreation land.
Far from calling for parliamentary intervention to help developers, Lady Rose concluded that if the ruling prompted councils to “take stock” of how they hold public land, “that, in my judgment, would be all to the good.”
The Supreme Court’s proposed solution was better local authority record-keeping – not retrospective legislation to override protections that have existed since 1875.
Why directorships aren’t disclosed
Lord O’Donnell confirmed his All England directorships are unpaid volunteer positions, which is why they no longer appear in the House of Lords Register of Interests.
He explained that changes to the Lords’ Code of Conduct in April 2025 removed all voluntary positions from members’ registers. The Lords Registrar advised him to declare non-financial interests verbally when speaking in relevant debates.
His All England connection was previously listed in the register as a committee membership but was removed on 5 April 2025 – the same day the new rules came into force.
Lord O’Donnell said he would make his All England connection clear if he chooses to speak when the amendment is debated on Wednesday.
Lord O’Donnell’s connection to the All England Club was raised during the Bill’s Committee Stage debate on 15 September, when fellow sponsor Lord Pannick KC used the Wimbledon Park case as the primary example to justify the amendment.
Lord Pannick described the All England Club’s expansion plans as “a much-needed development that will enable the club to better perform its functions of national and, indeed, international importance.”
He told peers: “Wimbledon is one of many examples – a high-profile one – of the problem. The Wimbledon development has already taken five years. The Supreme Court decision has caused further delay and uncertainty.”
Lord Pannick offered to include “representatives of the All England Club who can assist on the practicalities” in any government meeting about the issue, saying “this is a problem that requires a solution in this Bill.”
During the debate, Lord Pannick explicitly disclosed Lord O’Donnell’s position, telling the House that Lord O’Donnell “is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club” and “very much supports this amendment.”
Lord Pannick told peers the amendment would address what he called a “rather messy situation” – quoting language from the Supreme Court judgment itself, though the Court used the phrase to criticise local authority failures, not to call for legislative intervention.
‘One of my heroes’
Paul Kohler, Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon, expressed personal disappointment with Lord O’Donnell’s involvement, describing him on social media as “one of my heroes with an amazing record of public service” but saying he was “genuinely shocked” by his sponsorship of the amendment.
He confirmed the Liberal Democrats would officially oppose the amendment when it comes to a vote on Wednesday.
Fleur Anderson, Labour MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, said: “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.”
What happens Wednesday
Amendment 250 was not reached when the Planning and Infrastructure Bill resumed in the House of Lords on Monday. The Bill’s Report Stage continues on Wednesday 29 October, when the amendment is expected to be considered.
The All England Lawn Tennis Club has not responded to requests for comment on whether they requested or encouraged the amendment.
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.
