Two peers who previously co-sponsored an amendment with an AELTC board member have tabled a fresh attempt to override open space protections for parks across England, three months after their first effort was abandoned following cross-party opposition in the House of Lords.
Amendment 222C [pdf] to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill would create a formal process for the Secretary of State to free land from statutory trusts established under the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. These are the exact provisions at the centre of a High Court battle over AELTC’s plans to build on Wimbledon Park, where judgment is currently awaited.
The amendment was tabled on 9 February by Lord Banner KC, one of Britain’s leading planning barristers, and Lord Grabiner KC, a prominent commercial silk. Both were among four peers who sponsored the original attempt last autumn.
That first version, Amendment 250 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, was also sponsored by Lord O’Donnell, a serving AELTC director, and Lord Pannick. After O’Donnell’s conflict of interest was revealed in October, the amendment was withdrawn within days. O’Donnell’s name does not appear on the new version.
The move comes as the House of Lords prepares to return from half-term recess on 23 February. The Bill’s Grand Committee reached Clause 57 on 11 February. Amendment 222C sits after Clause 63, meaning debate is likely within the next few sittings.
The prediction that came true
When Amendment 250 was abandoned in November, Putney.news reported that Lord Banner suggested the English Devolution Bill as an alternative vehicle for the same mechanism. That is now exactly what has happened.
The new version is substantially more detailed than its predecessor. It would insert eight new sections into the Local Government Act 1972, creating a “statutory trust discharge order” process. But the core effect remains the same: allowing councils and developers to remove legal protections that have safeguarded public open spaces for over a century.
One provision deserves particular attention. Section 128D(5) of the proposed amendment states that the discharge process applies regardless of whether the land was sold before or after the legislation takes effect. This retroactive reach is significant because it covers Merton Council’s 1993 sale of Wimbledon Park to the AELTC, the transaction at the heart of the current High Court case.
Another clause creates a presumption that works in the applicant’s favour. If a council cannot confirm within 28 days whether proper procedures were followed when land was originally sold, the Secretary of State must assume they were not, triggering the discharge process. Given that councils routinely cannot locate records from decades ago, this effectively creates an automatic pathway to removing protections.
Why legislation while the court decides
The timing raises questions. Mr Justice Thompsell heard the statutory trust case over eight days in January. During the trial, AELTC’s own legal team conceded that if a statutory trust exists over the former golf course land, it “would preclude use of the Golf Course Land for the Project.”
Judgment has not yet been delivered. The judge promised it would come “quite swiftly” but it remains outstanding three weeks later. Meanwhile, the case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome.
The legislative route appears designed as an alternative to the judicial process. If Amendment 222C passes, it could render the court proceedings irrelevant by providing a mechanism to discharge the very trusts the court is being asked to rule on.
This is not just about Wimbledon Park. The amendment’s provisions would apply to any land across England held under these Victorian and Edwardian statutes. The Open Spaces Society, the country’s oldest conservation body, warned during the first attempt that the mechanism could lead to the loss of “many open spaces with recreation rights, with no consultation and no recourse.”
The polling question
Alongside the legislative push, questions are growing about the AELTC’s claims of public support for its expansion plans.
Save Wimbledon Park wrote to AELTC chief executive Debbie Jevans on 19 December asking for details of YouGov polls the club has cited publicly. They asked for the questions put to respondents, the selection criteria, and the methods used to choose survey recipients.
The reply came five weeks later from Dominic Foster, the AELTC’s Head of Chair’s Office. He said the club had “spoken to more than 10,000 people” about its plans and that YouGov polling showed “representative samples of people living in Merton and Wandsworth consistently indicates that more than twice as many people surveyed support the plans versus those who oppose them.”
He did not address the questions asked, how respondents were selected, or the methodology used. Save Wimbledon Park repeated their request. No further response has been received.
The club’s public claims have varied. Debbie Jevans told Tennis Threads Magazine in December 2023 that “five times as many Londoners support Wimbledon’s expansion.” A 2024 report cited a YouGov poll of 1,029 London adults showing 58% support against 11% opposition. The gap between “five times as many” and “twice as many” has not been explained.
YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council. Under BPC rules, when results of a privately commissioned poll are made public by the organisation that paid for it, the polling company must publish the full methodology within two working days. This includes question wording, sampling procedures, and weighted data tables. AELTC has publicly cited the results on multiple occasions. No published methodology for any AELTC-commissioned YouGov poll appears on the YouGov website.
What happens next
When the House of Lords returns on 23 February, the Grand Committee is expected to continue working through the Devolution Bill. Amendment 222C could be debated within one or two sittings of the committee’s return.
When Amendment 250 was debated in November, Housing Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage told peers the government would not support the amendment but promised a “wider review” of statutory trust issues. Whether that position holds for the new, more detailed version remains to be seen.
Wimbledon MP Paul Kohler described the first amendment attempt as evidence of “bad faith” by the AELTC. Putney MP Fleur Anderson has also opposed the expansion.
What you can do
The Devolution Bill is being considered in Grand Committee, where any member of the House of Lords can attend and speak. Residents concerned about open space protections can write to cross-bench and opposition peers urging them to attend the debate and oppose Amendment 222C.
Paul Kohler MP can be contacted through his parliamentary office. Fleur Anderson MP can be reached through her constituency office.
If you have been polled by YouGov about AELTC’s Wimbledon Park plans and can share details of the questions you were asked, contact news@putney.news.
The Open Spaces Society (oss.org.uk) is a charity that campaigns to protect public access to green spaces and is corresponding with peers about the amendment.
Correction, 2.30pm Mon 16 Feb: This article originally said the Open Spaces Society “may be coordinating responses to the amendment.” The society is corresponding with peers but is not coordinating. This has been corrected.
I am not legally qualified but surely this ‘second attempt’ by certain Lords is a blatant attempt to usurp the judicial process and the judgement that is yet to be delivered by Mr Justice Thompsell? I would like to see a Lord or Lady throw out this ‘second attempt’ as a breach of due process.
Quite some brass neck trying to use the Community Empowerment Bill to deprive the Community of their green spaces.
What happened to the Lords amending law and not making law? Is this even constitutional?
Save Heritage – Wimbledon Park & Save England & Wales’ Parks ! These Lords are in their Coach and Horses riding roughshod over our Public Open Spaces and want to steal – forever – our Rights to enjoy our parks and gardens. Ultimately, for profit at the Public’s loss. The Lords should uphold the law which offers protection to our open spaces and habitat.