The government has given its backing to a proposed law change that would allow the Wimbledon tennis club to expand onto acres of protected public land, reversing a position it took just four months ago when it blocked an almost identical move and promised a public review first.
The club behind the expansion, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), is currently awaiting a High Court judgment on whether the land is legally protected. If the amendment passes before the judgment arrives, it could pursue development regardless of what the court decides.
What is at stake for Wimbledon Park
Merton Council sold the former golf course land to the AELTC in 1993. The club wants to expand its tennis facilities on the site. The land may be subject to a statutory trust, a Victorian-era legal protection that designates land for public use and restricts what can be done with it. Whether that trust exists over Wimbledon Park has been before the High Court since January, when Mr Justice Thompsell heard eight days of evidence and reserved judgment. No date has been given.
During the trial, AELTC’s own legal team conceded that if the trust exists, its development plans would be “not compatible” with it. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court whatever the outcome.
Amendment 222C to the English Devolution Bill was debated in the Lords on Thursday. It would allow a council or developer to ask the Secretary of State to permanently lift the trust protection. There would be no right of appeal and no obligation to give reasons. “Development proposals” and “economic benefits” would be valid grounds.
Lord Banner, who tabled the amendment, told Putney.news that judicial review would be available against any discharge order. He described this as “entirely conventional — most public decisions are amenable to judicial review rather than subject to appeal.”
A Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) briefing note last month identified a built-in shortcut. One ground for applying to have a trust removed is that the council did not follow the correct procedures when it originally sold the land. If the council cannot confirm within 28 days whether it did so, the government must treat that as a tick in the box. Merton sold the land more than 30 years ago. SWP said the paperwork from that era is unlikely to exist, making the application effectively automatic.
If the amendment passes after the judgment and the trust is found to exist, the club could use the new process to have it removed rather than fight the case through further appeals. SWP told Putney.news the amendment “could be existential for SWP regarding the Statutory Trust, but we don’t know yet.”
The broken promise
This is the second attempt to legislate away the Wimbledon Park protections. The first, in November 2025, was withdrawn after cross-party opposition, and after the government blocked it.
When Baroness Taylor of Stevenage blocked Amendment 250 on 3 November, she told the Lords it would “not provide robust safeguards” and would “operate retrospectively, which could have unintended consequences.” She promised a public review of open space protections before any law change.
Four parliamentary documents record what happened next.
On 18 November, a written answer said the government was “working at pace” and would announce details “in due course.”
On 23 December, Baroness Taylor restated the promise directly: “We intend to engage widely to ensure stakeholder views are considered before recommending any changes are made to these protections.”
On 25 February 2026, eight days before the reversal, a written answer from junior minister Miatta Fahnbulleh MP described the review in the future tense: “We will seek to examine and understand the fragmented and outdated nature of current legislative protections.”
On 5 March, Baroness Taylor backed Amendment 222C. The review had not started. She told the Lords:
“I have been a bit busy with other legislation, I am afraid, so I have not got round to that yet.”
The SWP briefing note, published two weeks before that debate, had already confirmed the review has not yet started.
Opposition from both sides
Lord Lucas, a Conservative peer, attacked the AELTC directly: the club “has behaved abysmally, and it should not be allowed to benefit from shortcutting what should be a careful review.” He warned that Amendment 222C would face “a large number of amendments” when it returns at Report stage.
Baroness Pinnock, a Liberal Democrat peer, called it “an assault on some of our nation’s parks, sports grounds and green open spaces” and warned it would give the Secretary of State “unprecedented power to permanently discharge statutory trusts from land once held for the public’s enjoyment.”
Lord Jamieson, the Conservative shadow housing spokesperson, asked for a Wimbledon-specific inquiry. Baroness Taylor did not answer.
Lord Banner confirmed the amendment will return at Report stage, with government support on record.
SWP said that the amendment appeared “solely designed to assist the AELTC” and was “not the way to make legislation of lasting effect.” The group said it had tried to engage in consultation but “got nowhere,” and would be “lobbying hard ahead of Report Stage.”
Background and what comes next
An AELTC board member, Lord O’Donnell, co-sponsored the first attempt to change the law in October 2025, raising conflict of interest questions that forced its withdrawal. The new amendment is sponsored by Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner; its board member’s name does not appear on it.
Supporters of the amendment say it is needed beyond Wimbledon Park. Lord Banner told the Lords in November that “across the country, there are instances of developments in the public interest being held up” by the same legal question. Baroness Pinnock named Winchester, Swansea, Finchley and Hornsey as sites at risk.
Lord Banner told Putney.news he has seen a list of affected sites but was told it was confidential. We are separately investigating those claims.
The English Devolution Bill has not yet reached Report stage and no date has been set. Lord Lucas has warned of a long and heavily amended debate when it does.
