The fate of the All England Club’s controversial expansion plans for Wimbledon now lies in the hands of a High Court judge, after a two-day legal hearing that tested the boundaries of planning law, land covenants, and community power.
Mr Justice Saini confirmed on Wednesday he would “use [his] best efforts” to issue a ruling by the end of July on whether to quash the Greater London Authority’s approval of the £200 million scheme. The case was brought by Save Wimbledon Park (SWP), a campaign group backed by more than 1,000 donors and over 21,000 petition signatures.
The case concluded on Wednesday afternoon following packed-out courtroom sessions and a lively demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice that saw over 150 local residents rally in protest.
“Irrational” decision or “proper planning judgment”?
At the heart of the dispute is AELTC’s proposal to nearly triple its grounds by building 38 grass courts, seven maintenance buildings, and a new 8,000-seat show court on the site of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club — land it acquired for £65 million in 2018. The plans also include converting 27 acres into public parkland and constructing a boardwalk across Wimbledon Lake.
But barristers for SWP argued the GLA acted unlawfully when it granted permission last year. Sasha White KC, for the campaigners, told the court the land is “among the most protected in the planning system” — designated Metropolitan Open Land, covered by conservation rules, and bound by both restrictive covenants and a statutory public trust.
In written arguments, White said the GLA “failed properly to consider the potential implications” of those restrictions, and that this legal oversight “vitiated” the entire decision.
Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the GLA, countered that the deputy mayor for planning, Jules Pipe, had received “detailed advice” and made his decision on the basis that the trust and covenants were assumed to exist — but were not material planning considerations.
Russell Harris KC, for the AELTC, argued further that the GLA could lawfully grant planning permission “even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land.”
“Unattractive” bid to lift cost cap rejected
In a significant side ruling, Mr Justice Saini also rejected a late bid by the GLA to increase the £10,000 “Aarhus” cap on the campaigners’ legal liability — a key protection for claimants in environmental cases.
The GLA had argued that SWP’s successful crowdfunding campaign, which raised more than £210,000, constituted a “significant change in circumstances.” But the judge found the argument “falls at the very first hurdle,” ruling there had been no material change and that it would be “inappropriate” to lift the cap.
White called the GLA’s attempt “unattractive” and said it “disincentivises crowdfunding,” arguing that SWP’s donors would be “horrified” to learn their support might be diverted to pay the authority’s legal bills. Mr Justice Saini agreed, also ordering the GLA to pay SWP’s legal costs for responding to the application.
A park in limbo — and in decay
While the legal arguments hinge on rights and responsibilities, the land itself tells a different story.
The 73-acre former golf course — once home to pristine fairways and manicured greens — has fallen into disrepair since closing in 2022. Telegraph reporters who visited this week found overgrown bunkers, sun-scorched patches, decaying infrastructure, and signs warning of exclusion zones and patrolling dogs.
Though the site is used during Wimbledon fortnight for car parking and queuing, much of it is off-limits to the public — a fact campaigners say undermines AELTC’s claim to be stewards of public land.
AELTC, for its part, insists that its proposals offer “one of the greatest sporting transformations for London since 2012,” and will restore biodiversity, improve public access, and secure the Championships’ future as a world-leading tennis event. The club says it has undertaken over 1,000 hours of ecological surveys and spoken to more than 10,000 people as part of its consultation process.
No “Plan B” — or is there?
Throughout the hearing, SWP has portrayed the legal case as a last resort, blaming AELTC’s refusal to meaningfully engage on alternative schemes. Lead campaigner Simon Wright reiterated that SWP is “not anti-tennis,” and revealed that former AELTC planner Richard Rees has been developing a reduced-impact alternative — though it is not yet ready for public release.
“Conversation is better than litigation,” said Wright. “We believe that alternative schemes are possible which would achieve the overwhelming majority of AELTC’s goals, with a reduced environmental impact and less loss of biodiversity.”
But behind the scenes, AELTC is said to be ready to resubmit a revised version of its current plans should it lose in court — potentially triggering years of further planning wrangling. Even under the current timetable, a best-case opening date for the new facilities is estimated at 2033.
What happens next?
If Mr Justice Saini finds in favour of SWP on any of the three grounds raised, the GLA’s decision will be quashed, sending the entire application back for reconsideration. While AELTC could appeal, SWP says it hopes this would instead prompt the club to reopen dialogue and seek a community-backed compromise.
A second legal challenge — on whether the land is subject to a statutory public recreation trust — is scheduled for January 2026. Meanwhile, the restrictive covenants dating back to the land’s 1993 sale remain unresolved, with no clear statement from Merton Council on whether it intends to enforce them.
As the country’s eyes turn to Centre Court for Wimbledon’s finals weekend, another kind of verdict — with far longer consequences — now rests in the hands of a single judge.
