Updated: The debate on Amendment 250 has been postponed and is now expected to take place next week.
A controversial law change that could clear the way for the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s massive Wimbledon Park expansion was due to be debated in the House of Lords today but has been postponed until next week – despite government ministers rejecting the same proposal just six weeks ago.
Amendment 250 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would retrospectively validate the 1993 sale of the 73-acre former golf course to the tennis club, potentially ending the local community’s legal challenge against the development of 38 grass courts on land they argue should remain protected for public recreation.
If the amendment passes, it would override a Supreme Court ruling that protects public recreation land from being sold without proper consultation – not just in Wimbledon Park, but across England and Wales.
The stakes are high for local residents: the amendment is sponsored by Lord Gus O’Donnell, who serves as an unpaid director of three AELTC companies and recently confirmed he received an £86,000 payout from the disputed Wimbledon Park land. Liberal Democrats have confirmed they will oppose it, while the Labour government’s position remains unclear despite having rejected it in September.
At the heart of the controversy is whether Parliament will use retrospective legislation to help a private members’ club circumvent a Supreme Court judgment – and whether it will do so without the consultation ministers promised when they rejected the same proposal six weeks ago.
Why this matters for Wimbledon Park
Save Wimbledon Park’s legal challenge, scheduled for the High Court in January, argues that Merton Council’s 1993 sale of the former golf course to AELTC violated consultation requirements under the Public Health Act 1875. If their case succeeds, the statutory trust protecting the land for public recreation would still apply, potentially blocking the tennis club’s expansion plans.
Amendment 250 would retrospectively validate that 1993 sale, effectively ending the community’s legal challenge before it reaches court.
The All England Club obtained planning permission for the development in 2022, but the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in an unrelated case created a new legal obstacle: if councils fail to properly consult before selling public recreation land, the public’s rights in that land are preserved and pass to the purchaser.
For Wimbledon Park residents, this is about more than tennis. Many in the community support the Championships’ success but question whether 38 additional grass courts justify developing land they believe was meant to remain accessible for public recreation. The expansion has divided local opinion between those who see it as essential for Wimbledon’s international status and those who view it as excessive development on protected public land.
What the amendment does
Amendment 250 would override the Supreme Court’s 2023 Day v Shropshire ruling, which established that when councils sell public recreation land without proper consultation, the public’s rights in that land are preserved.
The amendment would allow purchasers to take land “free of any trusts” for public recreation, even where councils failed to advertise sales or consider objections. The change would apply retrospectively to all transactions since 13 November 1980 – the date Parliament first required councils to consult communities before selling public recreation land.
According to the Open Spaces Society, this would affect a “significant” area of open space across England and Wales, making it “much easier for local authorities to sell open spaces to developers, ignoring and negating any public rights there.”
But the immediate local impact would be on Wimbledon Park, where the amendment would validate a sale that campaigners argue denied the community any say in losing public recreation land.
Government said no in September
When the same proposal was debated as Amendment 227E on 15 September, government minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage told peers the amendment “will not resolve this issue effectively and thus will fail to have the intended effect.”
She said it would “create a contradiction of procedures in the Local Government Act 1972 and would also have retrospective effect.”
The minister emphasised that “while we must accelerate development, it is critical that local authorities consult communities on the disposal of open land held in trust for public enjoyment to preserve the integrity of statutory procedures that protect public spaces.”
Baroness Taylor promised that “this issue needs to be given wider consideration to identify a balanced solution” and would “require engagement with the sector.” She invited peers who had expressed interest to join consultations.
The amendment was withdrawn that evening.
No consultation took place
The amendment has now returned without any public consultation having taken place.
Neither Save Wimbledon Park nor the Open Spaces Society, which campaigns nationally on public land protection, are aware of any consultation occurring since the September promise.
Putney.news asked the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government whether any consultation took place and what the government’s position is on the returning amendment. At the time of publication, the department had not responded.
The amendment also bypasses the House of Commons entirely – unusual for retrospective legislation affecting public rights across England and Wales.
Claims about the amendment’s necessity
Peers supporting the amendment, including Lord Pannick KC and Lord O’Donnell, have argued it addresses widespread uncertainty affecting “very many parcels of land around the country” following the Supreme Court judgment.
Lord O’Donnell told Putney.news this uncertainty is “holding the country back in achieving the economic growth that we need.”
However, Save Wimbledon Park disputes that many similar cases exist. And if they did exist, “it is even more appropriate to consult widely and carefully before boldly trying to remove inherent public rights.”
During the September debate, Lord Pannick used the Wimbledon Park case as the primary example when arguing for the amendment, describing 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.”
Political positions
Paul Kohler, Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon, confirmed his party will officially oppose the amendment when it comes to a vote today.
Describing Lord O’Donnell as “one of my heroes with an amazing record of public service,” Mr Kohler nevertheless said he was “genuinely shocked” by the peer’s sponsorship of the amendment, questioning whether it complies with the House of Lords’ code of conduct requirements for selflessness and impartiality.
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.”
The government has not stated whether it will support or oppose the amendment today, despite having rejected it six weeks ago.
What happens today
Amendment 250 will be debated during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords this afternoon.
The amendment is co-sponsored by four peers: Lord O’Donnell, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick KC, and Lord Grabiner KC – all senior establishment figures. Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner are prominent King’s Counsel, while Lord Banner is a Conservative peer.
If the amendment passes, it would proceed to the House of Commons for consideration. If it becomes law before January, it would effectively end Save Wimbledon Park’s legal challenge, clearing the way for the expansion to proceed.
