Wimbledon’s legal showdown could rewrite the rules on London’s green space

The All England Lawn Tennis Club’s (AELTC) proposed £200 million expansion of Wimbledon onto the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club is under judicial review this week.

Last September, the AELTC secured planning permission from the Greater London Authority (GLA) to increase the venue’s capacity by 8,000 and upgrade the facilities, adding 39 new courts to bring Wimbledon in line with other Grand Slam venues by redeveloping a former golf course on parkland it already owns.

The AELTC says it needs the space to keep pace with the growing popularity of the Wimbledon championship.

However, the decision by the GLA to grant planning permission is now being scrutinised in court to determine whether it was lawful.

The land in question is a Grade II* listed heritage site, designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), protected under planning law as the urban cousin of the green belt and situated within the Wimbledon North Conservation Area.

The campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) argues that the site is also subject to statutory public recreation trust as well as restrictive covenants on the land, and that the GLA did not properly and fully consider the potential implications of these.

As such SWP argues that the decision should be quashed as unlawful and remitted back to the GLA for redetermination.

Both the GLA and the AELTC consider that the planning officers had regard to the trust and covenants but deemed that there were not material to the determination of the application.

At the core of this case lies a much larger question: how do we reconcile the demands of a growing population with the need to preserve green space in cities like London?

Whatever the outcome, this case could reshape how London’s public and semi-public land is treated. If AELTC prevails, it could signal to developers across London and beyond that MOL protections can be reshaped with the right combination of public benefit pledges.

Wimbledon Park is one of the most legally protected sites in the country, and the countryside charity CPRE consider that the future of over 50 parks and green spaces within London alone could be affected by this judgment.

On the other hand, a ruling in favour of the campaigners would reaffirm the legal weight of safeguarding green space, even against powerful economic or cultural interests.

This week’s judgment won’t just decide the future of one tennis venue, it will influence how we read planning law in the context of legacy land use, and how we balance heritage and environmental protection against the pressures of urban growth.

As London continues to evolve, Wimbledon may well become a landmark case — not just for tennis, but for the very shape of the city to come.

_________________________________

Victoria Charlesson is a Senior Associate in the Land Development team at Moore Barlow

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk