Disappointment with Judicial Review verdict

Supporters' Bulletin no. (9) 21 July 2025 - |Supporters of this campaign will be disappointed to learn ...

Supporters of this campaign will be disappointed to learn that Mr Justice Saini has declined to overturn the GLA’s planning decision of November 2024.

Consistent with the apparent urgency of the AELTC’s requirements, judgment has been given within two weeks of the hearing. SWP is grateful for the careful consideration given by the Judge but has been advised that it should make an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Initially this application will be made to the Judge himself, but the Court of Appeal may also grant permission.   SWP is not taking this step lightly but believes that the GLA did make a significant legal error in the way it dealt with the special legal status of the Park.

In a lengthy judgment handed down today Mr Justice Saini dismissed all three grounds of challenge. The full text of the Judicial Review judgment is linked here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/save-wimbledon-park-v-mayor-of-london/.

The Court’s role was to review the lawfulness of the decision-making process by the Deputy Mayor, not to reach its own view on the merits of the application. Here is a brief summary of the decision.

Firstly, the Judge was not persuaded that the GLA had failed properly to take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants, both of which prevent the development, and which would make the alleged benefits of the scheme undeliverable. The Judge described our Leading Counsel’s argument as “wide-ranging and persuasively presented.” Be that as it may, the Judge said that deliverability of a scheme was not normally material to a decision whether to grant planning permission. The GLA had recognised that there are exceptions to that principle but, he said, its officers were acting rationally in forming the view that in this case the benefits were “not particularly time-sensitive” so that the speed with which the benefits could be delivered was not material to the planning balance. This was despite the AELTC insisting on their “pressing need” 17 times in their application, and even where the GLA had been advised by their Leading Counsel that the statutory trust required public access throughout the site.

Secondly, the Judge disagreed that the GLA failed to recognise that the creation of tees, bunkers, greens and fairway planting on the golf course was (in planning terms) “deliberate damage” to a heritage asset, so that rectification of such damage should not count as a benefit. In his view, the GLA were entitled to conclude that such works consistent with golf course use did not cause deliberate damage to a heritage asset.

Lastly, the Judge concluded that the creation of a private sports and entertainment complex would not contravene national planning policy in relation to the provision of “alternative sports and recreation” for the public. He agreed with the GLA’s reading of the relevant policy, that there was no basis to exclude commercial private sports facilities.   

If it stands, this judgment may set a worrying precedent for the unwanted development of protected green belt and public open spaces around London and across the country.

The AELTC will surely have noted the considerable public outrage about this development, most recently expressed outside the law courts, and we continue to hope that they could be persuaded to engage constructively with us, with a view to achieving a resolution of this four-year-old dispute.

Of course, the dispute is far from over. The Judicial Review deals only with planning.  It may be taken to appeal.  The AELTC have conceded that their proposed development is incompatible with the statutory public recreation trust, which according to the GLA’s own advice is present over the former golf course land.  The existence or otherwise of the statutory trust is the subject of entirely separate proceedings which are very much alive and progressing towards a major hearing next January. 

Finally, it bears repeating whatever the outcome of these two court cases, the restrictive covenants remain firmly in place. As the Judge remarked: “It is not in issue that the Golf Course Land is the subject of restrictive covenants which require it to be kept open and free of built development”. The AELTC scheme cannot proceed unless the covenants are released by Merton Council.   Merton remain silent on the question of whether they intend to enforce the covenants, or not. 

SWP Bulletin 9 Final.pdf

Download PDF • 203KB