Search Results

In the meantime, there still remain the covenants in which the AELTC publicly promised on their purchase The development is incompatible with these covenants, as Merton have already reminded them, saying that they expect the covenants to be “respected”.

at a meeting on the evening of Thursday, October 26 with Wandsworth Council, whose boundaries also cover London Mayor Sadiq Khan and the Greater London Authority, with arguments not just over planning but covenants

Further to our news post of 3rd January 2025 where SWP had applied for a Judicial Review of the GLA planning decision : Surprisingly quickly, the Court has just now issued an Order confirming that we may proceed on all three Grounds for JR of the GLA’s decision, stating: “The Claimant has raised arguable grounds which merit consideration at a full hearing.” SWP’s request for costs protection under the Aarhus Convention was not challenged. The Court’s order also confirms that we have successfully achieved this protection.

It is in the North Wimbledon Conservation Area and, together with the legal Covenants placed upon it, AELTC, who agreed to the Covenants and their restrictions, are now proposing to bulldoze almost all of

mention that the club agreed when it bought the land in 1993 never to develop it, and a restrictive covenant

to take into account the implications of the statutory Public Recreation Trust and the restrictive covenants There are still the important 1993 restrictive covenants. Although the covenants have been dismissed by AELTC and Merton Council as “not a planning issue”, our which we can also pursue, regarding both the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants

Clapham Junction Insider | 28 October 2024 | Cyril Richert " On Friday 27 September, Jules Pipe, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, decided to overrule Wandsworth Council’s refusal and the vast opposition from the local residents to allow the extension of Wimbledon Tennis Club into the park. The plans, presented by the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), aim to expand across Church Road to build an 8,000-seat stadium (104 metres wide and 28 metres high), an additional 38 grass courts, 10 other buildings including a 30,000 sq ft maintenance hub, and 9 km of roads and paths at the former location of the Wimbledon Park Golf Course. The Wimbledon Tennis site would almost triple in size. Merton Council approved the application last year after an extended debate where 6 Labour councillors voted in favour while 4 others (including one Labour, the 2 Liberal Democrats and the single Conservative councillor) voted against. The decision was based on the benefits they think it would generate. In the words of Merton’s officers’ reports, the development would be “inappropriate” and cause “physical harm” to the Metropolitan Open Land, but all of that could be outweighed by the “very substantial public benefits” of the proposal. A few weeks later, Wandsworth Planning Committee had to consider the application too, as the land in question straddles the two boroughs. Councillors took the opposite view and refused planning permission, following the recommendation of Wandsworth’s officers who disagreed with their colleagues from Merton." ... read more about Clapham Junction Insider: City Hall approves the controversial Wimbledon Tennis Club expansion, but legal challenges loom

They have conceded that their current plan breaches the Covenants they gave in 1993. The Covenants have still not been addressed. LBM holds the benefit of the Covenants on trust for the people of Wimbledon and Wandsworth, communities Issue AELTC Project Rees/McFarlane Alternative Legal constraints Accepted by AELTC to breach the 1993 Covenants Deliverability and community risk Continues to face litigation, public opposition and covenant uncertainty

The existence of rights of the public, imposed through the statutory trust and the restrictive covenants Finally, whatever the outcome of these two court cases, the restrictive covenants remain in place. The AELTC scheme cannot proceed unless the covenants are released by Merton Council. Jeremy Hudson said: “Merton are not at liberty to release the covenants, imposed in the public interest We are disappointed that Merton remain totally silent about the covenants and we still hope that the

GLA’s approval of the expansion and citing a statutory public recreation trust and a 1993 restrictive covenant assurances of public benefits, including limited free access to some courts and parkland, critics pointed to covenants

to take into account the implications of the statutory public recreation trust and the restrictive covenants Finally, it bears repeating whatever the outcome of these two court cases, the restrictive covenants As the Judge remarked: “ It is not in issue that the Golf Course Land is the subject of restrictive covenants 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.

However, the 1993 restrictive covenants remain firmly in place. Merton Council, which holds the benefit of the covenants on behalf of both Merton and Wandsworth residents whether it believes that sacrificing the openness of the land, and thereby defeating the purpose of the covenants public park to uphold the interests of the local community when deciding whether or not to release the covenants