Controversial proposals to triple the size of Wimbledon, the third Grand Slam of the tennis calendar, are set for another day in court.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) granted the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) planning permission to build 39 new grass tennis courts, one of them a stadium court, in September 2024.
In December 2024, campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) instructed lawyers to challenge the decision, which could ultimately lead to a judicial review in the U.K. High Court and the reversal of the planning permission. The AELTC simultaneously announced its intention to take its own plans to the court system, in a bid to head off any challenge.
How did Wimbledon get here? What are the expansion plans? And how could they be stopped?
GO DEEPER
Wimbledon tennis expansion set for High Court battle on both sides
What does the Wimbledon expansion look like?
The AELTC plans to build 39 new grass courts on the old Wimbledon Park golf course, which would almost triple the size of the grounds at the Wimbledon Championships. One of these courts will be an 8,000-seat show court, which would be Wimbledon’s third.
When would this project actually be completed?
AELTC chief executive Sally Bolton and chair Debbie Jevans said that the courts won’t be ready until the early 2030s following the granting of planning permission in September 2024. They were also cagey about when development work could actually start — pointing to the fact that there was still scope for appeals to be lodged. With the AELTC and SWP having initiated separate legal proceedings in December 2024, that timeline could extend.
How did we get to this point?
SWP believes that the planning permission contradicts a “statutory trust,” which requires certain areas of land to be kept free for public recreation. The AELTC believes that this does not apply to the land in question. That is at the center of their two newest legal processes, both submitted in December 2024.
The AELTC wants to have its own plans rubberstamped by the U.K. court system. SWP wants the AELTC to acknowledge the statutory trust, and is petitioning the GLA to quash its granting of planning permission on this basis.
Wimbledon currently operates with the minimum number of courts mandated for a Grand Slam tournament. (The All England Club)
This dispute goes all the way back to 1993, when the AELTC bought the Wimbledon Park golf course land from Merton council for £5.2million ($6.6million). At that time, the AELTC signed a covenant agreeing that it would not use the land “other than for leisure or recreational purposes or as an open space.” Residents groups, including the Wimbledon Society, believe that the AELTC’s proposals violate that covenant.
The next major step came in 2018, when the AELTC purchased the Wimbledon Park golf club, whose lease was to expire in 2041, for £65million (now $87.1m). This led to each member receiving £85,000 ($108,000). Since then, the AELTC has pushed hard to expand in order to bring Wimbledon in line with the other Grand Slams.
Merton Council approved the AELTC’s plans October 2023, but they were rejected by Wandsworth Council (the club straddles both areas) a month later. The matter was then referred to the General London Assembly (GLA), who in a 221-page report published in September 2024 found “no material considerations that are considered to justify the refusal of consent” and recommended that the deputy mayor Jules Pipe should grant planning permission for the scheme. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan excused himself from the process three years ago, having previously expressed support for the proposals.
Why is Wimbledon so keen to push this through?
The AELTC is adamant that this expansion is the only way to keep up with the other three Grand Slams, all of whom host qualifying onsite.
Wimbledon, which has always been the pinnacle of tennis, is lagging behind in that respect. The AELTIC wants fans through the gates in qualifying week, which is currently held at Roehampton a few miles away.
Moving qualifying to the Wimbledon site would see up to 10,000 fans enter the grounds per day, compared to the 2,000 capacity at the Bank of England Club in Roehampton. The AELTC hopes that the new space would allow for average daily attendances of 50,000 during the Championships proper; 2024’s average daily attendance was 37,603.
Having more courts, for both practice and for matches, will also reduce wear and tear across the tournament. Wimbledon currently operates with the minimum number of match courts for a Grand Slam, while its third-biggest court (Court 2) is the smallest of the four majors.
“It’s important that Wimbledon maintains its place at the pinnacle of the sport,” Jevans told reporters after the hearing.
“The other slams are three-week events. We’re a two-week event.”
Why are campaigners against the Wimbledon plans frustrated?
Going all the way back to 1993 and the covenant that the AELTC would not use the land “other than for leisure or recreational purposes or as an open space,” there is a feeling that promises have been broken.
“Call me old-fashioned but I believe promises should be kept,” Paul Kohler, the Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon said during the public hearing. In 1993 the then-chairman of the AELTC, John Curry, said: “We completely understand and support everyone’s determination to keep the land open and we have purchased the land on that basis.”
Protesters also have ecological and social concerns, with net tree loss and major impacts on biodiversity cited among damage that development would do. Experts in this field called to the planning hearing by the AELTC rejected this characterization, pointing to plans to plant five times as much trees as would be removed under the plans. The experts also said that the area would perform better ecologically thanks to projects like planting pockets of wet woodland.
A recurring theme from the objectors was a perceived lack of compromise, and a feeling that local residents had not been consulted, more so than complete dismissal of the idea of expansion.
There is a real depth of feeling among the objectors, many of whom positioned themselves outside City Hall on the day of the hearing, holding placards outside the building with slogans like “green not greed!” Around 80 of the 140 in the public gallery were said to have been people opposing the plans. When Pipe read the verdict, boos and cries of “shame on you” rang out from some of the campaigners present.
Protesters outside the public hearing outlined some of their concerts when interviewed by The Athletic. Mary-Jane Jeanes, a member of environmental group Friends of the Earth and a former Liberal Democrat councillor in Merton, pointed to some of the ecological damage the expansion would do and the long period in which local residents would be affected by the development. “There’s going to be up to 10 years’ disruption whilst this stuff is built,” she said.
Jeanes and other residents also reject the idea that Wimbledon has to improve to keep pace with the other slams. They argue that Wimbledon’s heritage and prestige mean it will always a special, iconic event.
Labour MP for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields Fleur Anderson told The Athletic that: “The balance here is about saying, ‘is it opening up an area of land that was previously a golf club and so it’s a good thing? Or is it saying that the whole area should be a public park and actually that only 22 per cent of it is going to be public and that’s a bad thing?’”
Protestors outside the planning hearing in September 2024. (Charlie Eccleshare / The Athletic)
Is everyone who lives locally opposed to this?
No. During the hearing, Shan Warnock-Smith KC, a local resident in support of the development praised the AELTC for its “ample consultation” with the community. David Mooney, London Wildlife Trust chief executive officer, spoke of the plans having “ecological enhancement” and said that “the golf club is ecologically pretty dead.” It was later pointed out that the Trust was relying on AELTC data that had not been independently corroborated.
Local resident and a lifetime member of the Wimbledon Society Thomas Moulton said that “significant benefits will be appreciated year round and outweigh the negatives.” A 23-acre public park “will benefit future generations,” he said. There will also be a four-acre public park at the northern entrance to the site, adjacent to the entrance to the existing Wimbledon Park. This will be accessible year-round, outside of the qualifiers and the Championships.
This is one of the big counter-arguments against the objectors: the fact that ‘Save Wimbledon Park’ is a bit of a misnomer. The AELTC is planning to build on what has been a private golf club for 100 years, not public Wimbledon Park land. The new development will, of course, be off limits to the public for some of the year (and in some parts all of the year), but it is not replacing land that is currently public or has ever been in modern times.
Why did GLA rule in favour of the AELTC?
In granting the planning permission, Pipe said: “The proposed development would facilitate very significant benefits, including those to public open space and recreation, community, cultural heritage, ecology and biodiversity, economic, employment and transport.
“These would clearly outweigh the harm caused by the proposal and represent very special circumstances. For these reasons, I agree with the GLA planning officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.”
He added that: “As is widely accepted, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in world tennis, which attracts a global audience, visitors, and contributes to London’s brand in terms of culture, sporting heritage and as a visitor destination.”
What happens next?
The first part of SWP’s challenge to the planning permission is sending a letter to the GLA. ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review’ requires this letter, which SWP sent to the GLA December 6 2024. It requested a reply by December 16. Many steps would still need to be taken for a formal judicial review.
The AELTC’s desire to put the question of statutory trust to the court system has no timeline as yet.
(Top photo: Historic England Archive / Heritage Images via Getty Images)
