Wimbledon’s £200m expansion clears crucial High Court hurdle
The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club’s plans to expand its Wimbledon ground have cleared a major legal hurdle after the High Court rejected campaigners’ attempt to block the project.
The £200 million project aims to triple the size of the historic ground, which has hosted the Championships since 1877, by developing a former golf course that will include 39 new courts.
The proposals are supported by many leading players and some local residents.
But campaign group Save Wimbledon Park, which brought the case, argued that the land was subject to a legal trust requiring it to be preserved for public recreation purposes.
However, AELTC maintained that the land was never used for such purposes and sought an order from the High Court to that effect.
Following a hearing in January, Judge Nicholas Thompsell sided with the AELTC.
In his written decision released Thursday, he said the land “has never been dedicated to public recreational use” and therefore “can be sold without imposing on the buyer a public trust that never existed before.”
AELTC president Deborah Jevans hailed the decision as a major step forward.
“The decision represents a significant milestone for our plans and will allow us to maintain Wimbledon’s position as one of the world’s most successful sporting events, as well as delivering a beautiful 27 acres of public parkland on previously private land,” he said.
“From our conversations with more than 10,000 local residents, we know that the vast majority of people want us to deliver the benefits of our plans as quickly as possible.”
Save Wimbledon Park has announced its intention to seek permission to appeal the decision.
Director Jeremy Hudson said there was a “strong case for preserving this valuable open space.”
The legal victory follows a separate battle last summer in which Save Wimbledon Park challenged planning permission granted by the Greater London Authority in 2024.
In this case, campaigners argued that the GLA had not properly taken into account restrictions on the redevelopment of the land.
Although the initial appeal was rejected, the group was given permission to appeal this decision.
