Wimbledon expansion gets a go-ahead after High Court ruling

Controversial plans to dramatically expand the Wimbledon tennis courts have been approved, following the High Court ruling to dismiss an appeal made earlier this year by the Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) campaign group.

The planning proposal included the construction of 39 new tennis courts and a new 8000-seat show court on a former golf course land, which would triple the size of the current tournament grounds, and move qualifying rounds to Wimbledon. In addition to the expansion of the tennis courts, the proposed development would create around 27 acres of public parkland, lakeside restoration, building of children's play areas, a new boardwalk and opening up the formerly private Wimbledon Park Golf Club for community use.

The judge found that objections raised by the SWP in relation to the legal restrictions tied to the land use, including the concerns over the statutory use of the land and restrictive covenants, did not render the initial planning permission by the Greater London Authority unlawful. He described the decision as a "planning judgement rationally exercised" and in accordance with the relevant legal standards.

Chair of the All England Club, Debbie Jevans, welcomed the ruling and highlighted the benefits of including permanent facilities for qualifying rounds and allowing the public to access the private land that was unused for over a century.

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who excluded himself from the planning decision, welcomed the news, which will solidify Wimbledon's status as a global sporting icon while generating economic and social uplift for the capital and the UK.

The director of SWP, Christopher Coombe, signalled a continued legal fight, arguing the ruling “might set a worrying precedent” for development on protected public green spaces.

However, the High Court's decision does not completely resolve the dispute, with a separate judicial review scheduled for January 2026, which will determine whether the land is held in statutory trust for public recreation, which is an issue that, according to SWP, could render the decision unlawful.