Ruling on Wimbledon expansion challenge could come by end of July, judge says
Mr Justice Saini said he would do his 'very best' to hand down a ruling by the end of July in a legal battle between campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Barristers for SWP argued at a two-day hearing in London that the GLA made an 'irrational' decision to grant planning permission for the All England Club's proposal to build 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club.
The GLA and the All England Club are defending the challenge, with barristers for the authority describing the decision as a 'planning judgment properly exercised'.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Mr Justice Saini said he would hand down a written judgment at a later date, adding: 'I will use my best efforts to get it done before the end of the month.'
The plans for the expansion of the site were approved by Jules Pipe, London's deputy mayor for planning, last year.
In addition to the courts and associated infrastructure, seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access would be constructed.
The proposals also include work on Wimbledon Lake, which would involve building a boardwalk around and across it.
But Sasha White KC, for SWP, said that the land is protected by restrictions which govern how the land can be used, telling the court: 'You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.'
In written submissions, the barrister continued that the land is subject to a 'statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreation use' and that when the freehold was acquired, the club entered into 'restrictive covenants' governing its use.
He added that the GLA 'failed properly to consider the potential implications' that the trust and covenants could have on the proposals, an error which 'vitiated' its decision and meant it should be quashed and sent back to the authority for reconsideration.
Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the GLA, said in written submissions that Mr Pipe received 'detailed advice' over the 'relevance' of the 'alleged' trust and covenants, and made his decision on the assumption that they existed.
He said: 'Officers advised that the alleged obstacle that they may present to delivery of the development was not itself a material consideration which should weigh against the grant of planning permission.'
In his written arguments, Russell Harris KC, for the All England Club, said that the GLA could lawfully grant planning permission 'even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land'.
At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Saini dismissed a bid by the GLA to remove SWP's 'costs cap', which meant it would only have to pay £10,000 of the authority's costs if it loses its legal challenge.
Mr Westmoreland Smith told the court that SWP had crowdfunded more than £210,000 to pay for the legal action, which meant that the cap should be increased.
He said: 'The defendant is a public authority. Incurring the costs of the litigation is a significant burden that is passed on to the taxpayer.'
He continued: 'It is right that those who bring litigation should bear some cost, rather than almost exclusively the ratepayer.'
Mr White said that the bid was 'unattractive' and 'disincentivises crowdfunding'.
He said: 'We have over 1,000 contributors. They would be horrified to understand that the money that they gave to support the claimant's claim is being diverted to the defendant.'
He continued: 'I can't see any justification in the public interest to up the cap.'
Mr Justice Saini ruled that the bid 'falls at the very first hurdle' as there had been no 'significant change of circumstances'.
He said: 'It does not seem to me appropriate for me to modify the cap.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump should be able to address our Parliament
The arrangements for Donald Trump's second state visit to the UK are currently being finalised and raise questions over how seriously the invitation is being taken. The US president will make the trip on September 17-19, joining the King and Queen at Windsor Castle. The traditional carriage ride to Buckingham Palace has been dropped because the building is undergoing renovation. President Macron of France was also hosted at Windsor. Nonetheless, the timing of the visit seems designed to confine Mr Trump to largely ceremonial activities and away from anything remotely political. It is taking place during parliament's conference recess. Although the Commons returns for a fortnight on September 1, MPs rise again the day before Mr Trump arrives in the UK. This means that neither House will be sitting and therefore the president can be denied the opportunity to address Parliament, something afforded to most visitors. Doubtless there are security reasons for keeping Mr Trump away from possible protests, not least by Labour backbenchers. But it seems somewhat convenient to organise the visit so that he cannot speak to MPs and peers directly. He is, after all, the world's most consequential politician, whose every move can cause ructions across the globe. His latest U-turn on sending offensive weapons to Ukraine is indicative of his influence. Parliament, supposedly the cockpit of free speech, should hear from him. Mr Trump did not address parliament on his first visit in 2019 which was seen as a snub by John Bercow, then Speaker. Perhaps he has no desire to do so. But it is churlish to deny him the opportunity.
The Sun
10 minutes ago
- The Sun
If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid
WHAT on Earth was Labour expecting? Coming to power last year, it awarded junior doctors a 22 per cent pay rise. 3 3 And simultaneously abolished legislation brought in by the Conservatives to make it harder for public sector unions to hold the country to ransom. Twelve months later and the British Medical Association has come back for more. This time it is demanding an even bigger, 29 per cent rise for junior doctors (who now like to be called "resident doctors" to disguise the fact they are still in training). The union has announced a five-day strike if it doesn't get what it wants. Health Secretary Wes Streeting seems to be taken aback, along with the rest of the Government, but he shouldn't be. It was obvious that by caving into the BMA last year, he would embolden it. Under the new rules, the BMA does not need a majority of its members to vote in favour of strike action, and neither does it have to worry about the now-repealed law brought in by the Conservatives which guaranteed minimum service levels on strike days. Something, however, has changed since last year to thwart the BMA's ambitions. It has suffered a collapse in public support. Prior to last year's pay award, a majority of the public appeared to support junior doctors' strikes. Junior Doctors Announce Five-Day Strike in July Amid Ongoing Pay Dispute Now, according to a YouGov poll, only 33 per cent support strike action, and 49 per cent oppose it. The BMA seems to think that doctors hold such an esteemed position in the minds of the UK public that it can get away with anything. Perhaps it remembers all the clapping on the doorsteps during the Covid pandemic and thinks that people will forever after react in the same way, even when they are having appointments and operations cancelled due to a five-day strike. But it is sadly mistaken. We all, rightly, applaud doctors for what they do, especially when they go out of their way to help us. But there are limits. Last year's pay rise for junior doctors was way above that offered to any other group of workers. So, too, is the 5.4 per cent rise which junior doctors have been awarded this year. To come back and ask for an even bigger rise, and expect the public to nod in support, shows a detachment from reality. People are not stupid. They can see the Government is deep in debt, and that Britain is heading for fiscal disaster if the Government continues to spend more than it earns in revenue. They can see, too, that the BMA's claim junior doctors need a 29 per cent rise to restore their earnings to 2008 levels is spurious to say the least. It is based on calculations using the Retail Prices Index, a long-discredited measure of inflation which tends to run well ahead of the official index now used for almost everything, the Consumer Prices Index. There are plenty of workers whose pay has fallen back in real terms over the past decade and a half, and for good reason. 3 Britain has been struggling to achieve any meaningful economic growth. Productivity is static, and in the public services has fallen lower than it was in 1997 when Tony Blair came to power. The Government had an opportunity to link last year's pay award to improved working practices, with the aim of improving lamentable NHS productivity, but chose not to do so. The public can also see doctors have a generous pension scheme, with taxpayers contributing an extra 23.7 per cent of doctors' pay in the form of pension contributions. When doctors retire, they will enjoy guaranteed, index-linked payouts. Few, if any, private sector workers enjoy pensions which are anything like as generous. Index-linked payouts Streeting has at least acknowledged the generosity of doctors' pensions, suggesting he might be prepared to offer pay rises in return for lower pension entitlements. As for the claim junior doctors were being paid less per hour than baristas in high street coffee shops, even the BMA has given up on that propaganda. Actually, with overtime payments, some of the junior doctors going on strike could be earning in excess of £100,000 a year. It is important to remember, however, that not all junior, or 'resident', doctors support these strikes. Only 55 per cent of BMA members actually voted in the ballot. Moreover, not all junior doctors are members of the BMA. Of the 77,000 working in the NHS the BMA claims 48,000. Many doctors have been horrified by the prospect of more strikes, with Lord Darzi and Lord Winston both condemning them in recent days. It even led to Lord Winston's resignation from the BMA. Doctors are being badly served by the BMA, which is really just a trade union like any other. Many may at present be pleased with last year's pay award, but the BMA is taking them down a blind alley of militant unionism which is unlikely to end well. What has always marked out the medical profession is very high levels of public support.
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Lifting amnesty for Troubles veterans ‘will lead to witch hunt'
Lifting the legal immunity for Troubles veterans will lead to a 'witch hunt' of servicemen involved in future conflicts, Sir David Davis has warned. The 2023 Legacy Act put an end to fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, as well as civil actions. It created the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which would review deaths and serious injuries that occurred during the conflict. However, Labour pledged in its manifesto to scrap the legislation, which it said was unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups as well as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir David, a senior Tory MP, said that allowing inquests to restart would cause concern among soldiers as it would set a precedent for servicemen facing legal action. Speaking at a debate in Westminster on Monday, the former minister said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice, the legal witch hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It will cast a shadow over every future conflict that our Armed Forces engage in and undermine their abilities to defend us'. He added: 'Our soldiers have been held to the highest standards of law and yet our Government is rewarding this by effectively threatening them in their retirement. That is not a proper reflection of their human rights'. Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, said that to repeal the Act to allow fresh inquests would be 'not just morally but operationally mad'. He told MPs: 'It would be an act of sheer folly and indeed aid to our enemies to continue with this act of military self-harm so that to put it bluntly even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave.' All three Armed Forces branches are struggling to maintain their numbers, with more than 14,500 service members leaving in 2024 while only 12,850 new recruits joined. Mr Francois added: 'This government-sanctioned form of lawfare is self-evidently a case of two-tier justice at its worst and that is why on these benches we are utterly against it.' One of the most controversial elements of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw paramilitary prisoners released from jail as part of securing an end to the conflict. Sarah Pochin, the Reform UK MP for Runcorn and Helsby, said: 'These courageous men should be enjoying their hard-earned retirement, not facing prosecution for defending the British people from IRA terrorists.' Ms Pochin, whose father served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, added: 'The same British people who value these soldiers are outraged at the unfair and unjust action of this British Government.' Meanwhile unionist MPs warned that reversing the law could lead to prosecutions being used to relitigate the conflict. Gavin Robinson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: 'Our responsibility as parliamentarians from across the United Kingdom is to say no, we will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA's pursuit to try and attain some sort of honour toward their retirement. 'They tried to destroy this country through war and they failed. Let's not create the conditions for them to try and destroy the reputation of this country through peace.' Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, insisted that the Legacy Act must be repealed but said that all MPs were in agreement that 'there can be no rewriting of history'. He told MPs: 'We can't have any more false promises or undeliverable pledges, pledges that our courts have found to be unlawful. 'And that is why we will fix the mess we inherited from the previous government, whatever its intentions were, and we will protect our veterans as we do so.' Mr Benn admitted that 'legacy is hard' to get right, adding: 'This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement and that is why, as well as listening carefully to veterans which we are doing, we also need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British personnel who served so bravely.'
