While the spotlight this week is on the action at the All England Club, a very different kind of showdown is unfolding away from Centre Court — one that could shape the future of Wimbledon more profoundly than any rally.
On 9 and 10 July, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC) will face off in London’s Royal Courts of Justice against campaign group Save Wimbledon Park. At stake is the club’s ambitious £200 million expansion plan, which has divided the local community and sparked fierce debate about green space, planning law, and the future of the sport’s most iconic tournament.
From golf course to show courts
The AELTC received planning permission from the Greater London Authority (GLA) in September 2023 to redevelop a former golf course on parkland it owns, adjacent to the current Wimbledon grounds. The proposal includes 39 new courts and an 8,000-seat show court, and would increase daily spectator capacity from 42,000 to 50,000. It would also bring qualifying rounds on site for the first time, in line with the Australian Open, Roland Garros and the US Open.
Tournament director Jamie Baker defended the project, saying:
“Our confidence in the development and the proposals that we’ve been working on for many years is as strong as it ever has been. For the Championships to continue in the position that it is and deliver benefits to stakeholders, including the local community, it is vital that we are able to stage the tournament on one site.”
The AELTC claims 62% of the 10,000 residents in the boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth support the plan. Top players like Novak Djokovic have also backed the expansion.
A village divided
But not everyone is on board. The judicial review this week will examine whether the GLA acted unlawfully in granting permission, particularly in regard to long-standing covenants and land use protections.
Opponents argue that the AELTC is violating terms agreed when it bought the Wimbledon Park golf course freehold from Merton Council in 1993 for £5.2 million — specifically, restrictions on redevelopment. The club later paid £63.5 million to buy out the Golf Club’s lease, which was originally due to run until 2041.
Campaigners say the GLA also failed to acknowledge that the land is held under a statutory Public Recreation Trust, meaning it should remain open for public leisure use. Councillor Malcolm Grimston, representing West Hill Ward, said:
“It is not antipathy towards the AELTC that’s driving this, as some of the benefits are real, such as the extension of the lake. The problem is that it will treble the footprint of the current Championship and turn what currently feels like rural England with a gentle pace of life into an industrial complex.”
Grimston added: “That’s why it’s classified as Metropolitan Open Land, which is the urban equivalent of the green belt that has been protected for many decades in UK planning law — and rightly so.”
‘This must not go ahead’
Among the most vocal critics is 100-year-old former actress Thelma Ruby, who lives in a flat overlooking the park.
“It’s terribly important that it does not go ahead — not just for myself but for the whole planet and future generations,” she said. “I overlook this beautiful landscape and there are all sorts of covenants that say you mustn’t build on it. And yet the tennis people have this unnecessary plan they admit will cut down all these glorious trees, which will harm wildlife.
“They’re using concrete, building roads, they’re going to have lorries polluting and passing my window every 10 minutes. The whole area will be in chaos as they’re closing off roads.”
Club defends environmental impact
In response, the AELTC argues that the redevelopment will improve public access and biodiversity, bringing parts of the park back into use and replacing the golf course with more ecologically diverse landscapes.
Dominic Foster, the club’s head of corporate affairs, said:
“The London Wildlife Trust have endorsed the plans. They’ve spent many hours scrutinising our analysis and our expert views. We know that this expansion will deliver a very significant benefit to biodiversity, whereas golf courses are not good for biodiversity.”