Wimbledon MP raises alarm about secretive back door attempt to force through Tennis expansion

30 Oct 2025

Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon Paul Kohler has raised serious concerns about an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that could potentially allow the All England Lawn Tennis Club to by-pass a critical legal obstacle to their proposal to turn much of Wimbledon Park into an industrial tennis complex.

In 2023 (in Day v Shropshire) the Supreme Court decided land held on public trust remained subject to that trust, even after being sold, unless certain procedures were followed. As those procedures were not followed in1993 when the freehold of Wimbledon Park was sold to the AELTC that land is still arguably subject to a public trust.

The AELTC dispute this and are due to argue their case in Court next January. The proposed amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently in the House of Lords, would allow the AELTC to win without going to court, by removing the protection currently enjoyed by public trusts of land, upheld by the Supreme Court just two years ago. If approved, the changes would apply retrospectively from 1980, 45 years ago, comfortably covering the date when the AELTC bought Wimbledon Park from Merton Council.

One of the sponsors of the controversial amendment, which was announced without any publicity and at the last moment, is Lord O’Donnell, who sits as a crossbench peer in the Lords, and on the Board of the AELTC.

Paul Kohler MP has said:

"I am alarmed by this scandalous back door attempt to secretly rewrite the law and allow the AELTC to ride roughshod over the rights of the public.

I have raised my concerns with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House of Lords who will challenge this amendment next week. We should be protecting the public’s right to public land rather than giving those rights away to private developers.

I am concerned by the support given to the amendment by Lord O’Donnell who is a member and on the board of AELTC. As the AELTC will directly benefit from the change to the law he is sponsoring there appears to be a clear conflict of interest. I am also doubtful as to whether Lord O’Donnell is abiding by his duty of selflessness and impartiality as required under the House of Lords code of conduct, though of course he would make no personal gain.

The AELTC should be talking to the community to reach a compromise, not undermining our democracy and the Supreme Court by clandestinely seeking to rewrite the law in their favour."

ENDS

This website uses cookies