A high court judge has quashed a council's decision to allow Tottenham Hotspur to build a new training facility in a north London park, ruling that councillors were materially misled during the planning process.
The campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs had challenged Enfield council's decision to grant planning permission for a women's and girls' football academy on 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of land in Whitewebbs Park. At a hearing in June, the group's lawyers argued that councillors were not provided with all relevant information about the development's environmental impact.
Council withdrawal and club opposition
Enfield council, which was Labour-controlled at the time but is now run by a Conservative minority administration, withdrew its defence to the legal challenge last month. However, Spurs continued to oppose the claim, arguing that the outcome would have been the same even if the information had been provided.
The club also dismissed allegations of bias as completely overblown.
Judge's ruling
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Tim Kerr, sitting as a high court judge, quashed the approval, finding that the result could well have been different had all relevant information been available. He dismissed claims of potential bias, describing the group's arguments as weak and noting that cordial relations between the council and the club were normal given the overlapping functions and interests.
Spurs had agreed a 25-year lease for the site in 2023, a decision unsuccessfully challenged at the high court in 2024, and the council resolved to approve the planning application in February last year. The plans would have seen the construction of 10 football pitches and other work on the park, near the club's men's training facilities.
Ecologist's report
Jenny Wigley KC, representing Guardians of Whitewebbs, said in written submissions that ecologist Giles Sutton had carried out a report on the environmental benefits of the plans in November 2024. Sutton told the council that while he did not oppose the scheme as such, it was counterintuitive to accept the club's claims that the site would benefit the local environment, as about 40% of the park would be lost. He added: In my opinion, if the council were to accept this, their decision could be easily challenged.
Wigley argued that council officers had stated in a planning report for councillors that there was no objection to the proposed development, despite Sutton telling the authority that this did not reflect his advice. She said Sutton's report clearly informed the planning officers' views and should have been presented as a background document for public inspection.
Wigley said: [The law] does not permit this kind of salami slicing, where a planning officer can disclose parts of a report they agree with but can avoid public scrutiny of the parts of the report they do not agree with.
Spurs' defence and judge's conclusion
James Maurici KC, representing Spurs, argued that Sutton's views were no more than an assertion and that the campaign group had failed to provide any evidence that it had been prejudiced by the council's failure to provide the document. He said: It is highly likely, indeed inevitable, given the absence of any evidence of prejudice, that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
But Kerr ruled that the council's noncompliance with rules was serious and that councillors were materially misled by the exclusion of Sutton's report.
Council response
Alessandro Georgiou, the Conservative leader of Enfield council since May 2026, said the authority was delighted with the decision and that it withdrew its defence as it would not have been in the best interests of residents across the borough. He added: We said we would protect Whitewebbs Park from this unacceptable proposal and we will now move forward with plans that reflect the needs of the local community and also preserve and protect this important area of Enfield.
