A High Court judge has quashed Tottenham Hotspur's planning permission for a new women's and girls' training facility in Whitewebbs Park, north London. Sir Tim Kerr ruled on Monday that Enfield Council's decision to approve the project was unlawful.
Ruling and Background
The judge struck down the planning permission granted by Enfield Council, which was Labour-controlled at the time. The council withdrew its defence to the legal challenge last month, but Spurs continued to oppose it. The club had agreed a 25-year lease for the site in 2023, and the council resolved to approve the application in February last year. The plans included 10 football pitches and other work on the park near the club's men's training facilities.
Campaign Group's Objections
Guardians of Whitewebbs, the campaign group behind the challenge, argued the council breached rules by not providing councillors with all relevant information about the development's environmental impact. They claimed councillors were "materially misled" and alleged a "real possibility of bias" due to Spurs having "unparalleled access" to senior council figures. The club described the bias allegations as "completely overblown."
Ecologist Giles Sutton had carried out a report on the environmental benefits of the plans in November 2024. He told the council it was "counter-intuitive" to accept the club's claims that the site would benefit the environment, as around 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." However, council officers stated in a planning report that there was "no objection to the proposed development," despite Mr Sutton saying this did not reflect his advice.
Judge's Findings
Sir Tim Kerr dismissed the bias claims, calling them "weak" and noting "cordial relations" between the council and the club were "normal given the overlapping functions and interests." However, he found the council's non-compliance with rules was "serious" and that councillors were "materially misled" by the exclusion of Mr Sutton's report. The judge said the club was "wrong to submit" that the campaign group could not have added anything useful if the report had been disclosed. He stated: "It was important for the public to have access to (Mr Sutton’s report) before the meeting precisely because its content was not correctly represented in the officers’ report."
