A High Court judge has overturned a council decision permitting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to develop a new training complex in a north London park.
At a hearing in June, the campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs argued that Enfield council acted unlawfully when it approved plans for a women’s and girls’ football academy covering 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of Whitewebbs Park.
Lawyers for the group told the London hearing that the council failed to follow the required procedures because councillors did not receive all the relevant details about the project’s environmental consequences, leaving them “materially misled”.
The campaigners further alleged that there was a “real possibility of bias”, claiming Spurs enjoyed “unparalleled access” to senior council officials while the application was under consideration.
Enfield council, which was controlled by Labour at the time and is now governed by a Conservative minority administration, abandoned its defence of the legal claim last month.
Spurs nevertheless continued to contest the challenge, arguing that it should be rejected because the decision “would inevitably have been the same” even if the missing information had been supplied.
The club also described the accusations of bias as “completely overblown”.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, Sir Tim Kerr, sitting as a High Court judge, set aside the planning approval after concluding that the outcome “could well have been different” if all pertinent information about the proposal had been disclosed.
However, he rejected the allegations of possible bias, calling the campaign group’s case “weak” and saying that “cordial relations” between the authority and the club were ordinary because their responsibilities and interests overlapped.
Spurs secured a 25-year lease on the land in 2023. A High Court challenge to that agreement failed in 2024, and the council later voted to approve the planning proposal in February last year.
The development would have created 10 football pitches alongside additional facilities and construction work in the park, close to the club’s training centre for its men’s team.
In written arguments, Jenny Wigley KC, acting for Guardians of Whitewebbs, said ecologist Giles Sutton completed an assessment of the project’s claimed environmental advantages in November 2024.
Sutton informed the council that although he did not object to the proposal “as such”, accepting the club’s claim that it would improve the local environment was “counterintuitive” because roughly 40% of the park would be lost.
He added: “In my view, the council could leave its decision open to a straightforward challenge if it accepted that position.”
Wigley said that, despite Sutton telling the authority that its account did not accurately represent his advice, council officers stated in their report to councillors that there was “no objection to the proposed development”.
She argued that Sutton’s assessment had “clearly informed the planning officers’ views” about the proposal’s environmental effects and should have been listed as a “background document” available for public inspection.
Wigley said: “[The law] does not allow information to be divided in this way, enabling a planning officer to reveal the sections of a report they support while shielding the sections they dispute from public examination.”
James Maurici KC, appearing for Spurs, described Sutton’s position as “no more than an assertion” and said Guardians of Whitewebbs had “failed to provide any evidence” that the council’s omission of the document had caused the group any disadvantage.
He added: “Given that there is no evidence of prejudice, it is highly probable—and effectively unavoidable—that the claimant’s result would not have been meaningfully different even if the alleged conduct had not taken place.”
Kerr disagreed, finding that the council’s failure to comply with the rules was “serious” and that withholding Sutton’s report had left councillors “materially misled”.
Alessandro Georgiou, who has served as the Conservative leader of Enfield council since May 2026, welcomed the ruling. He said the authority had ended its defence because continuing it would “not have been in the best interests of residents across the borough”.
He added: “We promised to defend Whitewebbs Park against this unacceptable scheme. We will now pursue proposals that respond to the local community’s needs while safeguarding and conserving this significant part of Enfield.”
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
