A High Court judge has quashed Enfield council’s decision to grant planning permission for Tottenham Hotspur’s proposed new training facility in Whitewebbs Park in north London. The ruling on Monday means the approval for a women and girls’ football academy on 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of land has been struck down.
Why was the council’s decision challenged?
The campaign group s of Whitewebbs told a hearing in June that Enfield council’s decision to allow Spurs to proceed with a new women and girls’ football academy on 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of land in Whitewebbs Park was unlawful.
The group’s lawyers told the hearing in London that the council breached the rules when making its decision, as councillors were not provided with all relevant information regarding the development’s environmental impact, meaning they were “materially misled”.
Campaigners also claimed there was a “real possibility of bias” in the decision as Spurs had “unparalleled access” to senior council figures at the time of the application.
Enfield council, which was Labour-controlled at the time but is now run by a Conservative minority administration, withdrew its defence to the claim last month.
But Spurs continued to oppose the challenge, claiming it should be dismissed as the result “would inevitably have been the same” had the information been provided.
The club also said the allegations of bias were “completely overblown”.
What did the High Court decide?
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Tim Kerr, sitting as a high court judge, quashed the decision to approve the plans, finding the result “could well have been different” had all the relevant information about the scheme been available.
He dismissed claims concerning potential bias, describing the group’s arguments as “weak” and stating that “cordial relations” between the council and the club were “normal given the overlapping functions and interests”.
Spurs agreed a 25-year lease for the site in 2023 – a decision that was at the high court in 2024 – and the council resolved to in February last year.
The plans would have seen the construction of 10 football pitches and other work on the park, which is near the club’s men’s training facilities.
What evidence was relied on in the case?
Jenny Wigley KC, representing s of Whitewebbs, said in written submissions that the ecologist Giles Sutton had carried out a report into 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.
“In my opinion, if the council were to accept this, their decision could be easily challenged,”he added.
But Wigley said council officers had said 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 continued that Sutton’s report “clearly informed the planning officers’ views” on the environmental impact of the scheme and should have been presented as a “background document”, meaning members of the public could have inspected it.
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.
James Maurici KC, representing Spurs, said Sutton’s views were “no more than an assertion” and that s of Whitewebbs had “failed to provide any evidence” that it had been prejudiced by the council’s failure to provide the document.
He continued:
“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 said the council’s non-compliance with rules was “serious” and that councillors were “materially misled” by the exclusion of Sutton’s report.
How did Enfield council respond?
Alessandro Georgiou, the leader of Enfield council, 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.”
The case centred on Spurs’ 25-year lease for the site, agreed in 2023, and the council’s later resolution in February last year to allow the development. The proposal would have involved 10 football pitches and other work on land in Whitewebbs Park, near the club’s men’s training facilities, and the challenge has now succeeded because the judge found the planning process was flawed.
Key Facts
- Enfield council’s approval for Spurs’ training facility plans in Whitewebbs Park has been quashed by Sir Tim Kerr at the High Court on Monday.
- The proposal covered 6.5 hectares (16 acres) and would have included 10 football pitches and other work on the park.
- s of Whitewebbs argued councillors were “materially misled” and that there was a “real possibility of bias”.
- Spurs said the allegations of bias were “completely overblown” and that the outcome would have been the same.
- Enfield council leader Alessandro Georgiou said the authority would move forward with plans that protect Whitewebbs Park.
