In, R (Guardians of Whitewebbs Park CIC) v London Borough of Enfield [2026] EWHC 1916 (Admin), the High Court has quashed Enfield Council’s decision to grant planning permission to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club for the redevelopment of 16 hectares of public parkland in Whitewebbs Park in a football training complex.
Whitewebbs Park is a large area of open space in the London Borough of Enfield which formerly housed a public golf course. In 2023, Enfield Council leased 54% of the park to Tottenham Hotspur FC, subject to the grant of planning permission. Planning permission was subsequently granted in July 2025 for the redevelopment of 18% of the park to provide football pitches, a training academy and associated buildings.
The Claimant, community organisation Guardians of Whitewebbs CIC, issued judicial review proceedings against Enfield Council on six grounds, five of which were granted permission. Ground 1 alleged that the Council had breached section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 in failing to publish or record in the officer’s report the consultation response from the Council’s Ecology Officer, which raised concerns over Biodiversity Net Gain. Instead, the officer’s report prepared in support of the planning application stated that the Ecology Officer had “no objection”.
In a judgment handed down on 27 July 2026, Sir Timothy Kerr, sitting in retirement as a High Court judge, allowed the claim on Ground 1. The Judge accepted that the Ecology Officer’s consultation response was a “background paper” for the purposes of section 100D and should have been published. The Court also found that the officer’s report had misled members as to the Ecology Officer’s views.
Moreover, both errors of law were found to be material. There was substantial disagreement over the Biodiversity Net Gain credentials of the planning application, and “the disagreement was important because inadequate BNG was one of the objectors’ major grounds of objection” [104]. The failure to publish the consultation response prior to the planning committee meeting resulted in material prejudice to the Claimant group, which was left “bereft of credible evidence” on the BNG disagreement [113].
The case has generated significant media interest, including:
The Guardian
Independent
BBC News
Planning Resource (paywalled)
Jenny Wigley KC, Alex Shattock and Claudia Hyde acted for the Claimant, instructed by Harriet Child at Public Interest Law Centre.
James Maurici KC and Joel Semakula acted for the Interested Party, Tottenham Hotspur FC, instructed by Keystone Law.
Click here to read the judgment