Enfield Dispatch

The Enfield Society adds its voice to growing calls for Tottenham Hotspur to abandon a planned women’s academy

The Enfield Society has issued a statement urging Tottenham Hotspur to abandon its plans for Whitewebbs Park.

The residents’ group – which has not previously opposed the proposals for a women’s football academy on the park – now states that Spurs “should withdraw gracefully” following the events of the past few months.

This summer, Spurs were defeated at the High Court, with a judge ruling in favour of the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group and quashing the planning permission issued by Enfield Council under the previous Labour administration.

But the Premier League club subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for a fresh hearing, signalling its intention to continue fighting – despite the new Conservative-run administration at the council urging Spurs to ditch the Whitewebbs plans entirely.

Last month the club’s chief executive Vinai Venkatesham said that the “immediate focus” is on “improving existing facilities” at Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre but added that the “long-term ambition for the women’s team’s base at Whitewebbs is unchanged” and that “current improvements are a temporary requirement, not an alternative to Whitewebbs”.

Last week The Enfield Society issued an update on its own position – for the first time, calling on Spurs to withdraw its plans.

The society’s statement said: “It has hitherto been the view of the society’s management committee that Spurs’ proposals for Whitewebbs were on balance acceptable. This view was based on the previous [Labour] council administration’s clear determination to dispose of part of the estate, and its unwillingness or inability to provide the necessary funding to maintain the estate and the heritage assets in it.

“It was felt that conditional acceptance of Spurs’ plans amounted to making the best of a bad situation, and that the loss of part of the estate was outweighed by the improvements promised for the remainder.”

However, with various developments this summer, The Enfield Society’s view has now shifted.

The statement continued: “The situation has changed and the [Conservative] council now wishes to retain all of the estate as a public asset. In these circumstances, and given the continued level of public opposition to the Spurs proposals, we believe that the result of the recent judicial review should be accepted and that Spurs should withdraw gracefully following the cancellation of its planning permission by the court.

“It is unreasonable to impose further expense on community bodies by prolonging legal proceedings.

“Spurs’ withdrawal would enable the future of the Whitewebbs estate to be considered in the round. In the society’s view this should include retaining the former golf course as open parkland, and a plan for the conservation/restoration as appropriate of Whitewebbs House, the Stable Block, Conduit House and North Lodge.”

The statement also commented on the recent revelations that Tottenham Hotspur had sought to purchase two historic buildings in the local area – Whitewebbs House and Myddelton House.

The Enfield Society statement added: “There is evidence that Spurs wishes to acquire either or both houses. This is unacceptable. Both Whitewebbs House and Myddelton Gardens are in their different ways assets of value to the community and should remain so.

“We do not wish to see the entire Whitewebbs area being swept into some kind of Spurs fiefdom.”

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

The relegation-threatened club recently applied for a fresh court hearing against the decision to quash planning permission

The chief executive of Tottenham Hotspur insists the club’s plans for a women’s academy at Whitwebbs Park “remain unchanged”.

Vinai Venkatesham, who took over from Daniel Levy in the role last year, recently addressed the club’s fan advisory board to give updates on a range of topics, including the controversial Whitewebbs plans.

This summer, Spurs were defeated at the High Court, with a judge ruling in favour of the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group and quashing the planning permission issued by Enfield Council under the previous Labour administration.

Since then, the Premier League club has applied to the Court of Appeal for a fresh hearing, signalling its intention to continue fighting – despite the new Conservative-run administration at the council urging Spurs to ditch the Whitewebbs plans entirely.

Regarding the future of the Spurs women’s team, recently-published minutes summarising Venkatesham’s comments state that the “immediate focus” is on “improving existing facilities” at Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre “to keep pace with the team’s growth”.

However, they add: “The long-term ambition for the women’s team’s base at Whitewebbs is unchanged and remains subject to an ongoing legal process.

“In the meantime, the club is investing in the team’s current facilities, including changing space, gym and a briefing room, because the current building has been outgrown.

“Current improvements are a temporary requirement, not an alternative to Whitewebbs.”

Back in June, High Court judge Sir Tim Kerr heard two days of evidence around the planning permission decision made last year and later explained in his written verdict that the council had deliberately “concealed” the expert opinion of a professional ecologist who had cast doubt on claims being made by Spurs over the biodiversity impact of the proposed training centre.

In doing this, wrote Kerr, “the committee were given the false impression that he did not disagree” and, therefore, were “materially misled”.

The appeal application is being made to the Court of Appeal because the High Court has already refused Spurs permission to appeal Kerr’s judgement. In rejecting this initial appeal, the judge stated that “the finding of material prejudice was a finding that real procedural unfairness had occurred”.

Asked for his reaction to the news last month, council leader Alessandro Georgiou told the Dispatch: “I am livid that a judgement was made, the voters delivered their verdict [at May’s election] and Spurs are not backing down. But I have faith in the judicial process.”

This summer’s judicial review case was brought by the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group, which collectively raised £35,000 to help fund it.

In a statement, Guardian of Whitewebbs said they were “extremely disappointed” at the decision by Spurs to pursue an appeal and “ignore the wishes of the local community and the new council administration”.

The unlawful decision to award planning permission to THFC was made under the previous Labour administration, which lost control of the civic centre to the Conservatives in May. Upon taking office, Cllr Georgiou dropped the local authority’s legal defence of the judicial review, leaving Spurs to fight alone in court.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

Tottenham Hotspur entered into discussions with Enfield Council and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority over purchasing Whitewebbs House and Myddelton House respectively, reports James Cracknell

Spurs have made moves to buy two historic buildings in the vicinity of the club’s Bulls Cross training base, emails seen by the Dispatch confirm.

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) entered negotiations with Enfield Council about purchasing the freehold of locally-listed Whitewebbs House – currently occupied by Toby Carvery – between July 2024 and April 2025.

This move was then followed a year later with an approach to Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) over a possible purchase of Myddelton House, a Grade 2-listed Regency villa surrounded by award-winning gardens – designed by renowned horticulturalist Edward Augustus Bowles – which is one of Enfield’s top visitor attractions.

While emails obtained under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) confirm that active discussions took place with THFC regarding both properties, these moves were ultimately unsuccessful and both the council and LVRPA have told the Dispatch they are not currently considering the sale of either building.

It remains unclear why THFC would want to acquire the buildings and what the club would do with them if any offer was accepted.

The Premier League’s bottom-placed club remains in a protracted legal battle with the council over the future of Whitewebbs Park, after a judge recently quashed the previous Labour administration’s decision to grant planning permission for a women’s training academy. THFC is now applying to appeal this verdict.

The club had previously struck a deal with the council to take control of around half of the park on a 25-year lease, worth £2million in total – although this was dependent on planning permission being obtained.

Partly-redacted emails seen by the Dispatch now show that less than 24 hours after Labour councillors voted to approve the Whitewebbs Park plans, an unknown person at THFC sent an email to senior people at the council – including current chief executive Perry Scott – asking for an update on a previous offer for Whitewebbs House that had been made in July 2024. The email states that the offer had been “at valuation level” but that Spurs had received “no response since”.

Later emails, in April 2025, show James Raven, the council’s then-director of property, responding positively to enquiries from THFC and suggesting they arrange “a time after Easter to meet up”. He also wrote: “Last place we left the Toby Carvery building was that you were going to ask the valuers to end a vacant possession value to their report. That was going to guide us on a potential marriage value between that and the valuation already provided.”

It was around this time that Mitchells and Butlers, the owner of Toby Carvery, cut down an ancient oak tree near Whitewebbs House without the council’s permission, sparking a high-profile controversy that ended a year later with an out-of-court settlement. The Whitewebbs oak felling is mentioned briefly in an email from THFC to Raven, as something they had “heard about”.

All of these conversations took place under the previous Labour administration, which was ousted from Enfield Civic Centre in May following the local election, when the Conservatives became the largest party.

Responding to the revelations about Whitewebbs House, a council spokesperson said: “Discussions took place between Enfield’s previous administration and Tottenham Hotspur in 2025. Since the change of administration in May 2026, no proposals have been presented to the cabinet, and no proposals are currently under consideration.”

Further emails also show that THFC made a move earlier this year to buy Myddelton House, as part of a larger deal to acquire the freehold for the existing Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre, which borders Myddelton, from LVRPA.

However, it appears that LVRPA did not go as far as the council in negotiating a price for its own historic property, with an unknown official writing in one email to a colleague on 7th May: “Please note that in the context of our wider business the disposal of Myddelton House is not a priority currently. I just don’t want you at this stage to build expectations at THFC.”

A month earlier, it appears that a meeting took place between THFC and LVRPA, at which Spurs set out that “any freehold sale” of the training centre would “have to include Myddelton House and the gardens” with “the upkeep and liability passing on to the club to maintain and keep open to the public as and when required”.

An email from an unknown sender also noted that the local election was imminent and that “any decision to sell would most likely be after this date”.

LVRPA is a statutory body responsible for managing Lee Valley Regional Park, which covers a series of interconnected green spaces along a 26-mile corridor of land through Hertfordshire and North London. LVRPA’s board includes a number of councillors from the areas the park covers, including Enfield’s deputy leader Michael Rye.

An LVRPA spokesperson said: “Lee Valley Regional Park Authority is not considering the sale of Myddelton House or its gardens. The house is the headquarters of the authority.

“We lease some of our land to third parties that run leisure facilities, as is the case with THFC for its training ground at Bulls Cross.

“For context, we are regularly approached by interested parties seeking to work with us or acquire land and, working with our appointed councillor members, we give all enquires due consideration and, for those that progress follow public procurement requirements.”

Caroline Day, a campaigner with the Guardians of Whitewebbs group who obtained the Spurs emails under FOI and EIR laws, told the Dispatch: “These documents illustrate that Spurs is interested in acquiring as much property as possible in the Whitewebbs/Bulls Cross area, including valued heritage assets, and their development ambitions don’t end with taking Whitewebbs Park away from the public for their own private gain.”

THFC declined to comment.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

It comes a month after a judge ruled that the planning permission issued to Spurs for a new women’s training centre at Whitewebbs Park should be quashed, reports James Cracknell

An application to appeal the recent Whitewebbs Park judicial review verdict has been submitted by Tottenham Hotspur FC (THFC).

The football club – currently bottom of the Premier League – wants to challenge the judge’s verdict which declared at the end of July that Enfield Council’s decision to issue permission for a women’s and girls’ training academy on Whitewebbs Park last year had been made unlawfully.

To do this, THFC has submitted a request to the Court of Appeal. This does not mean it will definitely go ahead, as the application will need to be approved first.

Back in June, High Court judge Sir Tim Kerr heard two days of evidence around the planning permission decision and later explained in his written verdict that the council had deliberately “concealed” the expert opinion of a professional ecologist who had cast doubt on claims being made by Spurs over the biodiversity impact of the proposed training centre.

In doing this, wrote Kerr, “the committee were given the false impression that he did not disagree” and, therefore, were “materially misled”.

The appeal application is being made to the Court of Appeal because the High Court has already refused THFC permission to appeal Kerr’s judgement. In rejecting this initial appeal, the judge stated that “the finding of material prejudice was a finding that real procedural unfairness had occurred”.

The judicial review case was brought by the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group, which collectively raised £35,000 to help fund it.

In a statement issued today (Thursday 3rd) after the group learned THFC was submitting an application to the Court of Appeal, Guardian of Whitewebbs said they were “extremely disappointed” at the decision by Spurs “to ignore the wishes of the local community and the new council administration”.

The unlawful decision to award planning permission to THFC was made under the previous Labour administration, which lost control of the civic centre to the Conservatives in May. Upon taking office, new council leader Alessandro Georgiou dropped the local authority’s legal defence of the judicial review, leaving Spurs to fight alone in court.

The statement continued: “The Guardians of Whitewebbs will do all we can to defend our park, no matter how long it takes. The importance of public green space has never been greater, and it is abundantly clear that parks should not be enclosed and given over to private business.

“Unfortunately, due to Spurs’ intransigence, there are additional legal costs for all parties. We will be incurring additional fees that we will be unlikely to recover even if the application is refused. We know you have recently been very generous, so we are not asking for further donations at this stage. However, our CrowdJustice fund will remain open for donations should you feel like giving now.

“These legal challenges have been costly for all parties yet fall most heavily on communities that do not have billions at their disposal. If Spurs are successful and get permission from the Court of Appeal, then we will be asking for your kind support in raising the funds necessary to cover the hearing costs.

“Despite the challenges of taking on a multi-billion-pound business, we are feeling very positive about our victorious judgment at the High Court and the future for Whitewebbs Park. We have been encouraged by the support of the new council administration in keeping our precious Green Belt safe from private development. And our eyes are fixed on the big prize: saving Whitewebbs for many future generations.”

Both THFC and Enfield Council declined to comment for this story.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

The judicial review verdict comes after a change of leadership at Enfield Council, which now opposes the Spurs plans for a training centre on the park, reports James Cracknell

Tottenham Hotspur’s plans to build on Whitwebbs Park have likely been dealt a fatal blow after a judge quashed the planning permission previously granted by Enfield Council.

Following a two-day judicial review in June which the council decided not to defend after the Conservatives took power in May, the judge has issued a ruling in which he quashes the decision under the previous Labour administration to approve the plans for a women’s and girls’ training centre on the park.

The case had been brought by the Guardians of Whitewebbs local campaign group, which argued at the High Court that the decision to award planning permission to Spurs last year had been unlawful. Their case was also backed by Dame Judi Dench.

In a statement this morning (Monday 27th), Alessandro Georgiou said: “This new administration pledged to protect Whitewebbs Park from unacceptable development and ensure it remains accessible for local residents and communities to enjoy. That is why we withdrew from defending this Judicial Review, as such a defence would not have been in the best interests of residents across the borough.

“We are delighted that the High Court has allowed this judicial review and quashed the planning permission granted for the proposed training academy at Whitewebbs Park.

“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 Dispatch understands that the council now intends to work closely with Tottenham Hotspur to find an alternative site in the borough for the women’s and girls’ training academy.

In a statement, Tottenham Hotspur said: “We are disappointed by today’s High Court judgment concerning the planning permission for our proposed Women’s and Girls’ Training Centre at Whitewebbs.

“The court’s decision concerns the legal process followed by Enfield Council in granting planning permission, rather than the planning merits of the proposed development itself.

“We continue to believe the proposals would deliver significant benefits for Enfield by safeguarding Whitewebbs as a green space, improving access to nature, restoring important heritage assets, creating new facilities for local residents, community groups and sports clubs whilst delivering a lasting legacy for women’s and girls’ sport.

“The development would create a world-leading Women’s and Girls’ Training Centre, helping to establish Enfield as a leading destination for the women’s and girls’ game. Alongside elite facilities, it would create new opportunities for girls across the borough to play and develop through expanded coaching, education and community programmes, while providing a visible pathway from grassroots football to the very highest levels of the game.

“We remain committed to Enfield and to continuing the work we have undertaken in the borough for many years through investment in sport, education and community programmes. We will now consider the judgement carefully and determine our next steps.”

This is a breaking news story – further updates and reaction will be added as it arrives

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

The judicial review case went ahead despite Enfield Council choosing not to make any legal defence of its decision to award planning permission last year, reports James Cracknell

The fate of Tottenham Hotspur’s plans to build a training facility on Whitewebbs Park rests in the hands of a judge who spent two days at the High Court this week hearing legal arguments for and against the decision to approve the scheme.

In what was the second time in as many years that the future of Whitewebbs was debated at the High Court, on this occasion the judicial review case abnormally proceeded without any legal defence being put forward by Enfield Council, which had awarded the Premier League club planning permission for the women’s training centre last year.

That’s because the council recently underwent a political transition from the previous Labour leadership – which fully backed the controversial scheme proposed on the park’s former golf course – and the new minority Conservative administration which won election last month on a key pledge to “save Whitewebbs” from development.

Instead of the council’s legal defence, the court instead heard extensive arguments made by a barrister from Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) – with Spurs retaining the right to representation at the hearing thanks to having ‘interested party’ status for the hearing.

The judicial review began with lawyers instructed by the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group putting forward their five ‘grounds’ for the case, essentially arguing that the decision to grant planning permission had been made unlawfully.

The first ground was the claim the council had failed to disclose to councillors the views of a professional ecologist who had raised “serious concerns” about the Whitewebbs Park plans, allegedly causing the planning committee to be “misled”.

The second and third grounds concerned alleged failures to represent or interpret the council’s own planning policies, while the fourth argued the civic centre “erred in its consideration of impacts on the openness of the Green Belt”.

The fifth and final ground for the case put forward by the claimant was the accusation the council had been “biased” in favour of THFC thanks to the hospitality and gifts given to key people at the council by the football club.

Written submissions from the Guardians of Whitewebbs legal team, led by Jenny Wigley KC, revealed that Guardians of Whitewebbs campaigner Sam Tillbrook had used transparency laws to obtain council documents revealing that Giles Sutton – instructed to provide ecological advice for the council in respect of the planning application – had warned in November 2024 that estimates for biological net gain (BNG) made by THFC in its planning application resulted from an “incorrect” classification of the park’s woodland.

Sutton wrote: “In my opinion if the council were to accept this their decision could be easily challenged.”

However, Wigley argued that the council officers’ report prepared in advance of the planning committee meeting on 11th February 2025 – which ultimately resulted in the scheme being voted through by Labour councillors – failed to explain or even mention Sutton’s “serious concerns about [Tottenham Hotspur’s] BNG calculations, and the fact that the council’s own ecologist agreed with objectors on this key issue”.

Instead, the officer’s report stated there was “no objection” from the council’s ecologist, resulting in the planning committee being “materially misled by planning officers”.

“If objectors and committee members had known about the dispute between the council’s own ecology experts, plainly this could have made a difference to the outcome,” Wigley argued.

In response, THFC barrister James Maurici KC explained that there was “extra ecological work” conducted as a result of Sutton’s concerns and that he had ultimately been “satisfied” by the results, with Maurici noting in particular that a reptile survey had found “just a single record of a common lizard” on the site.

“There were strongly held professional views [by THFC] that there was no need to do these surveys,” Maurici told the court. “But in the end they were done, and Mr Sutton was satisfied.”

It was later pointed out by Alex Shattock, another barrister representing Guardians of Whitewebbs, that the common lizard is a protected species under UK law.

The second ground for the case saw the claimant argue that the council had “asked the wrong question” regarding one of its own policies, centred around the impact of the planning application on the local landscape.

“In effect, the officers’ report reversed the proper application [of the policy], from asking whether it would net improve the area of special character to asking whether it would not harm it.”

Maurici rejected this argument as “a classic case of excessive legalism” and that the “landscape character was considered very carefully in the officer report”.

He added that “the ultimate conclusion on landscape impact was that in ten years [the development] would actually be beneficial overall” thanks to “a huge number of positive aspects of these proposals, which were weighed up carefully by the committee members”.

The third ground for the judicial review claimed that the council’s planning report “failed properly to understand and/or apply” a policy that “requires refusal of any planning application that fails to conserve and enhance the special interest, significance or setting of a heritage asset”.

On this point the presiding judge in the case, Sir Timothy Kerr, noted that while the overall impact of the development was assessed by the council to be positive in broad terms, “the officers [in their report] make no bones about there being very high levels of harm to the park”.

Maurici countered: “I say the policy itself does not require a silo approach. The officers were entitled to take an overall view on heritage and overall it was positive. That is a legal judgement.”

The fourth ground for the claimant’s case concerned the council’s approach to considering the “openness of the Green Belt” on which the Guardians of Whitewebbs claimed the civic centre had “erred”.

They argued: “With the council accepting that the planning application entails the permanent loss of open space, it is difficult to understand how it could equally take the view that the replacement of open space with (largely) private football pitches and associated infrastructure would not impact on the openness of the Green Belt at all.”

Defending THFC on this point, Maurici explained to the court that “a lot of land in the Green Belt is privately owned” and that it was very common for there to be no public access to such land.

In this context, he argued, “openness is different from and not connected to whether there is public access or not”.

The fifth and final ground for the case – that “the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility the council in granting permission was biased” – was fiercely debated in the courtroom on the second day of the judicial review.

Guardians of Whitewebbs highlighted several examples of hospitality being offered and accepted by senior officers and councillors in the months immediately following the committee meeting which voted to grant permission for THFC’s Whitewebbs training centre.

This included the council’s chief executive Ian Davis and his interim successor Perry Scott meeting then-Spurs chairman Daniel Levy for a “working lunch” on 11th March 2025; Davis and a guest being gifted director’s box seats to a rugby match at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on 22nd March; and then-council leader Ergin Erbil attending both a “charity legends” match on 23rd March and accepting a “VIP invitation” for the Europa League trophy parade on 15th May.

However, in defence of these gifts, Maurici pointed out that it was normal for a local authority to have a close working relationship with an organisation that already operated in the borough.

Arguing that THFC was “different to the ordinary developer” Maurici said: “The reason for that is the club’s activities spread into Enfield and that necessitates working with the council.

“They are one of the largest private sector employers in Enfield.”

Maurici also noted that “none of the offers of hospitality were made to members of the planning committee” nor to “officers charged with writing the [planning] report”.

However, after Maurici attempted to downplay the financial value of the hospitality gifts offered to Davis and Cllr Erbil, Mr Justice Kerr pointed out there was a “long waiting list” for season tickets at Spurs and that being invited to the director’s box was “difficult to monetise” because such an experience was unavailable to the general public.

Shattock added that where there was such a “close working relationship” between a council and a planning applicant “it calls for even clearer transparency”.

The claim of “bias” was also linked by the claimant to the decision not to include Sutton’s ecological advice in the council officers’ report, arguing that “the council appeared to be predisposed towards rejecting it”.

This was strongly refuted by Maurici.

In her final arguments at the end of the two-day case, Wigley hammered home the point about Sutton’s concerns being sidelined.

“We just simply don’t know – if they [the planning committee] had been given clear, firm and transparent information on the expert lack of consensus – how they would have weighed the balance.”

The judge’s written verdict on the case is not expected to be published for several weeks.

Two years ago, a judge who heard a separate judicial review case brought by Friends of Whitewebbs Park chair Sean Wilkinson against the council’s decision to award a 25-year lease to THFC eventually ruled in the council’s favour.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

The new minority Conservative administration has vowed to block the plans for a women’s training centre on the park, reports Joe Ives, Local Democracy Reporter, and James Cracknell

The newly-elected leader of Enfield Council has vowed to stop Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) building a women’s training facility on Whitewebbs Park.

At this week’s annual council meeting on Wednesday (28th), the leader of the new minority Conservative administration, Alessandro Georgiou, said he would refuse to sign a lease to the Premier League football club in order to preserve Whitewebbs “for the enjoyment of future generations”.

Planning permission for a new women’s and girls’ football academy had been granted last year by the previous Labour administration, with THFC proposing to build on a 16-hectare area of the park’s former golf course – with large fences surrounding it.

However, former council leader and Spurs fan Ergin Erbil failed to formally sign off on a 25-year lease of the park to THFC prior to this month’s election, when Labour lost their majority.

This gave the Conservatives an opportunity to block the plans, as they had vowed to do in their election manifesto.

THFC have been approached regarding the new council leader’s announcement, but the North London club declined to comment.

The lease, had it been signed, would have been worth £2million to the council.

Earlier this year, actor Dame Judi Dench backed the campaign against Spurs’ development at Whitewebbs, saying it was “essential” to “protect people’s access to nature”.

Local campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs had also launched a legal challenge against the council’s decision to grant planning permission, with a judicial review scheduled to take place at the High Court on 24th-25th June. It’s not yet been confirmed whether this case will still be going ahead, but given the council’s new leadership it seems unlikely.

The Conservatives took minority control of the council this week after the Greens abstained on the vote over the election of Cllr Georgiou as council leader, allowing the 31 Tory councillors to defeat Labour’s 27.

Both groups campaigned to protect Enfield’s green spaces in the election and are united in their determination to prevent new development on the borough’s Green Belt. This includes the training facilities planned for Whitewebbs Park.

It also includes plans by the Labour-led government to potentially build up to 21,000 homes on large areas of Green Belt land in Crews Hill and ‘Chase Park’, to the borough’s north. In one of his first actions as leader, Cllr Georgiou wrote to the government saying the council would be withdrawing its interest in the scheme.

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

ACT NOW!

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

Labour council leader Ergin Erbil accepted five tickets to a legends match shortly after Tottenham Hotspur won planning approval for its training centre at Whitewebbs, reports James Cracknell

Enfield Council has dismissed a complaint over freebies handed to leader Ergin Erbil by Tottenham Hotspur shortly after the Premier League club won approval for its plans at Whitewebbs.

Last year Cllr Erbil accepted free tickets from Spurs in the months immediately following the decision by the council’s planning committee – which he does not sit on – to approve the club’s plans for a women’s and girls’ training centre at Whitewebbs Park.

The freebies were five tickets to a legend’s match in March 2025 and an invitation to join the victory parade in May following Spurs’ victory in the Europa League Final.

After the news of these gifts being declared by Cllr Erbil, Sam Gracie Tilbrook – from the Guardians of Whitewebbs campaign group which aims to stop Spurs building on the park – filed an official complaint with the council, alleging the freebies breached the members’ code of conduct.

The complaint was investigated by a governance advisor at the council, who issued his final complaint report last week following sign-off by the council’s monitoring officer and director of legal and governance, Terry Osborne.

The report, seen by the Dispatch, dismisses the complaint against Cllr Erbil. It states: “I find that Cllr Erbil declared the hospitality to the monitoring officer before accepting it and that acceptance of the hospitality was not a breach of the code in either instance.

“The code of conduct does not prohibit the acceptance of gifts and hospitality, and I find that advice was sought and followed and that the hospitality was properly recorded. I also find that it was not excessive in its likely value.”

Regarding the decision to approve the planning application from Tottenham Hotspur in the week’s prior to Cllr Erbil being offered and then accepting his freebies by the club, the report states: “Cllr Erbil was not a member of the planning committee and was not present at the meeting. In any event, the meeting took place before the events took place and before the hospitality was offered and accepted.

“I note that the planning permission was not issued until 22 July 2025, but I find that Cllr Erbil was not involved in the issuing of the permission and the permission was issued in accordance with the decision of the earlier committee meeting.”

The Guardians of Whitewebbs group is currently preparing for a judicial review challenge against the council’s decision to grant planning permission to Spurs. The case will be heard at the High Court in June.

Responding to the rejection of his complaint over Cllr Erbil’s freebies, Sam said: “Myself and the wider community perceive a bias and unfairness in relation to this and other matters which lends to a distrust of council processes and undermines faith in local democracy.”

Sam pointed to a part of the complaint report which suggests a council guidance note on gifts and hospitality received by councillors had “fallen into disuse” and, even though the complaint was still assessed against this guidance, the monitoring officer was now recommending that “the guidance referred to by the complainant should be revised and re-issued or withdrawn completely if it serves no useful purpose” and that this would be considered “in the coming months”.

Sam has now submitted an additional complaint, this time to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Cllr Erbil is the third successive Labour leader of the council to have accepted some kind of free ticket or hospitality gift from Spurs, going back over a decade, with Doug Taylor and Nesil Caliskan also having done so during their periods in charge from 2010-2018 and 2018-2024 respectively.

Asked to comment at the time of his first football freebie being revealed by the Dispatch last year, Cllr Erbil denied that Spurs had “purchased influence” with the council by handing out free gifts and added: “I acted transparently and in good faith, and I reject the idea that attending a charity event with other community stakeholders compromises my integrity.”

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

Football club says the 15-metre light columns are necessary for Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre to host European youth fixtures this season, reports James Cracknell

New floodlights installed at Tottenham Hotspur Training Centre have been slammed as “devastating” for wildlife and “blinding” for visitors at Forty Hall.

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) recently installed the six new floodlights without prior planning permission – but is now seeking retrospective approval from Enfield Council.

The Premier League club states that the 15-metre floodlights are needed in order to host European youth fixtures at the training ground this season, following qualification for the Champions League.

As well as the floodlights, the club has installed a new stand overlooking one of its pitches, which lies adjacent to both Forty Hall Estate and Myddelton House Gardens.

While the training ground already has floodlights to illuminate some of its other pitches, the new ones are brighter, as they must comply with UEFA regulations for competitive games.

Sam Tillbrook, an Enfield resident and member of the Guardians of Whitewebbs group which has been campaigning against the new Spurs women’s academy at Whitewebbs Park, has objected to the floodlights after being “shocked” to see them on a recent visit to Forty Hall.

Forty Hall often hosts evening events, so public access sometimes remains even after dark. The floodlights are also needed during daylight hours on cloudy days.

In his objection to the council, which will shortly decide the THFC planning application, Sam wrote: “I was shocked to walk into Forty Hall Estate on 14th November and to be struck by industrial-size, blinding, telescopic floodlights, which not only completely detracted from the heritage setting, but must surely also be devastating to bats, other nocturnal wildlife and most animals in general.

“It actually looks rather dystopian, and I couldn’t quite believe my eyes. That’s quite something, considering I was standing nearly 800 metres away from the floodlights. I note that in the planning application’s ‘lighting assessment’, it mentioned that the floodlights emit 134,000 lumens, which is an extreme level of brightness.”

He added: “I cannot object more strongly to this application, and very much trust Enfield Council will reject it, and will fine the applicant for their outrageous actions.”

THFC states in its planning application that the floodlights are “temporary” and will be removed after 31st March 2026 – suggesting the club is not planning on qualifying for the Champions League again in 2026/27.

It also states the training centre pitch “sits within a viewing corridor from Forty Hall” but that “it is screened by an established area of trees which limit any views” of the pitch where the floodlights have been installed. Photographs of the floodlights, however, contradict this statement.

In a cover letter to the council dated 7th October, James Beynon, director of THFC’s planning consultants Quod, said: “UEFA impose strict requirements for facilities hosting youth league matches and THFC do not currently have a facility that can satisfy all of these.

“The U19 team usually play at the training centre and will continue to do so for UEFA matches […] it is not feasible to play the games at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium given that the first team game is scheduled for later the same day.”

Beynon adds: “Floodlights would only be used when strictly necessary and, in the event of poor lighting or a later kick off, they would not be used beyond the training centre’s 8.30pm restriction.”

For its planning application, consultancy firm EDP Environmental conducted a lighting assessment on behalf of Tottenham Hotspur, which states: “The proposed lighting solution will illuminate the pitch to the required standard […] any light spill will be largely contained within the immediate area around Pitch A2.

“There will be minimal light spill to the adjoining pitches and other surrounding areas.”

THFC was approached for comment but did not respond. The council was also approached for comment.

Find out more about the floodlights via the council’s planning portal using reference number 25/03473/FUL.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly

Campaigners have expressed their disappointment as decision paves way for 16 hectares of parkland to be enclosed by the Premier League club

The office of Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan has approved a controversial plan by Tottenham Hotspur to fence off part of Whitewebbs Park and build a women’s football academy – despite admitting it represents “inappropriate” development.

The scheme – already approved by Enfield Council’s planning committee in February – was automatically referred to City Hall for final approval because the park falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Khan had been urged by Conservative councillors in Whitewebbs ward as well as several hundred local residents to use his mayoral powers to overturn the council planning committee’s decision, as they argued that a private company fencing off of a public park would set an unwanted precedent.

However, last night (Monday 14th) City Hall announced the decision to approve planning permission for the women’s and girls’ football academy. A mayoral spokesperson said: “On 14th July 2025 the deputy mayor for planning and regeneration, acting under delegated authority [of Khan], resolved to allow Enfield Council to determine the application for a women’s and girls’ football academy at Whitewebbs Park itself.

“In making his decision on the stage two referral, the deputy mayor took account of all representations received, in addition to the GLA [Greater London Authority] officers’ detailed assessment of the proposal and strategic planning issues.

“As part of the latter, consideration was given to the fact that while the proposal represents inappropriate development on the Green Belt, very special circumstances have been demonstrated and a package of public benefits secured which outweigh the harm.”

‘Save Whitewebbs’ campaigners held a protest outside City Hall last night just prior to the decision being announced.

Following the verdict, the Guardians of Whitewebbs group said in a statement: “We are sincerely disappointed that the mayor has not seen fit to refuse the development of our beloved local park. The development flies in the face of common sense, when it entails the loss of a huge section of much-needed public space and the destruction of biodiverse parkland.

“Our objections to the development were carefully set out and we believe that it will entail a staggering loss to Green Belt open land that ought to have been protected with site of importance for nature conservation status. The paltry public ‘offering’ constituted by football pitches can in no way make up for the permanent loss and degradation of green space.

“Nevertheless, the Guardians of Whitewebbs remain resolute and determined to explore all avenues for safeguarding the park for all. We will be announcing an open meeting shortly for all concerned by the news to learn about our next steps. Please stay up to data via our Instagram, newsletter and WhatsApp groups.”

Sean Wilkinson, the chair of the Friends of Whitewebbs Park group who last year led an unsuccessful legal challenge against the council’s decision to issue a 25-year lease to Spurs for the former Whitewebbs Parks Golf Course, told the Dispatch today (Tuesday 15th): “Obviously we are very disappointed, and I can’t understand how the mayor is prepared to give up public space in the Green Belt for a semi-industrial project.

“I think it shows a total disregard of public open space for the people of London […] the public benefits of the scheme have been grossly exaggerated.”

As part of its plans, Tottenham Hotspur FC has pledged to run a ten-year community outreach programme, including 36,700 hours of football activities and a commitment to reach deprived parts of the borough.

The club today declined to comment on City Hall’s decision.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly