High Court judge dismisses Enfield Council’s planning permission for the project in Whitewebbs Park
Whitewebbs Park in Enfield
In Pictures via Getty Images
Michael Howie, Senior News Editor
COMMENTS
Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis
I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.
Tottenham Hotspur has had its planning permission for a new women and girls’ training facility on a north London park quashed by a High Court judge.
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Tim Kerr struck down Enfield Council’s green light for the project in Whitewebbs Park.
The decision is a victory for campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs, which argued the council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new women and girls’ football academy on 16 acres of land was unlawful.
The group’s lawyers told an earlier hearing in London 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”.
They 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.
It also said that allegations of bias were “completely overblown”.
In his ruling, Sir Tim 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”.
The club agreed a 25-year lease for the site in 2023 – a decision that was unsuccessfully challenged at the High Court in 2024 – and the council resolved to approve the planning application in February last year.
A general view of Whitewebbs Park in north London
In Pictures via Getty Images
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.
Jenny Wigley KC, for Guardians of Whitewebbs, said in written submissions that in November 2024, ecologist Giles Sutton had carried out a report into the environmental benefits of the plans.
Mr Sutton told the council that while he did not oppose the scheme “as such”, it was “counter-intuitive” to accept the club’s claims that the site would benefit the local environment as around 40% of the park would be lost, adding: “In my opinion, if the council were to accept this, their decision could be easily challenged.”
Read More
Man jailed for ‘bestial’ rape of 15-year-old girl in Edinburgh
Chinook crash families urge new PM to back fresh review into 1994 tragedy
Dublin museum employee charged with possessing explosives in Irish border case
Sponsored
Art After Dark is back with an exciting calendar of cultural events
But Ms Wigley said that council officers said in a planning report for councillors that there was “no objection to the proposed development”, despite Mr Sutton telling the authority that this did not reflect his advice.
The barrister continued that Mr 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.
She 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, for Spurs, said Mr Sutton’s views were “no more than an assertion” and that Guardians 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 Sir Tim said 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 also said the club was “wrong to submit” that “there is nothing that (Guardians of Whitewebbs) could or would have usefully said if Mr Sutton’s ecological report had been disclosed”.
He said: “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.”
MORE ABOUT
