High Court Halts Tottenham’s Proposed Training Facility in Whitewebbs Park

The High Court has set aside the council’s approval for Tottenham Hotspur’s proposal to construct a new training facility within a north London park.

In June, the advocacy group Guardians of Whitewebbs asserted that Enfield Council’s grant of planning permission for a women’s and girls’ football academy on 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of Whitewebbs Park was unlawful.

The group’s legal representatives argued that the council contravened procedural rules by failing to supply councillors with complete information on the development’s environmental implications, thereby materially misleading them.

Campaigners further alleged a genuine risk of bias, citing Tottenham’s alleged unparalleled access to senior council officials during the application process.

Enfield Council, previously led by a Labour administration but now governed by a Conservative minority, withdrew its defence to the claim last month.

Tottenham Hotspur continued to oppose the challenge, arguing that the outcome would inevitably have been identical had the missing information been disclosed.

The club characterised the bias allegations as entirely overstated.

In a Monday ruling, High Court Justice Sir Tim Kerr quashed the approval of the plans, concluding that the decision could have differed had all pertinent information been accessible.

He dismissed the bias claims as weak, noting that cordial relations between the council and the club are customary given their overlapping functions and interests.

Spurs secured a 25-year lease for the site in 2023 — a decision previously unsuccessfully contested in the High Court in 2024 — and the council approved the planning application in February of the preceding year.

The proposal envisioned the construction of ten football pitches and additional works within the park, adjacent to the club’s men’s training facilities.

Jenny Wigley KC, counsel for Guardians of Whitewebbs, submitted in writing that ecologist Giles Sutton had prepared a report evaluating the environmental benefits of the scheme in November 2024.

Sutton informed the council that, although he did not oppose the scheme per se, it was counterintuitive to accept the club’s assertion that the site would benefit the local environment, given that approximately 40% of the park would be lost.

“In my view, if the council were to accept this, their decision could be readily challenged,” he added.

However, Wigley stated that council officers had indicated in a planning report to councillors that there was “no objection to the proposed development,” despite Sutton informing the authority that this did not align with his advice.

She further asserted that Sutton’s report “clearly informed the planning officers’ views” on the scheme’s environmental impact and ought to have been published as a “background document,” thereby making it accessible to public scrutiny.

‘The law does not permit such selective disclosure — what I term “salami slicing” — where a planning officer shares portions of a report they endorse while withholding scrutiny of dissenting sections,’ she remarked.

James Maurici KC, counsel for Spurs, contended that Sutton’s views constituted merely an assertion and that Guardians of Whitewebbs had failed to furnish any evidence of prejudice resulting from the council’s omission of the document.

He further argued that, absent any evidence of prejudice, it was highly probable — indeed inevitable — that the claimant’s outcome would not have differed materially had the disputed conduct not transpired.

Nevertheless, Justice Kerr deemed the council’s noncompliance with statutory requirements serious and concluded that councillors had been materially misled by the exclusion of Sutton’s report.

Alessandro Georgiou, the Conservative leader of Enfield Council since May 2026, expressed satisfaction with the decision and stated that withdrawing the defence served the best interests of the borough’s residents.

He added that the council would now pursue plans reflecting local community needs while preserving and protecting this significant area of Enfield.

Source link