UK High Court quashes Tottenham Hotspur women's training base planning approval

Eveliina Summanen (centre) celebrates with teammates after scoring for Tottenham Hotspur in their Women's FA Cup quarter-final against Chelsea in April. Photograph: Alex Davidson/The FA/Getty Images

Judge Quashes Enfield Council’s Decision to Grant Planning Permission for New Women’s and Girls’ Football Academy

A council’s decision to allow Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to build a new training facility in a park in north London has been quashed by a judge at the high court.

The campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs told a hearing in June that Enfield council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new women’s 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”.

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 unsuccessfully challenged at the high court in 2024 – and the council resolved to approve the planning application 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.

Jenny Wigley KC, representing Guardians 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 a personal opinion” and that the club had provided its own environmental assessments. He argued that the council had acted lawfully and that the challenge should be dismissed.

The judge ruled in favour of the campaign group, quashing the planning permission and ordering Spurs and Enfield council to pay the group’s legal costs.