Guardians of Whitewebbs Park v Enfield: High Court quashes Tottenham Hotspur training ground permission

The High Court has quashed planning permission granted to Tottenham Hotspur Football Company Limited (THFC) for a women's and girls' football training academy at Whitewebbs Park in Enfield, after finding that the local authority's own ecologist had disagreed with claims of a 33 per cent biodiversity net gain (BNG) and that this disagreement was concealed from the planning committee.

In R (Guardians of Whitewebbs Park CIC) v London Borough of Enfield [2026] EWHC 1916 (Admin), Sir Tim Kerr, sitting as a High Court judge, upheld two of five surviving grounds brought by the campaigning group against Enfield's decision to grant permission for the redevelopment of part of the former golf course, which forms roughly 40 per cent of the park. Enfield had withdrawn its defence of the claim shortly before the hearing, following a change in political control after May's local elections, but THFC continued to resist the challenge as an interested party.

The judgement centred on Enfield's engagement of an ecology consultant, Mr Giles Sutton, who advised the council that THFC's claimed BNG figure, presented as a key justification for the development on Green Belt land, was unreliable. Sutton disputed the habitat classifications underpinning the calculation and considered a figure closer to 19 per cent more plausible. The council commissioned a further "independent" review from Plumb Associates, paid for by THFC, which endorsed the developer's figures without reference to Sutton's concerns, and Sutton was not consulted on or shown that review.

The officers' report presented to committee referred to an unnamed "Ecology Officer" as raising no objection, without disclosing that this officer, Sutton, in fact disputed the central BNG claim. Sir Tim Kerr found this amounted to a serious misrepresentation, describing the council's approach as "salami slicing" Sutton's advice by relying on convenient fragments while suppressing his substantive disagreement. The council had also failed to identify Sutton's report as a background paper under section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972, denying objectors the opportunity to scrutinise it before the committee meeting.

The judgement found the breach caused material prejudice, accepting evidence from the claimant that it would have commissioned specialist input to challenge the BNG figures had it known of the internal dispute. By contrast, the judge held that Enfield's failure to list a second document, the Plumb report, as a background paper was not serious enough on its own to invalidate the decision, since its substance had at least been referred to, if not attributed, in the officers' report.

Separate challenges concerning the interpretation of local heritage and landscape character policies, and the assessment of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, were dismissed, the judge finding the officers' report had addressed those issues adequately and applying established principles that such reports should be read without excessive legalism.

A claim of apparent bias, based partly on hospitality accepted by council officers and the former council leader from THFC after the committee's resolution but before the decision notice was issued, was found arguable but ultimately failed. The judge noted no committee member had received hospitality and that the events postdated the vote, which had in any event been carried by a majority of only seven to four.

The permission has been quashed, with the court declining to withhold relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the parties have been asked to agree a draft order.