“In summary, the proposed development would facilitate very significant benefits, including those to public open space and recreation, community, cultural, heritage, ecology and biodiversity, economic unemployment and transport, all which would be appropriately secured. I agree with my officers that these benefits clearly outweigh the harm identified in relation to MOL, open space and heritage as well as other harm identified, and this is the case whether the land is assumed to be held in statutory trust or not. In my mind, these would clearly outweigh the harm caused by the proposal and represent very special circumstances. I agree with officers that the development is in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. For these reasons, I agree with GLA planning officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission.”
“1.Not to use the Property otherwise than for leisure or recreational purposes or as an open space […] 2. No building shall be erected on the Property other than a building or buildings the use of which is ancillary to the recreational or open space use referred to in paragraph 1 above and which building or buildings will not impair the appreciation of the general public of the extent or openness of the Property […]”
“130. In general, whether or not a restrictive covenant impacts an applicant’s ability to implement a planning permission is irrelevant to the decision to whether to grant permission. It is often the case that an applicant for planning permission will need to resolve matters of land ownership and/or rights affecting a development site before a development can proceed and there is no legal requirement that planning permission be refused unless the developer commits itself to implementing a proposal. GLA Officers are satisfied that the existence of the restrictive covenants are not of themselves matters to which regard must be had nor are the restrictive covenants in and of themselves considered to be material to the determination of the current planning application. 131. Ordinarily, potential difficulties of implementation are not relevant to the planning merits of the decision, but in some circumstances deliverability can be a material consideration. If, for example, the benefits relied on are particularly time-sensitive, potential delay to their realisation may affect the weight they are given in the planning balance. GLA officers do not consider that difficulties regarding implementation are relevant in this case. The benefits of the proposals are set out in paragraphs 795 - 833 of this report and they are not considered time sensitive, nor is weight being placed on the speed with which any of the benefits can be delivered. Further, there are no other potentially suitable and available alternative sites which could be less constrained in terms of deliverability. Alternative sites are considered further at paragraphs 294 and 337 of this report. 132. The restrictive covenants could impact the deliverability of all or some of the development and so it is possible that not all of the benefits would be delivered but GLA officers consider that it is likely any issues caused by the restrictive covenants would have to be resolved before the development is implemented. Further, if not all of the development is carried out some of the harms will not arise. As such the restrictive covenants are not considered to be a material consideration. For the same reasons, even if they were material, they would attract only minimal weight.”
“141. If the land is held subject to a statutory trust, GLA Officers consider that is in principle capable of being a material consideration. Even if the public rights are not currently exercised, the lawful use has a public value and an adverse impact on that lawful use is capable of being a material consideration. The existence of the right may also affect how some planning policies apply to the proposed development, and the weight that attaches to certain harms and benefits. In some cases, deliverability can also be a material planning consideration. As explained in paragraph 131 above, ordinarily, any potential difficulties the developer might face in implementing the development would be an immaterial consideration when determining whether what is proposed is acceptable in planning terms. In this case there is nothing to indicate that any deliverability implications would be a material consideration. GLA Officers do not consider any of the benefits relied on are particularly time-sensitive, or that there are other potentially suitable and available alternative sites which could be less constrained in terms of deliverability. 142. Given the uncertainty as to the correct legal position, and that the issue of whether the land is the subject of a statutory trust may have a bearing on some of the planning issues, GLA Officers have assessed this application on the basis of a precautionary approach, assuming that the land is subject to a statutory trust. In the rest of the report this is described as the Precautionary Approach. Where relevant, a separate assessment will also be undertaken to identify whether the analysis would be different if it was assumed that a statutory trust does not exist. This is referred to below as the Alternative Approach. These two approaches will be reflected within the open space assessments below, including the open space and recreational balanced assessment, and in the assessment of compliance with the development plan and the overall planning balance.”
“Very special circumstances 847. Taking into account all planning harms and planning benefits outlined above, GLA Officers consider that the weight of benefits would clearly outweigh the harm identified to MOL and the other harms identified. This conclusion is reached for both the Precautionary and Alternative approaches to this assessment. 848. The public benefits are wide ranging and substantial. They could only be delivered by this applicant as no other individual, organisation, or local authority would be in a position to deliver this range of public benefits. 849. The open space and recreation, economic and employment, as well as heritage benefits alone would amount to VSC in this circumstance. 850. Therefore, the public benefits of the scheme amount to VSC that allow for permission to be granted.”
“…the principle [sic] need case that underpins the very special circumstances for the proposed development is the pressing requirement to resolve the inadequacies of The Championships and Qualifying Event against a backdrop of increased global competition within tennis and other sports; the lack of security of tenure for the current Qualifying Event venue; and the strategic objectives of the AELTC.”
“...It is not enough that a consideration is one that may properly be taken into account, nor even that it is one which many people, including the court itself, would have taken into account if they had to make the decision.”
“The function of the planning authority is to decide whether the proposed development is desirable in the public interest. The answer to that question is not to be affected by the consideration that the landowner of the land is determined not to allow the development so that permission for it, if granted, would not have reasonable prospects of being implemented. That does not mean that the planning authority, if they decide that the account the improbability of permission for it, if granted, being implemented. For example, if there were a competition between two alternative sites for a desirable development, difficulties of bringing about implementation on one site which were not present in relation to the other might very properly lead to the refusal of planning permission for the site affected by the difficulties and the grant of it for the other. But there is no absolute rule that the existence of difficulties, even if apparently insuperable, must necessarily lead to refusal of planning permission for a desirable development. A would-be developer may be faced with difficulties of many kinds, in the way of site assembly or securing the discharge of restrictive covenants. If he considers that it is in his interests to secure planning permission notwithstanding the existence of such difficulties, it is not for the planning authority to refuse it simply on their view of how serious the difficulties are.”
“...where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.”
“All the degradation mentioned above has come about through the deliberate interventions of owners of Wimbledon Park”
“The sports and recreational uses, most notably the layout and significant management for the golf course use, have tended to erode significant features. The legibility of the remnant historic planting, including designed planting, has been eroded by later planting relating to the RPGs use as a golf course. This has affected the naturalistic form and siting of the planting (which also changes the canopy cover) and introduced inappropriate species; it has also affected the views that form a key part of how the RPG is experienced...”
“It is important that the principal issues and the key information are put to [members], but it is not necessary, or indeed desirable, that the report should be exhaustive. Plainly there will always be room for dispute as to whether the report should in certain respects have been fuller, or whether certain guidance should have been expressly referred to, particularly in a development which is as large and significant as this one. But it is not for the court to second guess the officers.”
“Planning officers and inspectors are entitled to expect that both national and local planning policy is as simply and clearly stated as it can be, and also – however well or badly a policy is expressed – that the court’s interpretation of it will be straightforward, without undue or elaborate exposition.”
“...whether or not the provision is equivalent or better must be judged in terms of both quantity and quality. The word ‘and’ simply makes clear that both quality and quantity are relevant parameters in judging whether the provision is ‘equivalent or better.’”
“GLA Officers are of the view the proposed tennis use comprises development that is substantially for alternative sports and recreational provision. Additionally, the GLA Officers consider that proposal would result in a qualitative improvement to the current public open space provision. Therefore, the proposal would accord with two of the exceptions listed under paragraph 103 of the NPPF.”
“...whilst the harm identified to the protected open space is very significant on the Precautionary Approach, the countervailing accessible, managed and maintained open space and many additional recreational related public benefits across the site and wider area are very significant. Under the Alternative Approach these benefits would also be regarded as very significant (to a much higher level than the Precautionary Approach). Under either approach, these benefits are considered clearly to outweigh the identified harm”