Tottenham Hotspur’s plans for a new training facility in a London park have been halted after a High Court judge quashed Enfield Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

The ruling follows a challenge by campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs, who argued the council’s approval for a women and girls’ football academy on 16 acres of Whitewebbs Park was unlawful.

During a hearing in June, lawyers for the campaign group told the court that Enfield Council had breached regulations by failing to provide councillors with all relevant information regarding the development’s environmental impact. This omission, they contended, meant councillors were "materially misled" when making their decision.

Sir Tim Kerr, sitting as a High Court judge, agreed with this assessment in his ruling on Monday. He found that the result "could well have been different" had all pertinent information about the scheme been available to the decision-makers. He concluded that the council’s non-compliance with rules was "serious" and that councillors were indeed "materially misled" by the exclusion of a key ecological report.

However, the judge dismissed claims of potential bias, which suggested Spurs had "unparalleled access" to senior council figures. Sir Tim described these arguments as "weak," stating that "cordial relations" between the council and the club were "normal given the overlapping functions and interests."

The club had secured a 25-year lease for the site in 2023 – a decision that faced an unsuccessful High Court challenge earlier in 2024. Enfield Council, which was Labour-controlled at the time but is now under a Conservative minority administration, had resolved to approve the planning application in February last year. The proposed development included the construction of 10 football pitches and other works, situated near the club’s men’s training facilities.

Central to the Guardians of Whitewebbs’ case was a report by ecologist Giles Sutton, carried out in November 2024. Jenny Wigley KC, representing the group, highlighted Mr Sutton’s advice to the council that while he did not oppose the scheme "as such," it was "counter-intuitive" to accept the club’s claims of environmental benefit, given that around 40 per cent of the park would be lost. He warned: "In my opinion, if the council were to accept this, their decision could be easily challenged."

Ms Wigley further argued that council officers subsequently stated in a planning report for councillors that there was "no objection to the proposed development," despite Mr Sutton informing the authority that this did not reflect his advice. She accused the council of "salami slicing," asserting that 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."

Tottenham Hotspur, through their representative James Maurici KC, continued to oppose the challenge even after Enfield Council withdrew its defence last month. Mr Maurici contended that Mr Sutton’s views were "no more than an assertion" and that the campaign group had "failed to provide any evidence" of prejudice.

He claimed it was "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."

Nevertheless, Sir Tim rejected the club’s submission, stating it 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 emphasised: "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."