Campaign group seeks to block appeal by Spurs over quashing of permission for training ground

PILC said the Guardians of Whitewebbs had filed a respondent’s statement arguing that the Court of Appeal should refuse permission to appeal against Sir Timothy Kerr's order.

Sir Timothy had refused Tottenham Hotspur permission to appeal against his decision, after he found the London Borough of Enfield’s planning committee had been materially misled.

He quashed planning permission to develop part of a park into a private training ground, following Enfield Council’s decision to withdraw from the litigation after a change in political control last May.

It had earlier granted permission to build the facility with 11 training pitches on a disused golf course in Whitewebbs Park.

The Guardians of Whitewebbs’s statement to the Court of Appeal, from Jenny Wigley KC, Alex Shattock and Claudia Hyde of Landmark Chambers, sought to rebut six grounds advanced by the club and said “none of the proposed grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success, nor is there any other compelling reason for this appeal to be heard”.

They added: “The appellant disagrees with how the judge applied those settled [legal] principles to the facts: but that is no reason to disturb his findings, which were entirely open to him. There is no other compelling reason to hear this appeal, and permission to appeal should accordingly be refused.”

Benny Hawksbee, chair of Guardians of Whitewebbs, said: “We believe that permission should be refused. The High Court judgment was strong, finding material prejudice and unfairness leading to the planning committee being misled.

“This case also has wide implications - the importance of public green space has never been greater, and it is abundantly clear that parks should not be enclosed and given over to private business.”

Tottenham Hotspur was contacted for comment and pointed to a statement it made in July in which it said: “The court’s decision concerns the legal process followed by Enfield Council in granting planning permission, rather than the planning merits of the proposed development itself.

The club added: “We remain committed to Enfield and to continuing the work we have undertaken in the borough for many years through investment in sport, education and community programmes. We will now consider the judgement carefully and determine our next steps.”

Mark Smulian