After more than 4 months of dead silence towards the public, WWFC and Buckinghamshire Council have issued a new press release. Use the links on the left/above to read all 3 of their press releases alongside paragraph by paragraph analysis.

​

The Key News

The Council has decided to take the northern 9 holes of the golf course out of play, giving just 6 weeks' notice to clubs and golfers. This effectively frees up the northern section for the planned football academy.

​

This move directly contradicts the assurance given by Council and WWFC last year: “The sites will remain open as usual for users throughout the design and planning process..." Reducing the course from 18 holes to 9 holes and removing long-standing club arrangements cannot reasonably be described as “open as usual.”

​

This is not a minor operational adjustment.

It is a clear first step towards a fundamental and permanent change — one that we oppose.

​

A Petition has been Launched in Response.

Please use the button on the left/above to sign it.

​

Why this Requires a Bold Reaction:

​Notably the step is announced

• Before WWFC has signed any lease

• Before detailed plans have been published

• Before the public has been properly consulted

• Before a planning application has been submitted

• Before planning permit has been granted

• Before serious legal questions have been resolved

​​

The Justifications – and Why They Fail

​

- 9 holes offer more flexibility than 18 holes

Despite the argument breaking the laws of logic, it has been held up consistently.

​

- 9 holes are financially more viable

This is neither obvious nor explained. No evidence or financial analysis has been presented.

Economy of scale is reduced.

Maintenance and management are not halved.

Income potential is.

The claim is unsupported.

​

- 9 holes can accommodate as many players as 18 holes.

In theory, throughput may be similar — four players every 8–10 minutes.

But golfers receive

• half a course

• half the variety

• half the exercise

• half the enjoyment

This becomes comparing apples with shrimps - misleading.

​​

- 9 holes will generate more demand

A very bold claim, and not supported by any evidence or modelling.

In reality

• Existing clubs and serious golfers are effectively excluded

• Prices rise by up to 92% (9 holes) and 135% (18 holes) 

• The course loses historic variety

• Historic 9-hole bookings represent only a small proportion of total usage

​​​​

If the Arguments Supporting 9 Holes Were True

If flexibility would rise, if financial sustainability were better, if more demand would exist, and therefore if it were in the best interest of the Charity to run 9 hole courses, then the logical solution would not be to eliminate 9 holes.

​

It would be to operate the 18 hole course as two independent 9-hole loops. 

​

Council and WWFC effectively argue against their own decision.

​​

What This Really Is

The step:

• Reverses clear public promises

• Lacks transparent evidence

• Bypasses meaningful consultation

• Ousts long-standing clubs with six weeks’ notice

• Gradually reconfigures public green space

​

The ultimate objective remains unchanged:

​​

A private, fenced-off professional football academy for an out-of-parish club — with substantial buildings — on public Green Belt land that has never before been developed.

​

Notably, the academy is not even mentioned in the latest press release.

 

Yet it is what drives the entire process.

 

Only, once public green space is lost, it is lost forever.​​

​

We cannot let that happen.