Public confidence in any major decision depends not only on the outcome, but also on the fairness of the process used to reach it.

​

This is particularly important where charitable public land is concerned.

​

The question is therefore not whether Wycombe Wanderers' current proposal is good or bad.

​

It is whether the process leading to that proposal gave the public a fair opportunity to understand what was being proposed and to express their views before key decisions were made.

​

The public notice

Before inviting expressions of interest, the Trustee published a formal public notice.

The notice explained that the Charity intended to grant a lease for the management and maintenance of the golf course and playing fields.

​

Members of the public were invited to submit representations before the lease process began.

At that stage, there was no indication that the process could result in a large fenced professional football training centre, or any other predominantly non-public use, occupying much of the charitable land.

​

Anyone reading the notice would naturally have understood that they were commenting on proposals broadly consistent with the continued operation of the existing sporting facilities.

​

The selection process

The lease process then continued.

Potential operators submitted bids and Wycombe Wanderers were eventually selected as preferred bidder.

​

The details of the bids submitted have not been made public.

​

What is clear, however, is that the proposal now presented differs fundamentally from what the public had been invited to consider before the process began.

​

The proposal today

The proposal presented during the public engagement events in July 2026 includes:

• a large fenced professional football training complex;

• around ten full-size training pitches;

• a 17 metre indoor dome;

• associated buildings and infrastructure;

• loss of public access to much of the site;

• the removal of more than one hundred mature trees;

• additional land being converted from sport to biodiversity habitat.

This is a fundamentally different proposition from the one described when public representations were first invited.

​

Why this matters

Consultation is most valuable when it takes place before key decisions are made.

Its purpose is to allow public views to inform the decision-making process.

If the proposal changes fundamentally after that consultation has taken place, an obvious question arises:

​

Has the public ever been given an opportunity to comment on the proposal that now exists before decisions are taken upon it?

​

That question lies at the heart of this campaign.

​

It is not a question about football.

It is not even a question about planning.

​

It is a question about whether the public has had a fair opportunity to comment on the proposal that is actually intended for the Charity's land.

​

This is not about judging the proposal

This page does not ask whether Wycombe Wanderers' proposal would be beneficial.

It may ultimately provide many benefits. Equally, others may disagree about the balance between benefits and disadvantages.

​

That debate belongs later.

​

The question here is much simpler.

​

Was the public ever given the opportunity to comment on this proposal before the Trustee reached its decision to proceed with it?

​

The answer to that question does not depend on whether the proposal is considered good or bad.

It depends on whether the process gave the public a fair opportunity to comment on the proposal that now exists.

​

What the petition asks

The petition does not ask the Council to reject the current proposal.

​

Nor does it ask the Council to select a different operator.

 

It asks for something much simpler.

 

If the proposal has changed so fundamentally, the Trustee should restart the lease process.

 

That would involve:

• publishing a new public notice describing the proposal now being pursued;

• inviting public representations on that proposal;

• considering those representations;

• reopening the opportunity for suitable operators to express an interest in managing the site;

• and only then deciding whether a lease should be granted.

​

That would allow the public, the Trustee and all potential operators to engage with the same proposal, rather than different versions of it.