The WWFC Lease – 12 Important Findings and Unanswered Questions

On 20 October 2026, Buckinghamshire Council provided Stoke Poges Task Force Ltd with a heavily redacted, unsigned version of the initial lease concerning South Buckinghamshire Golf Course and Farnham Park Playing Fields.

​

The Council confirms that the lease was completed on 24 August 2026.

​

We have examined the disclosed provisions and identified 12 matters of particular importance to residents, recreational users and the future of this publicly owned land.

​

The findings below distinguish what the lease actually establishes from what remains unclear because substantial parts of the agreement have been withheld.

​

Overview

The lease has given WWFC substantial operational freedom over an important area of public and charitable recreational land. It contains protections for continued sporting use, compliance with the 1971 Act, and landlord control over major construction.

​

But the information disclosed so far does not allow the public to establish how much investment is guaranteed, precisely which existing facilities must be preserved, or what long-term rights WWFC has acquired.

​

Those are not minor contractual details. They concern the benefits and safeguards upon which the Council's decision was justified.

​

1. The disclosed lease is for five years — but what happened to the announced 75 years?

WWFC's planning documents describe a 75-year lease, but the disclosed agreement specifies an initial five-year term ending in 2031.

The lease anticipates renewal or a further lease, yet the relevant provisions are concealed.

The public cannot establish who controls an extension, what conditions must be met, or whether the Council can decline to grant a longer lease.

Central question: Has WWFC secured the right to occupy the land for up to 75 years, or does a further Council decision remain necessary?

​

2. Where are the promised improvements?

The Council's decision to lease the property was presented as a way to secure investment and improved recreational facilities.

However, the disclosed provisions permit WWFC to construct and improve facilities without establishing a specific, unconditional obligation to deliver the promised golf academy, driving range, playing-field improvements or other new community facilities.

We have also found a redacted cross-reference within the repairing obligations which may point to additional obligations.

Central question: Which improvements are contractually guaranteed, how much must WWFC invest, and by when?

This is particularly important to the claimed Green Belt Very Special Circumstances.

​

3. Does the lease protect the existing 18-hole golf course?

WWFC must use reasonable endeavours to keep the "golf-course" and "playing-field facilities" open and operational.

But what the terms "golf-course" and "playing fields"mean is redacted.

Also the obligation contains broad exceptions, including closures connected with permitted alterations or works.

The disclosed wording does not explicitly guarantee an 18-hole course.

Central question: How does the closure of six golf holes, before the planning application has been determined, comply with this obligation?

​

4. Professional football facilities are expressly permitted

The lease expressly encompasses sports training and academy facilities, together with medical, treatment, gym, office, dining and other ancillary uses.

This language accommodates much of WWFC's proposed Performance Hub.

But the definition does not make professional football facilities conditional on first delivering the promised community improvements.

Central question: How does the Council ensure that the charitable land serves the recreational purposes for which it is legally held?

​

5. The Council must still approve major construction

The lease distinguishes between permission to use land for sporting activities and permission to construct major new buildings.

Major structural development generally requires separate landlord consent. Applying for planning permission may also require that consent, subject to specified exceptions.

The disclosed documents do not establish whether those consents have already been granted.

Central question: Has the Council, acting as landowner and charity trustee, already authorised the Performance Centre and indoor football building, or must it still make that decision?

We have already sought this information from the Council.

​

6. The 1971 Act still governs the charitable land

The lease expressly requires WWFC to maintain and manage the Trust Land in accordance with the Eton Rural District Council Act 1971.

The Act also contains restrictions on development for purposes outside those specified in Schedule 4.

The lease does not explicitly reproduce that separate development prohibition in its principal management obligation. However, the statutory restriction continues to apply independently.

Central question: How has the Council satisfied itself that a substantial, predominantly professional football complex complies with the statutory purposes of the charitable land? Has the Council retained the right of refusal if it doesn't?

​

7. What public access is actually protected?

The lease recognises existing public footpath rights and certain rights to use the charitable land for the benefit of the local community.

However, those provisions are qualified by references to existing enforceable rights and continuing statutory obligations.

There is no clearly identifiable, unconditional commitment in the disclosed terms to allow local residents regular access to the proposed professional Performance Hub.

Central question: What public access and community-use opportunities are legally guaranteed, rather than dependent upon WWFC's future arrangements?

​

8. What happens if WWFC leaves after five years?

The lease requires certain buildings and facilities to be returned in specified conditions.

But it does not expressly require restoration of the original 18-hole golf course or reinstatement of its original landscape.

Some handback obligations are qualified where a renewal is genuinely being pursued.

Central question: If the proposed development is refused or WWFC leaves, who pays to restore the land and facilities?

​

9. How much is WWFC paying for the land?

The financial consideration and other significant commercial terms have been redacted.

The Council is acting in two capacities: as trustee of the charitable land and as owner of separately held Council land.

Central question: What financial return does the charity receive, how was its value assessed, and how is the consideration divided between charity and Council land?

​

10. Who guarantees WWFC's obligations?

WWFC's obligations are guaranteed by its parent company, Feliciana EFL Limited.

The guarantee covers rent and tenant obligations, but cannot make an improvement compulsory unless WWFC itself is contractually obliged to deliver it.

Our examination of Feliciana's published accounts also found that it reported negative net assets in every financial year from 2020 to 2025.

Central question: What assessment did the Council undertake of the guarantor's financial ability to meet its obligations if WWFC cannot?

​

11. How will the Council know if the recreational provision changes?

The lease requires WWFC to notify the landlord within 20 working days of implementing certain changes in use.

It also provides for summary information on public participation, usage and performance, but only on a qualified reasonable endeavours basis and following an appropriate request.

The disclosed terms do not establish measurable minimum participation requirements for different community facilities.

Central question: How will the Council monitor whether the charity continues to benefit local residents, and what action will it take if provision deteriorates?

​

12. Why is so much of the agreement concealed?

The copy supplied on 20 October is a redacted, unsigned engrossment rather than the complete executed agreement.

The omissions include renewal provisions, financial arrangements, entire contractual clauses, approximately ten consecutive pages, the Property Plan and the Schedule of Condition.

These omissions prevent the public from establishing the full rights granted, the obligations accepted and some of the safeguards retained.

Central question: Why is information governing the use of public and charitable recreational land being withheld, and what exceptions justify the redactions?

The missing information is being pursued under the Environmental Information Regulations.

​

What happens next?

Stoke Poges Task Force is seeking clarification of the Council's contractual arrangements with WWFC, particularly the obligations concerning investment, continued recreational provision, public access and the Council's retained powers as landowner and charity trustee.

Separately, the extensive redactions and missing documents are being challenged through the Environmental Information Regulations.

As further information becomes available, we will update these findings.

The purpose of this page is to help residents understand what has been disclosed, what can reasonably be concluded from it, and which important questions remain unanswered.

​