Link: National Audit Office
And the media isn't as smart as the authors of the Wikipedia article, since it hasn't occurred to them to search the National Audit Office website for the information.
From Wikipedia:
In August 2003, Prince Andrew was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years. The property lease included Royal Lodge, a Gardener's Cottage, the Chapel Lodge, six Lodge Cottages, and police security accommodation in addition to 40 hectares of land. The lease agreement required Prince Andrew to undertake refurbishments at his own expense, which was estimated at £7.5 million at September 2002 prices, excluding VAT. It also specified a premium payment of £1 million. The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the lease agreement stated that the Crown Estate's independent advisors had advised that the refurbishment work would cost at least £5 million and that the Prince should be given the option to buy out the notional annual rental payment (set at £260,000) for £2.5 million. Once the prince committed to spending £7.5 million on refurbishment, it was decided that no rental would be required as he would be treated as having effectively bought out the notional annual rental payment because he exceeded the minimum £5 million required for refurbishment. As a result, only the £1 million premium was paid to the Crown Estate.[3]
There is no provision for any further rent review over the life of the 75-year lease agreement (unlike the rent reviews provided in the case of Bagshot Park, the residence of Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, also leased from the Crown Estate).[3] The lease agreement provides that the prince may not benefit financially from any increase in the value of the property, as the freehold belongs to the Crown Estate. The leasehold may be assigned only to his widow or his two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, or a trust established solely for their benefit.[3] If the prince terminates the lease, the property reverts to the Crown Estate. He would be entitled to compensation for the refurbishment costs incurred, up to a maximum of just under £7 million, which is reduced annually over the first 25 years, after which no compensation is payable.[3] The NAO report states that having already taken advice from one independent advisor on the transaction, the Crown Estate appointed a second firm of independent advisors to assess the details of the lease deal, given its importance. The second independent advisor concluded that the deal was appropriate, considering the importance of retaining management control over the Royal Lodge and the security implications, especially concerning the Royal Family's access to the Royal Chapel. In the circumstances, the Crown Estate considered that the requirement to obtain value for money was satisfied, taking into account the non-financial considerations relating to the lease of the property. The alternative use, to lease it on the commercial market, was not viable.[3]
195
