THE future status of Petersfield Cricket Club has been thrown into confusion over a lease dating back to the 1970s. The club's lease doesn't make it clear whether it refers to the pavilion, or simply the cricket ground itself, a situation one Petersfield town ccouncillor described as potentially "opening up a real can of worms". Town council clerk Neil Hitch reported to the grounds committee last week that a new lease should be drawn up, having received advice from solicitors. The key point solicitors advised was if a new lease should be made in favour of the club, rather than trustees of the club. At present, new trustees are sought by the club, but many prospective trustees are put off as the position is perceived as unattractive, with onerous responsibilities imposed by the current lease. But councillors were told this was "not legally possible because the club is an unincorporated body that has no separate legal entity, so it is incapable of having land registered in its name. Any land owned, therefore, has to be vested in the names of trustees". Mr Hitch added: "In order to get around this problem, the club would have to be incorporated into a limited company. Land could then be vested in the name of the club, as a limited company is a separate legal entity." Under the terms of the current lease, only new trustees of the club may be assigned the responsibilities imposed by it. Therefore, it was claimed that in order to relinquish their trusteeship, the conclusion of the town clerk's discussions with solicitors offered two options. One was that the cricket club agree to be incorporated into a limited company, and the second that the town council agree to a mutual surrender and re-granting of the lease. Councillors had been discussing preparation of a new lease in favour of the cricket club for the pavilion, which trustees are adamant they own. The 99-year lease was created in the 1970s, but has become untenable due to confusion over the ownership of land and the pavilion. While the cricket club insist they own the pavilion, at the same time they rent the land for the ground from the council. Grounds chairman Bob Ayer insisted the council continued to lease the land to the club, adding: "There is no intention to transfer land to any organisation." He said the old thatched pavilion had burned down in 1973, and the replacement had been partly funded by an insurance claim from the town council for £6,000. However, Mr Hitch confirmed he was still unsure of the ownership of this pavilion, saying "you can have leases that require the landlord to insure". Cricket club chairman Nick Blakstad attended the meeting, and having noted the options, said: "I will go back to the committee and report back to you how we see it." Mr Hitch added: "We have no problems rewriting the lease. Whatever might happen, the cricket club have to be in total agreement." The council resolved that the town clerk would continue to liaise with the cricket club.