"London golf courses could provide homes for 300,000 people, study says"

[MarkT]

This was voted on several years ago, and I am sure there were a few years of rumour and debate before the club finally accepted the offer. I believe this was not the first offer the All England Tennis club had made, club had turned down previous offers. Your point is absolutely correct, but the timescales are a lot closer.

yeah, was mooted that there would be a pay-off in the early noughties and always talked about. A friend’s dad who was as tight as a proverbial managed to hang on until a week after the announcement which made him chuckle immensely in his final few days. Even though I haven’t been back since 2005 am more gutted it’s going rather than any thoughts of money

 

[fundy]

Clearly a vested interest and a reasonable point about how much housing should be centered around London, but I thought there were reasonable points in there.

IF the example of Enfield is right and the council receives only £13.5k a year for a 39 hectare site then is that the best use of land. Yes, they presumably save maintenance costs but limit the use to 200 people a day. I would expect 500 people maybe over the course of the week if that's their membership base.

I think council/government have a role in keeping people active, making sports accessible so if there is significant value to the community then great. If not, should councils be considering making them 9 hole courses, opening up the land for mixed use (e.g. parks, skate parks, tennis courts, more youth focused) or if required housing. I wouldn't want to see the green space completely removed so it should be mixed use but I don't think an argument of anti-golf, or it's always been there should stop a debate on use. Particularly as there are 43 public golf courses in London (although it is obviously a big place!)

I just wonder if golf could be more inventive with 9 hole courses or even 9 hole and a par 3 course so it can attract more to the game and fit with people having less time to commit to golf potentially, than always thinking 18 holes.

On the basis that the golf course is on a flood plain, and that the council and water company have the right to open the flood gates onto it with almost zero notice and that it floods every few years on its own then Im not too sure what else theyre going to use the majority of it for (or whos going to pay them any more rent).

 

[sunshine]

On the basis that the golf course is on a flood plain, and that the council and water company have the right to open the flood gates onto it with almost zero notice and that it floods every few years on its own then Im not too sure what else theyre going to use the majority of it for (or whos going to pay them any more rent).

You make a good point, but playing devil's advocate with Enfield GC as an example there are lots of options.
- Enfield GC is a private golf course, maybe a proprietary or public model is more appropriate for council owned land.
- The rent does not appear commercial. Maybe the golf club could pay higher rent and open up more to residents to increase participation. To be fair there is no data provided on how many members the club has, how busy the course is, and how accessible it is to visitors and residents of the borough.
- There are already a lot of golf courses in the area, maybe turning the land into football pitches or a BMX track (for example) would benefit more residents. The golf course itself has no particular historical or architectural merit.
- Breaking up the property into land suitable for housing, land for leisure, and meadow land liable to flood would surely provide a greater return for the council and also maximise its use for residents of the borough.
- The course is surrounded by housing and I don't think it's part of a larger green belt parcel (many other courses nearby border green belt). Some of the land is on higher ground and could be given up for housing (personally I think there's already too much housing in the area and London more generally).

 

[cliveb]

... members now getting an £86,000 pay-out

Interesting. The club I recently left (Grims Dyke in Middlesex, a private members club) actually owns the freehold of the course, which must be worth millions - with planning permission, probably tens of millions. The company articles (or whatever they're called) explicitly state that if the club is wound up, the proceeds do NOT go to the members. I presume this is to avoid any danger of a group of greedy members trying to force a wind up in order to cash in on the value of the land.

 

[GB72]

Interesting. The club I recently left (Grims Dyke in Middlesex, a private members club) actually owns the freehold of the course, which must be worth millions - with planning permission, probably tens of millions. The company articles (or whatever they're called) explicitly state that if the club is wound up, the proceeds do NOT go to the members. I presume this is to avoid any danger of a group of greedy members trying to force a wind up in order to cash in on the value of the land.

Very much so, in the same way that people who have accouns with Nationwide now sign away the right to any windfall so as you do not get the carpetbaggers in looking to force a change to a bank and floatation so as they can extract the share profits and move on.

 

[sunshine]

Interesting. The club I recently left (Grims Dyke in Middlesex, a private members club) actually owns the freehold of the course, which must be worth millions - with planning permission, probably tens of millions. The company articles (or whatever they're called) explicitly state that if the club is wound up, the proceeds do NOT go to the members. I presume this is to avoid any danger of a group of greedy members trying to force a wind up in order to cash in on the value of the land.

If not the members, where would the proceeds go?

 

[cliveb]

If not the members, where would the proceeds go?

Not sure, but I think they would go to the governing body (presumably England Golf) for the purposes of supporting the game.