Golf News spoke to Ian Barnett, Director of Lands and Development at LRG, about how far-reaching the latest London planning proposals could be for golf clubs across the country.
London’s growing planning policy has put golf courses in the spotlight. As part of the consultation on the new London Plan, the Mayor suggested that some areas of Metropolitan Open Land, including certain golf courses with limited public access and low recorded biodiversity, could be assessed for release for housing.
According to Barnett, this is not just a London story. He believes it is a strong indication of how national policy may evolve and the tough decisions England’s golf clubs may face in the coming years.
The question for many owners is whether this represents a bit of overcrowding on courses on the fringes of towns and cities, or a real opportunity to secure the long-term future of their clubs.
A change in thinking in the open world
Golf courses have long had an uncertain status in planning policy. Many live within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.
Although clearly developed in practical terms, they tend to function and appear as open countryside. Over the decades this has led to rigid policy protections and limited room for change.
The London Plan consultation marks a subtle but important change. Although full protection of Metropolitan Open Land remains, the Mayor questions whether all such land is doing the job it was designated for.
Some golf courses are not accessible to the general public and some have a record low environmental value compared to other types of open space.
These are areas that the Mayor has identified as potential for development, subject to strong principles regarding community accessibility, biodiversity enhancement, high quality design and a large number of affordable homes.
At the national level, changes to the National Planning Policy Framework introduced the concept of a gray belt within the Green Belt.
This refers to less active Green Belt land, often pre-developed or in a critical condition, where housing may be acceptable if clear rules are met regarding the delivery of affordable housing, infrastructure provision and public green space.
Taken together, Barnett sees a clear pattern emerging. Open space well-placed on the edge of residential areas that is underperforming compared to policy objectives is now being reconsidered, as long as the development can bring tangible benefits to the community. Most golf courses fall into this category.
What does this mean for golf club owners?
Barnett says clubs tend to react to this issue in one of two ways. Others see the development as a threat to their club.
Others see land values as a major topic and think that obtaining planning permission will be straightforward and more beneficial. In his view, both positions are overly simplistic.
The most realistic possibilities often lie between these extremes. For some clubs, a full-time move from an increasingly urban location to a more suitable location on the outskirts of town or in a rural area can be transformative.
Residential development on the original site can support new courses with better facilities and a more sustainable long-term future.
One example Barnett points to is Basingstoke Golf Club, where he advised on the planning, decommissioning and relocation of the club.
After exploring several options, the club successfully moved to the existing course at Dummer on the other side of the M3. Housing development in the former area is well under way.
Another example is Blue Mountain Golf Club in Bracknell Forest. Surrounded by housing and identified as a development potential, the area was redeveloped to include a Golfplex leisure centre, driving range, clubhouse and car parks, alongside 400 new homes, community sports facilities and a new school.
The club now has a long-term base, the local authorities have secured housing and infrastructure, and the value of the land has been achieved in a planned and orderly manner.
In some cases, gradual development has been the preferred solution. At Maidenhead Golf Course, accommodation has been allocated for 20,000 homes pending golf, and at the former Reading Golf Course, development and green space are planned together.
In these cases, removing part of the land allows the clubs to reinvest in the remaining course and often improves the quality of the golf game.
The importance of site specific analysis
Barnett is clear that not all golf courses are suitable for development. The starting point, he says, should never be an estimate of land value, but a detailed understanding of planning policy as it applies to that particular area.
Important considerations include whether the subject is in the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land or open rural area, how the local plan handles that designation, the record number of biodiversity, levels of public access, proximity to services and transport, and the scale of local housing demand.
In London in particular, the Mayor’s reference to the limited amount of biodiversity has already caused opposition from environmental groups, many of which point to the interest of wild animals in golf courses.
As a result, Barnett emphasizes that a rigorous environmental assessment is essential before any strategy is developed.
Early expert advice can make a significant difference. A strong planning and land team will assess local plans, housing targets, infrastructure commitments and emerging policy changes.
They will identify obstacles such as the landscape, heritage or environmental designation and the values of the land measure and the prospects for the delivery of control expected among members or shareholders.
What we do know is that the planning map around golf courses is changing. London’s proposed MOL approach and national gray belt policy are part of a wider change.
