Golf News has been speaking to Ian Barnett, Group Land and Development Director at LRG, about how London’s latest planning proposals could have far reaching consequences for golf clubs across the country.
London’s emerging planning policy has put golf courses firmly in the spotlight. As part of the consultation on the new London Plan, the Mayor has suggested that some areas of Metropolitan Open Land, including certain golf courses with limited public access and low recorded biodiversity value, could be assessed for release for housing.
According to Barnett, this is not just a London issue. He believes it is a strong signal of how national policy could evolve and of the difficult choices that golf clubs across England may face in the years ahead.
The question for many owners is whether this represents a slow squeeze on courses at the edge of towns and cities, or a genuine opportunity to secure the long term future of their clubs.
A shift in thinking around open land
Golf courses have long occupied an uncertain position in planning policy. Many sit within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.
While they are clearly developed in practical terms, they often function and appear like open countryside. For decades this has resulted in strong policy protection and limited scope for change.
The London Plan consultation marks a subtle but important shift. While overall protection for Metropolitan Open Land remains, the Mayor is asking whether all such land is performing the function for which it was designated.
Some golf courses are not accessible to the wider public and some have relatively low recorded ecological value compared with other forms of open space.
These are the sites the Mayor has identified as potential candidates for redevelopment, subject to strict requirements around public access, biodiversity enhancement, high quality design and a significant proportion of affordable housing.
At a national level, changes to the National Planning Policy Framework introduce the concept of the grey belt within the Green Belt.
This refers to lower performing Green Belt land, often previously developed or compromised in character, where housing may be acceptable if clear rules are met on affordable housing delivery, infrastructure provision and public green space.
Taken together, Barnett sees a clear pattern emerging. Well located open land on the edge of settlements that performs poorly against policy objectives is now being actively reconsidered, provided development can deliver tangible public benefits. Many golf courses fall into this category.
What this means for golf club owners
Barnett says that clubs tend to react to this issue in one of two ways. Some see development as an existential threat to their club.
Others see headline land values and assume that securing planning permission will be straightforward and highly lucrative. In his view, both positions are overly simplistic.
The most realistic opportunities often sit between these extremes. For some clubs, full relocation from an increasingly urbanised site to a more suitable location on the edge of town or in a rural setting can be transformational.
Residential development on the original site can fund a new course with better facilities and a more sustainable long term future.
The debate is already playing out on the ground. Golf News recently reported on proposals affecting Ifield Golf Club in West Sussex, where land has been identified for potential housing of 3000 homes as part of wider local plan discussions.
Another example Barnett points to is Basingstoke Golf Club, where he advised on the planning, disposal and relocation of the club.
After exploring several options, the club successfully relocated to an existing course at Dummer on the opposite side of the M3. Housing development on the former site is now well underway.
Another example is Blue Mountain Golf Club in Bracknell Forest. Surrounded by housing and identified as having development potential, the site was redeveloped to include a Golfplex entertainment centre, driving range, clubhouse and parking, alongside 400 new homes, community sports facilities and a new school.
The club now has a viable long term base, the local authority has secured housing and infrastructure, and land value has been realised in a planned and structured way.
In other cases, partial redevelopment has been the preferred solution. At Maidenhead Golf Course, land has been allocated for around 2,000 homes while retaining a golf offer, and at the former Reading Golf Course, development and green space have been planned together.
In these situations, releasing part of the land has allowed clubs to reinvest in the remaining course and often improve the quality of the golfing experience.
The importance of site specific analysis
Barnett is clear that not every golf course is suitable for development. The starting point, he says, should never be land value assumptions, but a detailed understanding of planning policy as it applies to that specific site.
Key considerations include whether the course lies in the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land or open countryside, how the local plan treats that designation, the recorded biodiversity value of the land, levels of public access, proximity to services and transport, and the scale of local housing need.
In London in particular, the Mayor’s reference to limited biodiversity value has already prompted objections from environmental groups, many of whom point to the wildlife interest of golf courses.
As a result, Barnett stresses that robust ecological assessment is essential before any strategy is developed.
Early specialist advice can make a critical difference. A strong planning and land team will assess local plans, housing targets, infrastructure commitments and emerging policy changes.
They will identify constraints such as landscape, heritage or environmental designations and benchmark land values and delivery prospects to manage expectations among members or shareholders.
What we do know is at the planning map around golf courses is changing. London’s proposed approach to MOL and the national grey belt policy are part of a wider shift.
