I think it’s a fantastic idea and I’d love all the large, private golf courses that charge thousands of pounds in annual fees (plenty of those in SW and KT where I live) are one day repurposed as housing and/or parks available for everyone to enjoy. There’s absolutely nothing defensible about these large developments hogging prime land for the privilege of few, when London is in the acute grip of a housing crisis that sees no sign of abating.
Love it. He’d probably have a more compelling case if rather than keeping the remaining 9 holes he rewilded it and turned it into public woodland.
It’s a.good idea but will struggle through planning like everything else. I know of 2 disused golf courses ( potters bar and Enfield ) where there are local campaigns to stop development.
Let’s get rid of the public parks too
I hope that people are not that naive and expect some affordable housing.
We are talking expensive flats built on the golf-courses because the owner run his XLS sheet and realised that they can make much more money than running the golf-course.
I would prefer to keep it as a park and make the existing housing denser. Those sprawling suburbs of badly built and poorly insulated terrace houses are the problem and not the golf-course.
Also, building 650 houses in the area with bad transport links doesn’t sounds like a solving the problem but creating a new one.
Stupid idea and I don’t even like golf
Golf courses are nice because they tend to be in green open space.
Enfield has so much open land in and around it that isn’t golf courses; they want to build on the golf courses because they are in the better neighbourhoods so they could charge more.
Not only that, but I seriously struggled to sell my house in Enfield for barely above what I bought it for 7 years ago. There is not a huge demand for housing in Enfield at the moment.
Just a reminder (to those who didn’t know this already, and didn’t care to read the article) that the golf courses in London have a combined area greater than that of the borough of Brent. Brent is not particularly densely populated and is home to 300,000 people.
So a niche sport played almost exclusively by the rich and upper class, on private land not accessible to the public, is being prioritised over housing for 300,000 people. Or indeed public green space for the 9 million Londoners who could benefit from it.
9 comments
I think it’s a fantastic idea and I’d love all the large, private golf courses that charge thousands of pounds in annual fees (plenty of those in SW and KT where I live) are one day repurposed as housing and/or parks available for everyone to enjoy. There’s absolutely nothing defensible about these large developments hogging prime land for the privilege of few, when London is in the acute grip of a housing crisis that sees no sign of abating.
Love it. He’d probably have a more compelling case if rather than keeping the remaining 9 holes he rewilded it and turned it into public woodland.
It’s a.good idea but will struggle through planning like everything else. I know of 2 disused golf courses ( potters bar and Enfield ) where there are local campaigns to stop development.
Let’s get rid of the public parks too
I hope that people are not that naive and expect some affordable housing.
We are talking expensive flats built on the golf-courses because the owner run his XLS sheet and realised that they can make much more money than running the golf-course.
I would prefer to keep it as a park and make the existing housing denser. Those sprawling suburbs of badly built and poorly insulated terrace houses are the problem and not the golf-course.
Also, building 650 houses in the area with bad transport links doesn’t sounds like a solving the problem but creating a new one.
Stupid idea and I don’t even like golf
Golf courses are nice because they tend to be in green open space.
Enfield has so much open land in and around it that isn’t golf courses; they want to build on the golf courses because they are in the better neighbourhoods so they could charge more.
Not only that, but I seriously struggled to sell my house in Enfield for barely above what I bought it for 7 years ago. There is not a huge demand for housing in Enfield at the moment.
Just a reminder (to those who didn’t know this already, and didn’t care to read the article) that the golf courses in London have a combined area greater than that of the borough of Brent. Brent is not particularly densely populated and is home to 300,000 people.
So a niche sport played almost exclusively by the rich and upper class, on private land not accessible to the public, is being prioritised over housing for 300,000 people. Or indeed public green space for the 9 million Londoners who could benefit from it.