Woking Borough Council and New Zealand Golf Club

[Sam Andrews]

Anyone know anything about this?


http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/mclaren-new-town-consultation-opens-12417440


The very thought that one of Surrey's finest courses could be built over makes me shudder!!

[Jon Wiggett]

Who actually owns the land the course is on?

[Sam Andrews]

The club. But we have a thing called compulsory purchase here...

[Jon Wiggett]

Do you mean in England Sam? That must be similar to that up here in Scotland. Not sure why you mentioned it though.

[Sam Andrews]

Because it could be that Woking council decides that is where it wants the new houses and issues a compulsory purchase order (like has been done with HS2).

[Duncan Cheslett]

I can't understand why a council would consider a compulsory purchase order to acquire a golf course for house-building when nearly every farmer in the area would be delighted to sell up at the kind of price commanded by land with the right planning permission in that part of the world.


There is no suggestion that this is a public housing project. Why then, would compulsory purchase even be a consideration? I was not aware that a council could compulsorily purchase land and then sell it on to a private developer. Surely compulsory purchase orders are for public projects such as roads, railways, and utilities?




Could it be that the members of New Zealand GC have simply decided to cash in on their very valuable tract of real estate?

[Josh Stevens]

NZ was always called a "Lawyers Club" so the council will have a fight on their hands.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sam,


whilst it is the case that a public body is much more likely to get a compulsory purchase order this does not mean council's can just decide they are going to force a sale because it suits them, compulsory purchase does not work like that. For the council to be able to go down that road it would have to prove not only is the purchase of the land for infrastructure that is absolutely vital to the borough but also that there is no where else for it to go. Neither of which is probably the case here. Add to that the fact that this project is not publicly financed but rather privately for the profit of private firms and the idea of compulsory purchase is highly unlikely.


HS2 has been deemed to be vital infrastructure of national importance with the UK Government doing any compulsory purchasing. There is a big difference between that and a local council wanting someone else to build houses which will be sold privately.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

Proposals such as this for developments of housing are rife throughout the country, encouraged by central government. Anyone who lives on the fringes of a major conurbation will be aware of several in their immediate area.


Inevitably they attract major protests from the local population, who see their semi-rural idyll under threat. Accusations of NIMBYism are usually countered with the assertion that the green belt needs to be protected in the interests of civil amenity and the value of open spaces to this and future generations.


A golf course of 120 acres however, is seen as providing an amenity only to its membership of maybe 400 people. Mass protests are less likely than if open fields or woodland  were slated for development. I can see hundreds of golf courses in suburban areas disappearing under housing.


This reduction in supply of course, could ultimately be very beneficial to the health of the golf industry in general.

[Ben Stephens]

Its not just New Zealand Golf Club.


In Leicester the council/housebuilder are looking at building houses on Scraptoft Golf Club's current course and have offered a land swap or buy a land near Houghton on the Hill.


http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/residents-fear-1-000-homes-build-golf-course-edge/story-29186579-detail/story.html


https://www.leicestershirecommunities.org.uk/uploads/draft-plan-9.pdf page 18-19 - this will be similar for NZ


I wonder what alternative land would the council suggest providing for the new NZ club?

[Jon Wiggett]

Duncan,


I can see there being many clubs who will willing sell their land with some setting up elsewhere whilst others disappear. I very much doubt many will be bought through compulsory purchase orders though.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan,


I can see there being many clubs who will willing sell their land with some setting up elsewhere whilst others disappear. I very much doubt many will be bought through compulsory purchase orders though.


Jon

I agree.


I don't know what the potential value of the land at New Zealand GC is or how many members they have, but it is not inconceivable that each member could be in line for a quarter of a million quid!


It would take an awful lot of club loyalty, not to mention other liquid wealth, to resist that kind of temptation.


It's not as if there is a shortage of decent golf clubs in the area, either.

[Josh Stevens]

I suspect the constitution of NZGC would strictly forbid the distribution of the proceeds of a sale of the land to members.  It would have to go to the purchase and development of a new course, or to some worthy charitable cause.  This is reasonably standard specifically to prevent such mercenary behaviour on the part of a group of members

[Duncan Cheslett]

That might sometimes be the case Josh, but plenty of members' golf clubs have no such clause.


Constitutions can also be amended with a sufficient majority in support.

[Adrian_Stiff]

If they are CASC registerred which I think they NZ were then they can't receive the proceeds to distrubute amongst the members. CASC rules changed last year though and many clubs de-registered. You effectively had to have a full membership equal to £520 per year and it is hard to operate a good standard course with that low a membership fee.


The land could be worth as much as £200,000,000 in Surrey, which is one of the most expensive places in the country/world.


Land in many towns is worth £1,000,000 per acre if you can build. Agricultural land or golf course land is circa £10,000 in the south of England, but throughout the UK could range from £1,000 upwards.


If an average golf course got planning permission to build on the lot you could expect 2000 homes, so £100 million is very possible. Most clubs could up and build a much better one for £5 million and at £10 million you could rootzone fairways. Done properly the average member could expect to receive £200,000 each.


Getting planning for most golf courses would be seen has hitting the jackpot of all jackpots. You would still get a few vote against it though. We need new towns close to motorways though not clogging up existing infrastructure.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,


whilst I am not sure about the CASC situation (I cannot see any private clubs in the home counties have full memberships at just £520 per year) I would imagine what you are saying is pretty close to the mark. The only thing I would offer is that no matter how many houses are built in the SE it will not solve the problem just make matters worse. The only solution is a shift away from only pushing one part of the country when it comes to large public investment and a more even spread of funds to other areas.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

It will surprise no-one that New Zealand GC does not appear on the government's list of Community Amateur Sports Clubs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-amateur-sports-clubs-casc-registered-with-hmrc--2/l-m-n

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,


whilst I am not sure about the CASC situation (I cannot see any private clubs in the home counties have full memberships at just £520 per year) I would imagine what you are saying is pretty close to the mark. The only thing I would offer is that no matter how many houses are built in the SE it will not solve the problem just make matters worse. The only solution is a shift away from only pushing one part of the country when it comes to large public investment and a more even spread of funds to other areas.


Jon

Pretty much is exactly what I said, we need new towns, the closer to motorways the better, will mean eating into the green belt though.

[Duncan Cheslett]

With councils across the country under increasing pressure to form plans and to identify potential sites for new housing, suburban golf courses will be targeted like never before.



Take a look at the north Stockport area within the Greater Manchester sprawl;





Three golf courses very close to each other, at least two of which are ideally sited for new housing developments. There is probably a demand in the area  for only two courses - all three are short of members. Consolidation would ultimately benefit everyone.


I am sure this scenario is repeated across every major conurbation.

[Josh Stevens]

You think they would at least dig up the crap golf courses like Fox Hills and Wentworth West.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Unfortunately the quality or pedigree of a golf course will inevitably be of minor significance compared to financial considerations when the decisions on  house building are made.

[Niall C]

Duncan


I recall starting a thread a couple of years ago regarding whether clubs should take the opportunity to sell and build further out, on the basis that their existing course while perhaps of classic vintage, might have all sorts of safety issues both internally and with their boundaries, not to mention lack of length/gubbed drainage etc.


My idea was predicated on the notion that the existing course could largely be sold for housing or some other high value use (I think I suggested supermarket but that market has been and gone) that would more than cover the cost of the replacement course. Frankly I was really playing devil’s advocate but I suspect in a lot of instances the figures could work.
 
Adrian
 
We had this discussion over Balmedie and I think you still haven’t factored in the costs of infrastructure and planning gain, all of which can take a sizeable chunk off your bottom line. Also add in the fact that you are dealing with such a large area (100 acres could equate to c.1,200 units) and it could take quite a number of years to develop out which again would mean developers would be looking to discount the price on the land for the later phases.


Money to be made for sure if you just want to cash in but it’s certainly not a no-brainer if you are looking to develop an alternative facility out of the proceeds and have cash left over.


Niall

[Marc Haring]

I worked at Camberley Heath when the debenture holders of which there were 50, were trying to do a deal with Charles Church homes to sell up for prestigious housing. They didn't manage the deal but if they had they'd had walked away with several million each back in the late 80's. They sold to the Jap's instead.


Also I have it on authority that there are a few people in the Bristol area that are members of established clubs whose sole motivation is not the golf but sell up to developers. I suppose if you get enough of them together and they get the planning it could work out at a tidy sum for all members concerned. Those clubs though are not that worthy of conserving unlike NZ.

[Michael Latham]

i am a relatively local resident and frequent visitor to NZGC. I would offer the following comments:
All the neighbouring Surrey Councils are under central government pressure to show how they will meet current and anticipated housing need. This process used to be viewed on a regional basis, e.g. "Surrey" so one local Council's building could be used theoretically to support under achievement elsewhere. This is no longer the case and each Borough within Surrey, ( and elsewhere around the M25) is having to demonstrate the measures adopted to meet future housing needs within their Borough. Thus the Woking consultative plan suggesting the building of housing on land adjacent to and including NZGC is designed to meet housing need in the 2027-2040 time frame.
Elsewhere, for example, the Guildford plan proposes building up to 3000 houses on the Wisley airfield, opposite to Wisley GC and further south the Dunsfold Airport is planned to be a "new town". These are brownfield examples but many of the Councils have been obliged to consider meeting their housing need by reviewing the and removing the Green Belt classification of sites within their boundaries and thus Woking's consideration of NZGC as a potential building plot on green belt land is unfortunately not unusual, save for the fact that it is a golf course.
Objections to this wholesale reclassification of swathes of Surrey green belt have focussed on many local and national factors but perhaps the two most common are, the complete lack of infrastructure development proposed alongside  the new housing and the dubious origins of the housing need forecasts  beling relied upon by the Councils. The Wisley development is said to realise a developer gain of £2 billion if it goes ahead without any definition thus far of 198 Agreements clawing some of this back to fund the additional infrastructure the development requires.
NZGC are reported to have objected to their inclusion in the Woking plan, which coincidentally is the second try by Woking to identify suitable building land, their first having met with howls of objection because of the loss of local amenity. I think NZGC have a battle on their hands. I wish them well but their argument against the proposal would have been so much stronger if they were able to show a sizeable loss of profit consequent upon a CPO. I think their constitution and operational model precludes that line of argument.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Thank you Michael.


You confirm my earlier assertion that golf courses offer relatively easy targets as opposed to common land or areas of fields and woodland with public access.


An intensely private golf club will simply not have mass public support for its retention, as the vast majority of local people are already denied access to it as an amenity.


Politicians will always go after the low hanging fruit.