Original MacKenzie Course Faces Destruction!

[Duncan Cheslett]

I have just received the following from Richard Atherton, Secretary of the Alister MacKenzie Society.

Blackpool Park Golf Club

The course in Stanley Park was designed in 1925 by Alister Mackenzie for the Blackpool Corporation. In recent years maintenance of the course and operation of the amenities have been carried by a commercial organisation which went into voluntary liquidation last autumn, thereby forfeiting the lease.
The Blackpool Council has agreed to maintain the playing condition of the 18 hole course until 31^st March 2020, but in the meantime has invited tenders for a new contractor to assume operating the facilities.

The small but active members’ section of the club quoted for the new contract but were outbid by a commercial organisation based outside Blackpool. The successful bid involves closing 9 holes of the golf course and erecting a leisure complex on the land released.

The Blackpool council has accepted the bid described above, but the opportunity has arisen to support an appeal to reverse this decision and retain the 18 hole golf course. We urge all members to support the efforts of the club members to retain in full MacKenzie’s design by signing the on-line petition at


https://www.change.org/p/blackpool-council-save-stanley-park-golf-course

[Mike Sweeney]

Signed and thanks for posting.

[Jeff Schley]

signed and forwarded.

[Marty Bonnar]

Signed and Facebooked.
F.

[Michael Whitaker]

Signed

[Jon Wiggett]

Signed

[Jim_Kennedy]

Done

[Duncan Cheslett]

I have found the document below in my files. I suspect Mark Rowlinson had something to do with it being there!


Did MacKenzie describe every site as being "agreeably undulating without being hilly"?   


Stanley Park by duncan cheslett, on Flickr

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have just received the following from Richard Atherton, Secretary of the Alister MacKenzie Society.

Blackpool Park Golf Club

The course in Stanley Park was designed in 1925 by Alister Mackenzie for the Blackpool Corporation. In recent years maintenance of the course and operation of the amenities have been carried by a commercial organisation which went into voluntary liquidation last autumn, thereby forfeiting the lease.
The Blackpool Council has agreed to maintain the playing condition of the 18 hole course until 31^st March 2020, but in the meantime has invited tenders for a new contractor to assume operating the facilities.

The small but active members’ section of the club quoted for the new contract but were outbid by a commercial organisation based outside Blackpool. The successful bid involves closing 9 holes of the golf course and erecting a leisure complex on the land released.

The Blackpool council has accepted the bid described above, but the opportunity has arisen to support an appeal to reverse this decision and retain the 18 hole golf course. We urge all members to support the efforts of the club members to retain in full MacKenzie’s design by signing the on-line petition at


https://www.change.org/p/blackpool-council-save-stanley-park-golf-course

They were outbid, the top bidder won the contract. We need less courses to make the others better.

[Duncan Cheslett]

But it’s not quite as simple as that.


The future of nearly all golf courses in suburban areas is in the hands of local authorities.


Approve planning permission for development and the course will close. Golf simply cannot compete.


Deny permission and golf will probably stagger on for another 100 years.


This is a property deal, not simply a decision on the management of a municipal golf course.


The winning bid is from David Lloyd, who propose to build one of their leisure complexes on the 7 holes over the road from Stanley Park.

[Adrian_Stiff]

But it’s not quite as simple as that.


The future of nearly all golf courses in suburban areas is in the hands of local authorities.


Approve planning permission for development and the course will close. Golf simply cannot compete.


Deny permission and golf will probably stagger on for another 100 years.


This is a property deal, not simply a decision on the management of a municipal golf course.


The winning bid is from David Lloyd, who propose to build one of their leisure complexes on the 7 holes over the road from Stanley Park.

I don't really agree with your rationale, here is why.
1. The best golf courses will survive and supply and the volume of play will determine death or glory.
2. The fact that it is a McKenzie course makes no difference. The real truth is the course has failed/failing.
3. Golf courses take up huge tracts of UK land and in some places a 150 acre parcel inside GB would be worth £180,000,000 (don't know Blackpool area but perhaps 40% of that and less if some holes are kept). This land is council owned so the value for housing (if as you say it is property) will be nicely reflected into the councils coffers and with CIL (community infrastructure levy) plus the construction jobs and ten year ancillaries will reflect good wealth to the area in what might be fragile times. If some land is retained as a park or short course then 10 to 20 acres is enough. 150 acres still costs a lot to maintain by the council.
4. A golf course closing means another will do better.

[Mike Sweeney]

Adrian,


I agree with everything you said as I lean towards economics solving many problems in life, BUT, there is/should be a special place in life for special things in life.


Ten years ago, I had the opportunity to join Lahinch GC but I just did not have the time to go through the process, so I joined Enniscrone GC in the Northwest of Ireland. Enniscrone keeps getting better and better, and I really love the people and the course. They could not have been nicer to us this summer when we re-visited Enniscrone. That said, I played Lahinch in some rain, and lots of wind this summer and I could just feel Alister's ghost out there. Ten years later, I wish I had taken the time and effort to join Lahinch. It is a special place.


I can't say that Blackpool has that type of aura, but I do think Old Tom, MacKenzie and Colt are in Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven type of territory and we should think twice before we rip up their courses. Ten years from now, people may have a different perspective.


Timber Point GC (Long Island, Colt & Alison) was in no man's land for awhile and they went the opposite way when the population base grew their way. They ripped up most of the course to squeeze in 27 holes of muni style golf. The argument of golf economics can go both ways, but I think history should at least be reflected on and Timber Point was an opportunity lost as those extra 9 holes are really not needed these days.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is a lovely romantic view but. The law of the jungle is the strongest survive. Market conditions have dictated that all things considered not enough people like it over the other courses.


If the land was worth £80,000,000 that outweighs a few peoples romantic considerations. It simply won't be 'special' to enough people.


The council will usually consider retaining some green space as part of the natural process of town planning when they 'fill' and they will also strongly consider the present infrastructure when they future plan, turning all 150 acres of a golf course into housing (up to 10,000 people) is a lot of cars.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Adrian,


I’m not sure that it is fair to say that Blackpool Park has “failed”.


It is a Council owned municipal course that has been successful for nearly 100 years. It is the most recent operator, Mack Golf, which failed and went into liquidation last year. They ran municipal courses under contract across the north of England.


Your argument negates the relevance of municipal courses in general. Others will take the view that they offer an important amenity and entry into golf for less well off individuals.


Blackpool incidentally, is one of the most impoverished towns in the country.

[Bernie Bell]

"Blackpool incidentally, is one of the most impoverished towns in the country."

Perhaps the citizens of Blackpool have different priorities for the land they own than those who are removed by many miles or even oceans.  Whether the land is to provide an important 18-hole leisure amenity, versus a 9-hole amenity with additional revenue, is fully up to them acting through their elected representatives to decide, no? 

[Sean_A]

IMO there must be compelling reasons why the owner of land cannot change the use...including government holdings.  Is the course special in anyway to justify the cost to the taxpayer?  Could the land be better utilized?  Does the local Council need to balance the books?  Is the local area adequately serviced by local clubs?  Etc etc.  Generally speaking, local authorities in England are struggling to provide basic services.  Generally speaking, local clubs are struggling to survive.  It can make economic sense to change the use of public land which would allow local clubs a better opportunity to thrive rather than compete against a government subsidized facility.

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

My goodness, GCA.com has lost its soul.


We are throwing Dr Mac under the bus for "profit", "balancing the books", and "fairness to the taxpayers"! Just in case Ran deletes it, I have saved the "147 Custodians" list on the Blockchain!! Only Nuclear War will destroy that list now!!
http://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/

Let's all head to Abu Dhabi GC for a "for-profit" outing and count our Bitcoin!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

My goodness, GCA.com has lost its soul.


We are throwing Dr Mac under the bus for "profit", "balancing the books", and "fairness to the taxpayers"! Just in case Ran deletes it, I have saved the "147 Custodians" list on the Blockchain!! Only Nuclear War will destroy that list now!!
http://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/

Let's all head to Abu Dhabi GC for a "for-profit" outing and count our Bitcoin!!

It is called honesty.

[Mike Sweeney]

It is called honesty.

Adrian,


Well if we are being honest, nobody here really cares about Doak 4's on this website:


A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf. The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.www.theplayersgolfclub.com

So why are you here? I have no interest in average golf.

[Sean_A]

My goodness, GCA.com has lost its soul.

We are throwing Dr Mac under the bus for "profit", "balancing the books", and "fairness to the taxpayers"! Just in case Ran deletes it, I have saved the "147 Custodians" list on the Blockchain!! Only Nuclear War will destroy that list now!!
http://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/

Mike

I am asking questions for which I don't know the answers. I like to know the facts before signing petitions. Simply throwing the Dr Mac name around connected with a course I never heard mentioned as special is not enough info to add my name to a petition.

Ciao

[Brian_Ewen]

I am asking questions for which I don't know the answers. I like to know the facts before signing petitions. Simply throwing the Dr Mac name around connected with a course I never heard mentioned as special is not enough info to add my name to a petition.

"the only municipal golf resource in the area offering affordable golf to all residents across the Fylde" was enough for me!

[Duncan Cheslett]

"the only municipal golf resource in the area offering affordable golf to all residents across the Fylde" was enough for me!

Me too.


There is superficially a strong argument at the moment that municipal golf is an unnecessary burden on local taxpayers for the benefit of relatively few. Green fees at "low tier" local private and proprietary clubs have never been cheaper - more often than not at a similar level to municipal courses. Joining fees no longer exist at the vast majority of clubs and membership can generally be had for no more than £15 per week.


However,


This has not always been the case and there is no reason to suppose that it will be the case forever.


A large proportion of today's golfers started out playing municipals. 20-30 years ago clubs were expensive and exclusive; ordinary working people without family golfing connections would have been excluded from the game completely had it not been for the local muni.


In areas where there is still good municipal provision this is still the case. A client of mine is the Chief Executive of Trafford Leisure, a division of the local authority which runs leisure facilities in South West Manchester, including the stockbroker belt of Altrincham and Hale. Altrincham Golf Course, another MacKenzie municipal, is the single most profitable facility in her portfolio.  It provides decent quality golf at a bargain price to thousands of local people who would struggle to pay the fees at the upmarket local clubs. It also makes a profit.


Blackpool is a very different kind of area, but most private clubs are renowned links courses with high green fees and exclusive memberships. The general population meanwhile, has one of the lowest average incomes in the land. Average house prices are less than half the national average and are generally far lower than they were 10 years ago.


It all depends on whether you think there is a role for municipal golf or not. I find it rather ironic that municipal provision of golf courses appears to be far stronger in the USA than it is in England...

[Sean_A]

Duncan

I wouldn't say the arguments are superficial in the least.  There is no onus on local government to provide golf, let alone 18 hole golf using 100+ acres.  There are only so many Pounds in the coffers so tough choices need to be considered and if I were the person voting on raising taxes then golf would be a very low priority for doing so.  If a muni flips a profit and provides employment, I have no issue with muni golf regardless of the quality.  It is when golf is a drain on the coffers and there is local non-government provision that a light goes off in my head.  Many authorities are selling off land to balance budgets.  Times are tough for local authorities.

Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


there is a clear and historical onus on the local council to provide recreational facilities for the population.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean,


there is a clear and historical onus on the local council to provide recreational facilities for the population.

If there is one I certainly never knew they had any sort of duties to directly provide them themselves. There is no municipal golf course in Bristol and there has not been one ever save that of pitch and putt courses, there were about 5 (50 years ago) and some putting courses in parks but these are long gone.


I think that local councils encourage recreational facilities from the outside sectors and will look very favourably at most sports and pastimes. Sometimes planning is conditioned that the facility must be open to ALL and affordable.


The big problem with providing golf is the large amount of land required for the sport.


Inner city land is just too valuable sometimes. Saving an Old Tom, Dr Mac, Colt can't overweigh the value to a council.


Extra millions to councils will help save lives that over-rides saving a piece of art cherished for a few miserables that think their view is more important.


I don't really know the area very well and how full the courses are but you can get in Blackpool North Shore which I have played and is okay. Prices are reasonable. Most rational people would look at two half full golf courses, anaylze the land used and determine that you should have one FULL UP course.