To think a solution to the housing crisis is: GOLF COURSES?

[Amethyst24]

Seriously. They're green deserts. Their contribution to wildlife habitat is negligible; they don't give ordinary families a place to enjoy open spaces; they're mostly denuded of indigenous flora. What are they for, except men to be dick-swingy on weekends while their wives look after their children, and Monday-Friday for Tory pensioners and wankers on corporate jollies to wallow in their privilege?

Fuck destroying the proper green belt, let's build housing on golf courses. (And in the meantime, make the overpriced suburbs around them affordable to ordinary people, because the flipping golf club won't be a massive selling point any more. Two birds, one stone.)

OP - I think you should change your name to Emerald24.

OP - I think you should change your name to Emerald24.

OP - I think you should change your name to Emerald24.

Golf courses are often built on flood plains around rivers and would therefore not be good for housing.

I fly in and out of various UK airports for work and every.single.time, I can't help but notice how green the UK is, and how much green space there is surrounding most towns and cities.
There isn't a shortage a land. There is a oversupply of Nimbies who don't want the land built on. Taking away golf courses isn't going to solve that

That is an excellent Idea!!

Unless they are built on flood plains.

I don't think golf courses are found in huge areas where the need for housing is highest.

In my area of north London we have 3 golf courses: Highgate, Hampstead and Muswell Hill. Housing demand is huge.

YANBU OP

Alternatively, rather than destroying green land, build on decaying industrial sites.

Do we really need another B&Q for example?

what about football pitches?

Football pitches serve a purpose. They keep kids active. Better that they play football than hang around bored.

Alibalibumblebee What name is it that you want the OP to change to again?

Before we start building over green spaces (which do contain trees, some wildlife, offer one of the few sporting facilities that are targetted at pensioners!) let's make developers develop on land they have banked. They could give them 2 years to develop or it's surrendered/planning permission removed.

Also, more people will have to think the unthinkable and get out of london - there's not so much of a nation wide housing crisis (or else prices would be equally going up in the north as SE), but a crisis in a small area.

IME there's a lot of demand ot use the golf courses in London, they are very profitable for the space given up to them. You could build over football pitches and children's parks for similar reasons. Older, richer people should do exercise too. (and there's a lot of female golfers these days, although again, mainly amongst the retired age group).

Yes, then the owners of the golf courses could make a massive profit out of some developers, who will then sell the houses they build at huge prices simply because they can, lots of people that can afford to buy houses will get to buy themselves one, and everyone else will just carry on renting as normal.

Or am I missing the point?

I don't play golf by the way, doesn't interest me at all, but know a lot of golfers. Yes it's male dominated and mainly middle aged or older middle class people, but why should sports facilities targetted at one group (who really need exercise), that are profitable and need no public subsidy, be destroyed for seemingly pollitical reasons? There's land banked across the country for housing or other development.

Alternatively, make it easier for the purpose of a property to be changed, so going from something being an office block to flats, from a shop to a house, this is actually rather a costly and slow legal process. How many empty offices and shops are there in London?

Lots of golf courses are in the Green Belt. Lots are Council owned too and those are not so much the preserve of dick swingers.

The housing crisis is down to greedy landowners, the soaring cost of materials and NIMBYs.

Planning permission for a change of use is not a 'costly and slow legal
process'. It costs £385 and takes 8 weeks. Unless you use the prior approval system that this genius government brought in when it costs £80. And Councils pick up the bill for what it actually costs to process. And the land use and economic implications of converting offices to flats are becoming apparent and it's not good news.

My local golf course in Houston was an absolute haven for wildlife. Sometimes it was unplayable due to the wildlife leaving the cosy water features and basking on the greens.

Can I have the house next door to the 19th please?

I live in an estate with 2 golf courses - there is plenty of wildlife thanks very much! (red squirrels, mink, foxes, ducks, heron, buzzards etc).

I'm not saying there's no need for golf courses okay, I am just that we don't need so many of them. SE London has five I know of, in Shooter's Hill, Eltham, Blackheath, Sydenham and Peckham - and that's without going beyond zone 4. Surely one or two would be sufficient, especially in an area where there's loads of other well-used, public green space?

Actually a lot of our native reptiles like golf courses.

As do other protected species. I say this as someone who carries out environmental and wildlife surveys.

SE London has five I know of, in Shooter's Hill, Eltham, Blackheath, Sydenham and Peckham

And how much disused industrial land, empty/derelict property and other wasted space?

Why get rid of green space which benefits the environment simply by existing?

Our local golf course is surrounded by fields which have just been given permission for a massive housing estate. Once it is built the golf course will be the only parcel of greenery for miles around.