Mayor’s unwarranted comments on golf course biodiversity should be deleted

The London Mayor says certain golf courses have limited biodiversity, implying they could be used for development. But London’s golf courses are some of our most important Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (aka SINCs). We’ve taken a look at just how much wildlife there is on the capital’s courses.

Ring-necked parakeets, heron, deer, pheasants, bats, butterflies, stag beetles and much more can be found living within the varied habitats of London golf courses. But ‘Towards a New London Plan‘ claims these areas of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) are often ‘not publicly accessible and offer limited biodiversity value’. The conclusion is they should be considered for development.

More on biodiversity below… But this statement also confuses public recreation land, like parks, with land which is used by sports clubs (football, rugby, cricket, golf etc) for recreational sports, on a paid-for basis (either through paid subscriptions or on pay-to-play basis). Many sports operate like this in London, not just golf clubs. This is a legitimate and important part of the offer for public recreation in London. Golf is unfairly singled out by commentators (and now even the London Mayor) who claim, without basis, that golf is ‘publicly inaccessible’ – a thinly veiled attempt – in our view – to get land released for housebuilding. We have written elsewhere about why building on London’s protected land won’t solve the housing crisis anyway.

You can tell the Mayor what you think by adding your voice to the London Pan consultation by 22 June.

So, how much biodiversity did we find at London’s golf courses? A lot, as it happens…

Contrary to what is laid out in the consultation document, many clubs take their role as sanctuaries for nature and wildlife very seriously:

• Purley Downs in Croydon has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) because of its unusual flora and fauna and can often seem more like a nature reserve than a golf course.
• Bush Hill Park in Enfield is signed up to the Sports for Nature Framework, marking its commitment to championing nature and contributing to its protection and restoration.
• Langley Park in Bromley, which originally had only a scattering of trees, now has mature trees throughout the course which are home to all sorts of wildlife.
• Banstead Downs in Bexley is also an SSSI and one of the few disappearing chalk download habitats in England. The club works with Banstead Commons Conservators and Natural England to reverse the decline of this habitat and the species that live in it.
• Surbiton, Kingston, is removing less beneficial woodland and replacing it with native species of trees while animal and bird life is encouraged and protected by creating natural areas around the course. It even has its own beehives and sells its own honey.
• Royal Mid-Surrey in Richmond shares its course with a range of mammals, from badgers to deer, and is committed to sustainable practices – evidenced in its GEO certification.
• And many more examples.

“It is extremely worrying to see unsupported statements about golf courses being inaccessible and lacking biodiversity habitat,” says CPRE London Head of Campaigns Alice Roberts. “Golf courses are frequently habitat rich and can even be designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Plus they are used by members to play recreational sports, via a paid subscription systems, or on a pay-to-play basis, in the same way other sports are played in London.

“False or uncorroborated statements undermine the soundness of the London Plan. Worse, in this case, it promotes speculative purchase of protected land which could then be taken out of use.”

Appropriate response

CPRE London is calling for inaccurate statements about golf courses to be corrected in the consultation document. If the Mayor has concerns about biodiversity, the appropriate response is to assess courses and protect any quality habitat, or like Surrey Wildlife Trust, work with them to improve it.

Concerns about land being ‘publicly inaccessible’ should be dealt with via a Green Space and Sports Strategy. If it is felt golf is overprovisioned then the appropriate response is to work with sports clubs to assess what other needs there are for sports in London or indeed for new nature habitat. And instead of promoting building on well-maintained and well-used facilities like golf courses, the Plan should focus on bringing disused and neglected playing fields back into use.

You can tell the Mayor what you think by adding your voice to the London Pan consultation by 22 June.

Find out more about how to respond to the London Plan consultation, here