| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Golf courses on public land | |
| Posted by: | Mark Evans | |
| Date/Time: | 04/04/24 08:39:00 |
| I think it will be interesting to hear a fuller justification for subsidies for polo - can't see it being a popular policy. Nobody is missing the point about making sports affordable and the benefits for participation but, as with polo, we can't afford to do this for every sport. My point about the consultation overstating the number of golfers is surely self-evident - you would expect a higher proportion of people who play the sport to respond than are in the general population. Even allowing for this, the responses showed that participation remains low. The council wasn't responsible for encouraging more people to join from a wider section of the community, that was down to the club but they signally failed to do this possibly because fewer members meant less competition for tee-off times. The result is that residents of the borough overwhelmingly backed the decision to close the course. I can't begin to imagine the lather you would get yourself into if the council refused to act if the closure was of a facility for an activity you didn't approve of. Most people aren't trying to identify a secret council agenda or plot to build over green spaces in what has happened here. They, like me, are pleased that they will now get to access a piece of land they own but, up until now, have been effectively excluded from. |