What proposed closure of golf course means for the game

Guest Article by Phil Grice, Head of Venues, Custodian Golf, on the proposed closure of Ifield Golf Club and the cost of not asking the question.

The debate surrounding the proposed closure of Ifield Golf Club has been framed as though relocation was never a realistic option. That framing is both misleading and dangerous.

What is unfolding at Ifield is not simply a local planning dispute. It is a case study in what happens when relocation and long-term continuity are dismissed too early, or never meaningfully explored at all.

The recent BBC coverage, showing members speaking openly about the loss of a community asset, reflects fears we hear from clubs across the country. Strong demand for golf still exists. What is missing is a framework that protects places to play.

Counting Courses Is Not Understanding Provision

(Image Credit: Ifield Golf Club)

A central justification for closure is the claim that the area is already well served by golf facilities. This conclusion is based on aggregated counts of nearby courses, not on how golf actually functions in practice.

Golf provision is not interchangeable.

A local, accessible members’ club with junior pathways, community identity and affordability cannot simply be replaced by distant clubs with waiting lists, higher costs, limited tee time capacity, or a different operating model.

The presence of multiple clubs within a regional boundary does not tell you whether displaced members can realistically be absorbed. It does not tell you whether juniors can continue to develop. It does not tell you whether participation will be sustained or quietly lost over time.

Counting facilities is not evidence of surplus. It is a shortcut that ignores lived reality.

Custodian Golf’s own data shows that Ifield sits in the lowest tier nationally for local competition. Within its travel time catchment there are 16 directly competing courses, compared with a national average of approximately 31. By competition density, Ifield falls within the lowest 5 percent of clubs we analyse.

Financial Mitigation is Not Continuity of Sport

The suggestion that financial contributions to other courses, or investment in alternative leisure facilities, can offset the loss of Ifield Golf Club misunderstands what continuity of sport actually means.

Improving drainage and driving range facilities elsewhere does not replace a lost membership base. A leisure centre does not replace an 18-hole course. Once a club is closed, its ecosystem disappears with it.

Golf clubs are not just land parcels. They are environments where participation, progression, volunteering, coaching, and social connection occur together. Remove the place, and the system collapses.

From a sporting perspective, this is permanent loss, not mitigation.

Relocation Fails When it is Considered Too Late

The absence of a relocation plan at Ifield has been presented as evidence that relocation was unrealistic. In reality, it shows something else entirely.

Relocation is rarely viable when land control has already been lost, development frameworks are advanced, and optionality has disappeared.

The freehold transfer in 2020 materially reduced the club’s ability to shape its future. By the time relocation is discussed at that stage, it’s often too late.

This does not mean relocation was never possible. It means it was never explored early enough, with the right data, planning expertise, and land strategy in place.

Our national evidence base is consistent on this point. Clubs that examine relocation early retain options. Clubs that do not are eventually presented with binary outcomes.

The Wider Issue This Case Exposes

Ifield Golf Club was not failing. It was used, valued, and embedded in its community. The strength of member protest reflects that reality.

Its proposed closure highlights a broader problem. Decisions are often made by judging ageing facilities only as they are today, rather than asking what they could become. A tired venue is assessed in isolation, while the opportunity to replace it with a modern, inclusive, future facing golf offer is never properly tested.

Golf is increasingly treated as a disposable land use rather than a sporting asset that requires continuity and long-term planning.

Accepting "no relocation" as the default outcome sets a precedent that extends far beyond Ifield. It normalises the loss of facilities even where demand is proven and participation remains strong.

Custodian Golf’s Position

We are not arguing against development. We are questioning why continuity of golf was never properly tested.

Boards and landowners have a duty of care to understand all viable options before irreversible decisions are made. That includes relocation, repurposing, and long-term land strategy.

Even if relocation is ultimately dismissed, it should be dismissed with evidence, not assumption.

Participation growth without places to play is not growth. It is erosion, delayed.

Ifield is not an isolated case. It is a warning.

The question is not whether every club should relocate.

The question is why so many are closed without ever asking whether they could.