Monday, 28 April 2014

Golf courses or homes

The Guardian reports  that more of Surrey is devoted to golf course than housing.

Golf is perhaps a fun sport, but it seems that it offers less to overall human welfare than housing. And the idea of greenbelts are presumably not to lock up large areas of land, so that they can be used by a handful of people. Presumably the idea is to have open spaces on which city folk can roam, where we can grow food on this small isle of ours and to preserve nature. Golf course are the preserve of a tiny minority, preoduce no food and our as unnatural as a factory.

I do agree with the principle of not concreting over the whole country, but large belts of land that cannot be built on offer benefits largely to existing home owners who benefit from the increase in prices caused by the lack of supply. I suspect any change in the law might initially benefit golf club owners as they would presumably rush to build houses on their prize courses if they were allowed too. 

None of the political parties seems keen to reform these planning laws.I feel that this and Sunday Trading Laws are areas where there are big increases in welfare available if only the government would unlock them.