Par For the Course - Does the MOD own 19 Golf Courses?

A common pastime for many people is to ask Freedom of Information requests about MOD facilities, trying to glean information that could be used in a way to generate a media story of some form. One particularly common question is about how many golf courses the MOD owns and whether it has gotten rid of any of them.

At the moment the MOD thinks that it owns 19 golf courses – or rather thinks that there are 19 golf courses on land owned by the MOD. For some this image immediately brings to mind the thought of large immaculately maintained courses, through which terribly posh officers play, probably pausing only to beat their caddies (well, they are working class privates after all) and then linger in the 19^th hole for a glass or two, pending some proper soldiering.

Golf attracts a certain level of attention precisely because it triggers so many stereotypes and views. It sounds like the armed forces have money to waste on sites that would only benefit the posh and the privileged, and that this is money that could be better spent on guns, bullets and boots that fit (or whatever story is flavour of the month). Is this fair though – is the MOD really subsidising a privileged lifestyle, or is there a bit more to it than this?

The reality of the MOD estate is that it takes up a lot of space around the country, of which huge parts of fundamentally rural or empty. Go to any large military facility and you’ll be amazed at just how much rural space there is on which not much activity seems to happen. Similarly, there are pockets of land owned by the MOD which have, often for a plethora of very good reasons, not been sold off or disposed of.

If you look at where the MOD golf facilities are, most of them seem to be on, or near, airfields of some description. This is in part a reflection that airfields are large and need a lot of space for runways, taxiways and other essential infrastructure. There is a need to spread facilities out too – you don’t want your main bomb dump right next to the fuel storage facilities.

In the past this relative amount of space has led to the creation of small golfing clubs, which became part of the site – it was a form of recreation and activity, particularly if people lived locally in remote areas. They were never particularly plush or luxurious, and rarely well maintained – often these were (and are) sites on the margin of land that would otherwise remain unused and empty.

With the increasing political sensitivities around the perception of taxpayer’s money being abused in some way, there has been clear direction over the years to cut down on this sort of ‘perk’ and instead sell the land off. Over time the number of golf clubs has diminished significantly, but there are still some on the land.  Does this mean though that the MOD is actually funding 19 golf clubs? Well in a word, no!

Some clubs are on MOD owned land but are privately run. For instance, the sites at Upavon and Fort Southwick (for example) are essentially private clubs that happen to be on land that is owned by the MOD. They are open to the public and anyone can play there.

Other sites are on parcels of land that have not been sold off, or which is essentially being leased to the club by the MOD, presumably in return for some form of commercial income. An example here would be places like RAF Coningsby, whose golf club is off site and appears to a private club on land that MOD owns. A few years ago, an article in the Times estimated that at least 7 of the golf clubs were essentially leased out to third parties and the MOD was merely the landlord.

Another two of the clubs are actually owned by the Americans for the US Air Force (Molesworth and Lakenheath). These facilities may be UK owned, but they are to all intents and purposes a US government facility. So, in reality while they may be MOD owned, it is not down to the MOD to dispose of them.

That said, the US military has a very different attitude to golf to the UK. According to the internet, there are 234 golf courses owned by the US military globally (out of some 800 major installations) including one on the Korean DMZ. This makes the MOD look a rather modest player by comparison.

The remainder seem a fairly eclectic collection – a small number are  in Cyprus, presumably as part of the package of facilities intended to help offer a reasonable posting to troops based there. Others sit on random parts of the MOD estate, for example a training camp in Wales, or the Defence Academy.

It is clear from visiting many of these golf clubs webpages that these are not exclusive facilities for the privileged few. Almost all of them offer access to the general public, and can be used by golf players if desired. It is hardly a bastion of elitism that is off limits to the many.

The better question rather than ‘how quickly can the MOD sell these off’ is perhaps ‘what would the MOD do with the land if it closed them or sold them? Most sit on land that is marginal at best, and with limited utility for other use. If located ‘inside the wire’ then closing it wouldn’t magically create a pool of land that could be used for other development – rather it would just close off a source of income and lead to waste land inside the base.

Likewise, selling land that the golf club sits on outside may not actually generate that much revenue. For some, they sit in what appears to be greenbelt land, so the potential for development is limited, and the likely proceeds of the sale is probably going to be less than the ongoing potential for leasehold income. Similarly, there may be all manner of restrictive covenants in place preventing sale or return of the land without major renovation work to revert it – which could cost a fortune to do.  

In Cyprus, given the golf clubs sit on UK sovereign territory as part of the Sovereign Base Areas, it is hard to see what could be done with the land were the golf clubs to shut – it would merely harm morale and send a message that ‘having down time is frowned upon’.

The ironic result may be that in order to improve the public image of Defence,  far more public money is wasted trying to sell the land than would be gained just from leasing it out as a benevolent landlord.

There is perhaps a strange form of inverse snobbery attached to the existence of golf courses. To some they are somehow seen as a bit posh and smack of a long vanished lifestyle. There are never similar complaints about the numbers of rugby or football pitches owned by the MOD, or adventure training.

Golf is not everyone’s particular sport, but it remains a means of encouraging people to get outdoors and exercise. Surely in an era of ‘joined up government’ ensuring that clubs exist that charge reasonable rates to allow locals to get exercise and the associated health benefits, and at practically no cost to the taxpayer is a good idea?

That the club is on MOD owned land is neither here nor there – if you look at the property portfolios of various universities or hospital trusts, it is clear there is significant ownership of property. For example, Guys and St Thomas’s hospital charity owns large holdings of commercial, residential and agricultural sites to generate an income for the hospitals.

Perhaps it would be better to quantity what the direct cost to the taxpayer is of owning these golf courses, and the likely cost involved in selling them on or disposing of them. The likely answer would be probably ‘very little’ and ‘higher than very little’ respectively.

The final issue to consider is the wider retention piece for the armed forces themselves. What message does it send for retention, or the promotion of a healthy lifestyle if you find yourself constantly demonised for having the audacity to play golf?

There seems to be implicit assumptions that getting rid of leisure facilities, some of which are enjoyed by serving personnel is a good thing – as if the only acceptable sport is full contact rugby or hockey. The idea that as people age, they may be less keen on such physical sports seems to be missed in all of this.

If you are based in the military, part of ‘the offer’ is access to good sporting facilities – yet here we seem to have a situation where rank snobbery in some quarters seems determined to prevent people from playing a sport they enjoy, on a site that would otherwise be left derelict or cost Defence more money to look after than if it was leased out, in order to somehow prove a point.

In an era where retention is critical, particularly of more experienced and perhaps older longer serving personnel, is getting rid of facilities that they may enjoy going to help retain them? Or is it going to be yet another reason to leave because you feel that your interests are no longer valued, and it is easier outside than inside.

This is perhaps a good example of a situation where just because you technically own something doesn’t necessarily make it a bad thing. When you look at the bigger picture and realise the benefits of ownership, the low to minimal costs involved and the opportunity to help bring civilians onto the defence estate in a way that often doesn’t exist elsewhere, is the desperate desire to slate the MOD for owning golf courses a problem that doesn’t actually exist?