Evington Golf Club in Dire Straits-Part II
Evington Golf Course (Leicestershire Golf Club) is currently a private golf course with a clubhouse. In a planning context it is within designated Green Wedge, is protected as open recreational land and is subject to tree preservation orders. This makes it a highly constrained in planning terms. This is “policy-protected land” in the strongest sense, Evington isn’t just open land, it’s part of Leicester’s strategic Green Wedge network, which is designed to prevent urban sprawl, maintain separation between built-up areas and provide recreation and green infrastructure. In planning terms, this puts it close to Green Belt-level protection.
Thus, the council appears already to have drawn a hard line, and the refusal of a planning application for a new nursing home on the edge of the course’s land shows the council is actively defending the designation and is not persuaded by “public benefit” arguments. That significantly reduces the risk of and speculative developments.
But if the golf course goes out of business things get interesting, the most likely council stance will be that the land should remain, open space, green infrastructure and possibly for alternative public recreation. This is supported by policy as the Local Plan protects sports and open space unless, proven to be surplus or replaced with equivalent provision. The outcome is no development, but potential change of use to parkland/nature. However, a developer may argue that “golf is no longer viable” and would need to show long-term financial losses, active marketing as a golf business and no viable operator interest. Even if successful this only removes the “recreation” protection layer and does not remove Green Wedge protection. If housing or major development is proposed after closure, to succeed, a developer must overcome Green Wedge policy, the strong presumption against built development, loss of openness, clear spatial harm, precedent and that the council has already rejected a less intensive proposal to build a care home. Thus, in practice housing is even harder to justify than the refused care home.
If the golf club shuts, the land would most likely remain open land, or possibly managed green space with public access, potentially with rewilding/biodiversity use. Less likely, but possible on appeal is partial development if housing supply is severely insufficient and the site is argued as “edge-of-urban infill” and an inspector gives weight to unmet housing need, however it is very unlikely that full residential redevelopment would be granted due to important extra constraints and tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). This adds, due to legal protection for landscape character, an additional barrier to site clearance.
So, even if the golf club fails this is not a “free development site” but rather closure weakens one argument (recreation use) with Green Wedge policy remaining the decisive barrier. Crucially a care home application has already failed, and housing would face far more stringent criteria.
Insofar as the approval of a care home setting a negative precedent for further development of the site over time, there is an even more stark scenario which may be well disguised as the City Council protecting green wedge.
If the club continues to struggle financially because of refusal of the care home application, and is forced to close, the future of the whole site may then fall into question. One might argue that there is a risk that the City Council could see it as an opportunity to build the housing it is required to under the National Planning Policy Framework. Currently Leicester City Council is only partly meeting its obligations under the National Planning Policy Framework, and the key weakness is the paucity of housing land supply.
The City Council cannot dependably demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and has consistently under-delivered on new housing; it only complies with national policy under the duty to co-operate, meaning other neighbouring councils must accept a portion of the city’s target housing growth. The availability of such a site might prove tempting and approval under the tilted balance (tilted in favour of development) might be sought. In planning terms this causes some harm to the Green Wedge, however, the limited and edge-focused nature of development, combined with the retention of substantial open space and enhanced public access, means the harm is moderate rather than substantial.
Although this weakens the argument against house building on the golf course, because of the Green Wedge designation and tree preservation orders in place, no wholesale building is likely to take place.
The most likely scenario should the golf club close, is a limited development consisting of a primary housing zone along the Evington Lane frontage. A small cluster of houses 30-80 units maximum of low density (detached/semi-detached) houses designed to blend with the existing suburban edge and avoid pushing into the open landscape. In effect this contains development to the least sensitive part of the site and would likely consist of small clusters backing onto existing houses with access taken directly from Evington Lane. Already influenced by the existing urban form, this minimises any perception of “sprawl” and reads as a natural extension, not intrusion.
A secondary, very limited infill zone might also be successful near the existing clubhouse and previously developed land.
Source:
1-https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/warning-issued-evington-golf-clubs-10886779
2-https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/refusal-looms-for-care-home-at-leicestershire-golf-club
3- https://www.planning.data.gov.uk/entity/7001075965
4- https://www.aol.com/news/golf-course-care-home-plan-193655648.html
5-https://consultations.leicester.gov.uk/planning/local-plan-documents/user_uploads/submission-draft-local-plan-1.pdf
6- ttps://www.leicester.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-03/n4-0447.pdf
