I don't know, but strongly suspect, that that land would be of much higher value in housing. Julie Genter is almost certainly correct that the place should be in housing.
But here's how you'd find out.
- Zone the land for the highest density of housing that's possible given the infrastructure around the place (or higher, if development could fund upgrading the infrastructure).
- Put in an SHA allowing fast development for any future owner.
- Sell the land to the highest bidder, letting the owner keep it as a golf course or develop it.
- Tax the land on its market value, whether it's used as a golf course or as housing.
If the golf course can turn a bigger profit from greens fees from paying customers than a developer could earn by turning it into housing, then it should be a golf course. Otherwise, it shouldn't.
The NBR quotes the golf club's treasurer on that the club currently turns a profit. I wonder what Council charges itself as rent on land that would be worth a fair bit in alternative uses.