GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)
Lou_Duran:
--- Quote from: Niall C on September 03, 2018, 09:07:53 AM ---Lou
If I misunderstood or misstated you then apologies, it certainly wasn’t my intention. However I’m not sure I follow the logic or the practicalities of your suggestion that somehow the Government (ie. the tax payer) should somehow compensate the landowner for not getting planning permission to develop the site.
As we both know, the granting of planning permission can add value where there is demand for the use granted. This also assumes the proposed use is of a higher value than the existing. Presumably, on the grounds of equity and fairness, you would also have to compensate neighbouring owners ? And if everyone was assumed to have got planning permission for compensation purposes, you would soon have a (theoretical) oversupply resulting in depressed land values.
Or it’s possible you mean that compensation should be only in this case due to the designation of the land in the Development Plan ? If that’s the case then why should it apply here and not in another situation where higher value planning was refused ?
Niall
--- End quote ---
No apologies necessary Niall; we are friendly.
I suspect that how land was originally acquired in Scotland and Ireland might have something to do with our very different perspectives on private property rights. Perhaps you see that the land's value is conferred by the government through its approval process. I see it more from the standpoint of its location³, market demand for a particular use, and a regulatory regime which takes into account a variety of issues including the effects on the neighborhood and nearby areas.
On the specific Coul Links site, if the good folks in Scotland deem the fly and the rather ordinary, degraded dunes complex to render the private property essentially unusable by the owner, yes, they should compensate the owner. After all, it is the "taxpayer" who is deriving the collective benefits of privately-owned land by fiat at the expense of the owner.
In the U.S. zoning is largely local, though state and federal regulations have a considerable effect. The concept of "entitlements" is fairly new to me despite having been active in the real estate industry for over 20 years (not a new concept in CA, as I learned when I moved there for a couple of years in 2006).
Many areas in Texas had what was called cumulative zoning which essentially allowed the owner to build a variety of things covered up to the zoning that was granted (e.g. the higher the intensity of the approved zoning, say industrial, the more options the owner or developer had, say office, retail, apartments, etc.). Some cities like Houston had relatively few zoning requirements, and though it has tremendous traffic problems, it remains one of the fastest growing large metro areas in the country. Master Plan zoning became popular, but it was still flexible enough to build in a pro-growth environment.
As to acquiring private land by the government for public use, that happens all of the time with market-based compensation to the owner. Ditto for preserving natural areas (and some golf courses have gone this route). Maybe the environmental groups can GoFund the purchase of the farm and make it available to all the people they purportedly represent. Me, for a variety of mostly unselfish reasons, I hope the course gets built.
Jon Wiggett:
--- Quote from: Sean_A on September 03, 2018, 10:01:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jon Wiggett on September 01, 2018, 03:24:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sean_A on August 29, 2018, 06:02:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jon Wiggett on August 29, 2018, 05:42:55 AM ---
David,
the planning system in Scotland is different from England.
Ben,
this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.
Marty,
you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.
Sean,
there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.
--- End quote ---
The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.
The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not. Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local. One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.
Ciao
--- End quote ---
Sean,
one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.
Jon
--- End quote ---
Jon
First off...I have never heard of racially based planning and I hope I never do.
I have no issue with social housing so long as it is appropriately located...that is in areas where there is employment, transportation, infrastructure and amenities. I see little point in placing social housing in rural villages where none of these benefits exist. Of course, some developments are large enough to tastefully incorporate social housing...and some are not. In the case I referenced, one social housing unit among three rural market dwellings was wholly inappropriate and made the scheme unaffordable to develop. IMO...this is very poor planning regulation which stopped the development of some very cool ecologically sound bungalows.
Ciao
--- End quote ---
Sean,
firstly, I never said that 'planning' should be done on a racial basis so please either read what I wrote. Secondly, I am somewhat gobsmacked by your opinion about who should be allowed or not allowed to live in 'rural villages'. You may not have a problem with the local working class population who may have been living in such villages for generations being driven out of the area by incoming, wealthier outsiders wanting to escape the dirt and noise of urban life however many including myself do. I find the whole line of class segregation you are pushing quite abhorrent and am genuinely shocked by it being aired openly on this website.
How sad :'(
Sean_A:
--- Quote from: Jon Wiggett on September 03, 2018, 01:27:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sean_A on September 03, 2018, 10:01:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jon Wiggett on September 01, 2018, 03:24:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sean_A on August 29, 2018, 06:02:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jon Wiggett on August 29, 2018, 05:42:55 AM ---
David,
the planning system in Scotland is different from England.
Ben,
this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.
Marty,
you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.
Sean,
there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.
--- End quote ---
The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.
The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not. Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local. One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.
Ciao
--- End quote ---
Sean,
one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.
Jon
--- End quote ---
Jon
First off...I have never heard of racially based planning and I hope I never do.
I have no issue with social housing so long as it is appropriately located...that is in areas where there is employment, transportation, infrastructure and amenities. I see little point in placing social housing in rural villages where none of these benefits exist. Of course, some developments are large enough to tastefully incorporate social housing...and some are not. In the case I referenced, one social housing unit among three rural market dwellings was wholly inappropriate and made the scheme unaffordable to develop. IMO...this is very poor planning regulation which stopped the development of some very cool ecologically sound bungalows.
Ciao
--- End quote ---
Sean,
firstly, I never said that 'planning' should be done on a racial basis so please either read what I wrote. Secondly, I am somewhat gobsmacked by your opinion about who should be allowed or not allowed to live in 'rural villages'. You may not have a problem with the local working class population who may have been living in such villages for generations being driven out of the area by incoming, wealthier outsiders wanting to escape the dirt and noise of urban life however many including myself do. I find the whole line of class segregation you are pushing quite abhorrent and am genuinely shocked by it being aired openly on this website.
How sad :'(
--- End quote ---
Jon
I find it disturbing that you consider the opinions of others abhorrent because they don't meet your standard social equity. But hey, that seems to be the way of the world in the Trump era...you are either with me or against me. We all can't be socialists or there wouldn't be any money to build social housing....how is that for an opinion? I can just about understand the agenda of altering demographics via the planning process, except that a significant percentage of people moving into social housing these these days don't have legitimate ties with the community. If there are no ties, why not build the houses in towns and cities where jobs, transport, infrastructure and amenites already exist? Why gobble up more and more open countryside?
Village centres are being eroded by urbanization at an alarming rate...the very thing people are trying to avoid when moving to villages. Its criminal to have so many empty properties in cities and yet build in unsustainable green land areas or village centres. It makes zero sense to me and the system will continue to crack and leak until England's green and pleasant land is no longer. Sure, I have serious issues with social housing as automatic tag on to development...and for very good reasons.
BTW...why you raise the concept of race in regards to a planning discussion is beyond me...unless you think the two are connected.
Ciao
David_Tepper:
It looks like there will not be a decision until next spring:
http://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/highlands-course-project-set-for-public-inquiry
Jerry Kluger:
Does anyone believe that another expensive golf course will be good for golf in Scotland so far as the Scots themselves?
http://www.golfwrx.com/529176/the-endangered-state-of-scottish-golf/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version