-
Just noticed there is now a website for Mike Keiser's Coul Links golf project just north of Dornoch. It includes a nice photo gallery of stunning property.
http://www.coullinksgolf.com/
-
Just noticed there is now a website for Mike Keiser's Coul Links golf project just north of Dornoch. It includes a nice photo gallery of stunning property.
http://www.coullinksgolf.com/ (http://www.coullinksgolf.com/)
David -
This web site has NOTHING to do with the course itself. The author, Ian Hosrfield, has put it up on his own and he is completely unaffiliated with the project's principals.
It is, however, a good source should one want to see a collection of the press clippings from various publications as well as photos some of which I sent to Mr. Horsfield. That is as far as it goes.
Environmental and feasibility studies remain in progress with an update due around mid-summer.
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian -
Thanks for the clarification. I see some of the pics in the gallery are yours. Good shooting!
DT
-
Ian -
Thanks for the clarification. I see some of the pics in the gallery are yours. Good shooting!
DT
Is the small lake permanent? Will it be part of the course? That will be unusual for a links, right?
-
"Is the small lake permanent? Will it be part of the course? That will be unusual for a links, right?"
MClutterbuck -
It is likely too early in the routing process to answer that question.
Yes, ponds/lakes on a links are unusual.
DT
-
You know, it's selfish as hell of me but I really hope this never gets built. Or at least not until I am done traveling to Scotland.
The folks at Golspie and Brora already lust after the kind of money that Dornoch visitors pay, and a Keiser course between Golspie and Dornoch will likely bring them enough traffic to spoil one of my favorite places anywhere.
It's bed enough that Royal Dornoch is wall-to-wall with guys like us paying $200 to play.
Sigh.
K
-
You know, it's selfish as hell of me but I really hope this never gets built. Or at least not until I am done traveling to Scotland.
The folks at Golspie and Brora already lust after the kind of money that Dornoch visitors pay, and a Keiser course between Golspie and Dornoch will likely bring them enough traffic to spoil one of my favorite places anywhere.
It's bed enough that Royal Dornoch is wall-to-wall with guys like us paying $200 to play.
Sigh.
K
I reluctantly have to agree with this sentiment. As much as a respect the Keiser team, I think this will lead to Dornoch losing its out of the way charm.
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
If you're a golfer who loves quality golf at a reasonable cost.... yes.
There's ZERO chance I am going to Bandon, simply because it's been turned into a place that can get $300 for a round of golf.
I am retired, and as Stan Dodd has said, my wife and I need to be conscious of our "golf per diem."
We've played a few high dollar courses that are too expensive, but inevitable--The Old Course, Prestwick, Royal Dornoch.
I played yesterday with a Canadian who's a member at Red Mountain Ranch and he said, "I lover golf, but I'm not paying two or three hundred dollar for a round. There's no golf worth that."
He's probably wrong, but we have enough $300 courses, especially in Scotland.
FWIW, when members of Brora and Fraserburgh expressed their jealousy of the course down the coast I warned them to be careful what they wish for. A tee sheet full of visitors EVERY day, glacial pace of play except for those few hours set aside for members, etc., etc.
So yes, in my world places like Bandon have helped make the game more expensive and more exclusive.. to it's detriment.
K
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
Out of interest was there much golf of note near Bandon before Mr Keiser's development?
Even if Royal Dornoch, Castle Stuart and Skibo/Carnigie were suddenly removed from the face of the planet they'd be plenty of quality golf courses worth travelling to play along the Moray Firth coastline.
Atb
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
Exactly. Plus, ask the people in Nova Scotia and Tasmania, too.
Progress will always have detractors and that is understood. Shit, there are people in Dornoch TODAY who resent RDGC and how it messes up their town, impedes access to the beach, etc. But, ask the shopkeepers, restaurant owners, waiters, merchants, etc...
One of the goals of the project is to attract more visitors to the area to benefit the local economy. As in benefitting the people who live in the town year round. There are second courses going in at Aberdeen and Castle Stuart and perhaps a Nicklaus course in Inverness...? Dornoch is being smart.
Perhaps traffic at Coul Links will ease congestion at RDGC (at least after 10:30 am). Perhaps more people will play Brora and Golspie instead of driving up to Dornoch for one day then returning to Inverness in their van. Maybe they will stay in Dornoch and visit the other courses. Perhaps new golfers will go to the Highlands instead of to Ayrshire or Edinburgh. Only 10% of all golfing visitors to Scotland go to the Highlands and, last I heard, golf tourism is one of the most vibrant parts of the Scottish economy.
Sure, it is understandable that there is concern about turning a bucolic hamlet like Dornoch into a tourist mecca, but the region does need a sustainable revenue base for it to be a viable economy for future generations. It's not Team Keiser who is promoting this, it's the Highlands and Islands Enterprises (http://www.hie.co.uk/ (http://www.hie.co.uk/)). HIE, from what I have heard, is very suppportive of the project as is the town of Dornoch. Why are there so many hotels and homes for sale in Dornoch today?
Regarding the "Lakes" at Coul....that is seasonal flooding from a tidal pool and stream that are on property. There are no lakes and ponds.
-
"Is the small lake permanent? Will it be part of the course? That will be unusual for a links, right?"
MClutterbuck -
It is likely too early in the routing process to answer that question.
Yes, ponds/lakes on a links are unusual.
DT
I didn't look at the photos but assume these aren't lakes but Dune Slacks which often get flooded on a seasonal basis. Most dune systems will have some dune slacks which were usually created in the low lying areas as new ridges were formed due to accretion.
Often the routing process stays away from them, sometimes they are utilised. In the summer they are often characterised by different flora and fauna rather than lying water.
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
Out of interest was there much golf of note near Bandon before Mr Keiser's development?
Even if Royal Dornoch, Castle Stuart and Skibo/Carnigie were suddenly removed from the face of the planet they'd be plenty of quality golf courses worth travelling to play along the Moray Firth coastline.
Atb
Before 1999, there was ZERO golf of note around Bandon, OR. Mike Keiser is revered in Bandon at a level that is incomprehensible to most.
Yes, Thomas, you are certainly correct that there would be plenty of quality golf.
And, if there was viable industrial growth in the local economy, your hypothesis would have some serious merit.
And, if only I could make more putts, I would have won that qualifier last year...;-)
-
Ian,
What has viable industrial growth got to do with the number of existing golf courses in the Moray area? I'm not sure what point you are making or think Thomas is making.
-
I probably shouldn't comment but I'm told by a reliable source that this course is now 50-50 on being built.
There's an ongoing winter bird study and in the summer another bird study based on nesting.
Furthermore this winter the property in question was heavily flooded. Bill Coore is on site this week to see if this will be an ongoing problem.
-
Ian,
What has viable industrial growth got to do with the number of existing golf courses in the Moray area? I'm not sure what point you are making or think Thomas is making.
SSSorry, Mark, my answer to Thomas was woefully incomplete as my phone was ringing at work.
My point was that, prior to the 1970's and early 80's following Ben Crenshaw's and Tom Watson's visit to Dornoch, the area was still quite unknown to the "outside world".
And, it's WAY too early to speculate on the viability of the project.
-
The potential dangers of this project are twofold in my opinion. Firstly, it could make more courses in the area prohibitively expensive for the local player which would be detrimental to all concerned and I would hope that MK would chose to follow the example set by Castle Stuart in this respect rather than the no peasants attitude of Mr. Trump. Secondly, the fact is that top end Gfs are sustainable largely due to the US golfer and should this market collapse for any reason then some clubs and other businesses based around them may suffer greatly. I hope that HIE (Highland & Islands Enterprises and others so in favour of this project ensure the financial eggs are placed in many baskets not just the one.
However, I am certainly very much in favour of this project and hopes it will get off the ground. As for the winter drainage, if they are sensible and close down in the winter season this will be much less of a problem.
Jon
ps. Ian, Skibo plays no significant part in the golf scene up here. As for what to tell local 16 or 17 year olds well maybe about the many non golfing opportunities there are for employment in the Highlands. I am afraid what you understand is well wide of the mark as the Inverness, Moray and Cromarty Firth areas are very vibrant both economically and culturally. Very few youngsters are flocking to Edinburgh and of those who do many return after a few years.
Jon
-
The potential dangers of this project are twofold in my opinion. Firstly, it could make more courses in the area prohibitively expensive for the local player which would be detrimental to all concerned and I would hope that MK would chose to follow the example set by Castle Stuart in this respect rather than the no peasants attitude of Mr. Trump. Secondly, the fact is that top end Gfs are sustainable largely due to the US golfer and should this market collapse for any reason then some clubs and other businesses based around them may suffer greatly. I hope that HIE (Highland & Islands Enterprises and others so in favour of this project ensure the financial eggs are placed in many baskets not just the one.
Ian,
If my earlier comments were confusing then apologies. Jon has however now summed up what I was trying to get at rather nicely.
Lovely part of the world.
Atb
-
The potential dangers of this project are twofold in my opinion. Firstly, it could make more courses in the area prohibitively expensive for the local player which would be detrimental to all concerned and I would hope that MK would chose to follow the example set by Castle Stuart in this respect rather than the no peasants attitude of Mr. Trump. Secondly, the fact is that top end Gfs are sustainable largely due to the US golfer and should this market collapse for any reason then some clubs and other businesses based around them may suffer greatly. I hope that HIE (Highland & Islands Enterprises and others so in favour of this project ensure the financial eggs are placed in many baskets not just the one.
However, I am certainly very much in favour of this project and hopes it will get off the ground. As for the winter drainage, if they are sensible and close down in the winter season this will be much less of a problem.
Jon
ps. Ian, Skibo plays no significant part in the golf scene up here. As for what to tell local 16 or 17 year olds well maybe about the many non golfing opportunities there are for employment in the Highlands. I am afraid what you understand is well wide of the mark as the Inverness, Moray and Cromarty Firth areas are very vibrant both economically and culturally. Very few youngsters are flocking to Edinburgh and of those who do many return after a few years.
Jon
Thanks, Jon - apologies for the generalizations.
Was speaking only of Dornoch where I have spent time in the past three years.
I believe that Mr. Keiser made a very interesting proposal to RDGC, but it did not gain traction.
Have heard that Trump now offers local memberships.
I would bet that there will be accommodations made to local golfers at Coul Links.
-
Ian,
no problems about the generalisation but to suggest that the youth of Dornoch is leaving for Edinburgh is far fetched indeed. That they have to look outside Dornoch is not really a surprise as Dornoch is really quite small. You are indeed correct that Trump does now offer a locals rate and at just £135 I am sure the doric speakers are flocking in to play the world's greatest course as will the incredible bargain rate of £165 for all other Scottish residence.
Jon
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
If you're a golfer who loves quality golf at a reasonable cost.... yes.
There's ZERO chance I am going to Bandon, simply because it's been turned into a place that can get $300 for a round of golf.
I am retired, and as Stan Dodd has said, my wife and I need to be conscious of our "golf per diem."
We've played a few high dollar courses that are too expensive, but inevitable--The Old Course, Prestwick, Royal Dornoch.
I played yesterday with a Canadian who's a member at Red Mountain Ranch and he said, "I lover golf, but I'm not paying two or three hundred dollar for a round. There's no golf worth that."
He's probably wrong, but we have enough $300 courses, especially in Scotland.
FWIW, when members of Brora and Fraserburgh expressed their jealousy of the course down the coast I warned them to be careful what they wish for. A tee sheet full of visitors EVERY day, glacial pace of play except for those few hours set aside for members, etc., etc.
So yes, in my world places like Bandon have helped make the game more expensive and more exclusive.. to it's detriment.
K
Ken,
Part of me is sympathetic to your perspective, but for the sake of discussion, I must ask:
As far as making the game in Scotland more "expensive and exclusive", is it really "places like Bandon" or is it the ease and relatively low cost of international travel?
-
Ken,
Part of me is sympathetic to your perspective, but for the sake of discussion, I must ask:
As far as making the game in Scotland more "expensive and exclusive", is it really "places like Bandon" or is it the ease and relatively low cost of international travel?
Well, that "expensive and exclusive" comment referred to golf in general, not to Scotland.
I admit that there are a lot of factors that have conspired to make it so costly to play golf. In most of the US I am pretty convinced that "tournament conditions" on a daily basis along with the CCFAD problem are most likely more of a problem.
The yahoos I play with here are SO concerned about conditioning that it supersedes almost any other considerations.
That and the fact that there still seems to be a market for CCFAD golf, at least here in AZ where I am currently, is a big contributor.
I did work for GCSAA for nine years and I think in some regards superintendents have been their own worst enemy. They have killed themselves trying to produce perfect turf, now American golfers think it should be the norm.
In Scotland, cheap travel might be a factor, I'm more inclined to think that it's due to economic stratification. Folks like my wife and I, are not the folks running up the price of golf.
I've seen, and had a drink with, the "check list" golfers who make it possible for RDC, Cruden Bay, Nairn GC, et. al, to get the price they do. Cheap travel might be a factor, but I doubt it.
Let's be clear. I realize that my whining isn't going to change things one bit, any more than the griping by the Brora and Fraserburgh folks I've talked to will change their situation.
i was told that RDC's ferilizer budget would fund Golspie's entire greenkeeping operation for a year. Now, that's not the way it should be IMHO, but it gives you an idea of why they're a little jealous.
OTOH, we stayed in Golspie last year for about a week and we could walk out and play almost any time we liked. Much as I appreciate the big-name courses, I like the other ones even better.
Here's the deal... virtually everything about American golf either makes me sad or pisses me off.
I wish that weren't the case, but it is.
And exporting American golf to Scotland makes me sad... and it pisses me off.
K
-
Perhaps American golfers go to Scotland to escape other whinny, fanny pack toting, loud talking American golfers!!
Sincerely,
John K
-
Perhaps American golfers go to Scotland to escape other whinny, fanny pack toting, loud talking American golfers!!
Sincerely,
John K
I do.
And I don't want more development around Dornoch, which will only bring more Americans!
-
Is Bandon any worse off because of its influx of courses?
I'm not sure Bandon is the right comparison here.
Perhaps a good comparison might be mid-20th Century St. Andrews. Once St. Andrews became a real global destination, it changed in irreversible ways. Did the dozen new courses built around St. Andrews improve that place really?
-
Ken,
i was told that RDC's ferilizer budget would fund Golspie's entire greenkeeping operation for a year. Now, that's not the way it should be IMHO, but it gives you an idea of why they're a little jealous.
Interesting statement! if Golspie have managed to run their Whole greenkeeping operation for less than 13k I would be shocked!!!
-
Ken - some excellent posts there. It used to be (or at least seems to have been) the case that the bloated and over-priced and over-hyped courses were precisely the ones that I didn't want to play, i.e. the CCFAD from the 80s and 90s with their cart-driven routings and endless downhill tee shots and elaborate driving ranges peopled by vaguely smug corporate types and vaguely pretentious would-be "players" who not only didn't mind paying too much for a round of golf but actually saw it as a personal point of pride that they could. The problem you seem to be highlighting is that, today, the over-priced and over-hyped courses peopled by aficionados who not only don't mind paying too much but actually see it as the cost of quality golf "the way it was meant to be played" are precisely the courses that I would want to play.
Peter
Btw, check out Ed's thread on Cardigan Golf Club.
-
Article on the project in today's Northern Times (the local newspaper):
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Target-date-of-2017-for-Embo-golf-course-planning-application-14042016.htm
-
I have restrained from commenting on this project for a while until more information became available. I now feel feel there is enough known to share my take.
Having: been a member in the past for 10 years, , married a gal from the town, been fortunate to have as a father-in-law, the late Dr.John Macleod, club Captain, member for 50 years, and town Doc working with, and after, his father's passing, I feel I have a balanced perspective on what RDGC and the town has been historically.
Dr. Macleod wrote the book on the club's history, which he completed shortly before his very sad passing in 2001.
He was a thoughtful, kind and wise man who listened a lot, and chose his words VERY carefully before rendering a opinion.
I will never forget his astute words about making changes to the club OR town of Dornoch.
He said," Kris, it's not what you do, it's what you DON'T do ...that retains the specialness of a place!"
That succinct and BRILLIANT statement will serve as the underpinning for what follows.
First, make NO mistake, Americans are driving this project full stop. The H&I folks will support ANYTHING that brings MONEY to the area. But without Mr. Warnock and Mr.Keiser leading on this....ZERO happens.
Mr. Keiser is a class act. So are C&C,, his designated design team.
He has a proven record of world class golf property creation, as do C&C, that is generally VERY sympathetic to the environment.
All that said....THIS property needs to left as it is!!!!!!
The property is in EMBO, NOT Dornoch. I'm SURE that those public meetings will reveal MANY locals AGAINST this PARTICULAR site being MUTILATED!!!!
Dr. Macleod ,and countless others in the Dornoch area have known of that estuary dunes land site FOREVER! But they KNEW.... it was too precious and special as an ecosystem to be tampered with!!!! He felt it should be LEFT ALONE to function as the AWESOME entity it is.
He is not alone in that rationale.
ANYONE ....
with a brain, that can appreciate the unique nature of that place, while checking their greed and ego at the edge of the path to that ground... can come ONLY to that conlusion!!!
If Mr. Keiser, a man I rate highly, had a shred of the respect for nature, and the humility to do the right thing he claims....he would reflect on that reality and decide NOT to move forward on changing that ground.
I do not know much about Mr. Warnock, other than he has a VESTED interest in filling his B&B, ,and while helping restore that historic building in the town is noble... it DOES NOT give him the right to destroy that ground in EMBO for PROFIT!!!!
There are certain places on this planet that simply need to be left alone.
THIS GROUND is one of them!!!!
PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Looking deeper at why? This ENTIRE coastline is ravaged... FREQUENTLY.... by fierce storms.The second course at RD, the Struie, known as the "lower course" by the locals, was and is often BLASTED by gales and heavy flooding. In fact, the new holes Donald Steel put in had to be REDONE, at considerable cost ( 300k plus if memory serves me rigjt) after one such event in the 2000's!
That land is VERY close to the edge of the Dornoch Firth,
as is the estuary area of Coul Links!
Wind driven storm surges... remember we're talking the North Atlantic Sea here, push seawater WELL inland regularly.
No way you are going to prevent that impacting the golf at Coul Links, if you are anywhere close to the shore(VIEWS) without SIGNIFICANT altering of that ground.
The bird life that inhabitats that sensitive estuary dunes land is among the most special in Scotland.
Keiser's other projects have NEVER disturbed that type of special ground!!!! Even Trump's property doesn' t come CLOSE to matching what exists there at Embo.
I was fortunate enough to walk Machrihanish Dunes, on the west coast of Scotland, during the early days of it's creation. It REMAINS the most environmentally responsible golf course built ANYWHERE in Scotland, or tbe world for that matter, in the last 50 years given all that DMK and Evan Grant, who oversaw creation and grow-in as Head Superintendent, had to contend with.
The site had quite a few SSI areas with rare plants. That site also doesn't even compare to the diversity of wildlife, or development complexity of the Coul Links site.
Another somber point to ponder...Dr. Macleod told me that RD was VERY VERY quiet, regarding visitor play, for SEVERAL years, after the Lockerbie downing. I don't think I need to illuminate anybody what would transpire were a similar episode to repeat itself. This is ESPECIALLY true TODAY. Ironically, it would be the very links offerings Mr. Keiser has created in the US, that folks can now enjoy stateside, that would provide a less risky alternative for Americans should such an event occur. While there are plenty of other worldwide golfers who visit to play up thete, US visitors are the fuel that drives this project.
Earlier stories on this Embo site spoke of only a small starter's hut, and a super light footprint. The latest article, kindly posted by Mr. Tepper, speaks of a practice area, pro shop and CAFE! You MUST be joking Mr. Warnock!!!!!! The mushroom cloud is already gathering size and the plan hasn't even been submitted!
As to the need for ANOTHER course of Dornoch's stature to ensure the region's economic vitality. ... BS to that!!!!
The region is LOADED with great/good golf. BRORA is an absolute cracker of a course! Two rounds on RD and one there are MORE than enough reason for staying OVERNIGHT in Dornoch. Tain, Golspie and the nine hole charmer at Portmahomack (SP?) across the Dornoch Firth, near the not to be missed Oystercatcher dining spot, offer plenty of nice, additional links options for extended stays.
A C&C Coul Links will only draw more belt notcher, trunk slammer
types, mainly Americans that are ALREADY going to come up to play RD!
Marketing ALL of the upper Highlands region BETTER is what's needed.... NOT a NOT COOL LINKS on THAT site!!!!
As to price creep in the extortionate greens fees enjoyed by the top courses up there now....Nairn got very proud of themselves and bumped their number in the late 90's...Castle Stuart, due to having to PAY for their land, as opposed to the common ground land so many older Scottish links offerings benefit from, and modern construction costs, made it a lock that a high green fee would be a given.
Royal Dornoch will ALWAYS be the best golfing experience in the Highlands so long as they don't ruin what they have.!!!!!! The club, to their credit, has been modest in raising their green fees...and this, in the main, has been IN RESPONSE to what the other facilities up there have charged.
The zeal for more quid is a powerful tonic that can overwhelm many.... I just hope those that REALLY care...about that area's OVERALL health, follow that telling statement cited at the beginning of my remarks by Dr. Macleod. He dearly loved the game and revered the Dornoch area.
You can NOT have economic sustainability WITHOUT environmental sustainability!
Do the right thing Mike, let the model for ALL you have done for everything in golf ALONE ...and continue to enjoy it as it IS!!! Dornoch, like ALL of the world's great RURAL locales, needs to evolve SLOWLY.
Coul Links should REMAIN as it is... that would be the COULEST legacy Mike could EVER leave the birthplace of his vision for superb, remote links golf!!!!!!
Hopeful cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Just noticed there is now a website for Mike Keiser's Coul Links golf project just north of Dornoch. It includes a nice photo gallery of stunning property.
http://www.coullinksgolf.com/ (http://www.coullinksgolf.com/)
David -
This web site has NOTHING to do with the course itself. The author, Ian Hosrfield, has put it up on his own and he is completely unaffiliated with the project's principals.
It is, however, a good source should one want to see a collection of the press clippings from various publications as well as photos some of which I sent to Mr. Horsfield. That is as far as it goes.
Environmental and feasibility studies remain in progress with an update due around mid-summer.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian
As a matter of interest, what connection do you have with the project or the individuals involved or are you just an interested bystander ? (are you a local ?)
Niall
-
I have restrained from commenting on this project for a while until more information became available. I now feel there is enough known to share my take.
So much for restraint!
Kris, you used ALL CAPS an awful lot in your post, but the word MUTILATED stood out. How can you say the site will be mutilated, when [I suspect] no real design plans have been submitted? I worked around areas of SSSI on the new holes at The Renaissance Club, and I can assure you they didn't let us disturb anything of significance there, despite the pushing of my client.
Your argument about the economics and an argument about the environmental impact are two separate things, even though you may be right that sometimes local governments tend to overlook one for the other. Highlands and Islands, like most governments, not to mention private developers, think the solution is to bring more tourism money to the area and to get the people with the money to stay longer and spend more of it. They would argue that it's "not a zero-sum game," but I might argue the other side of that. Still, that's very different from saying the land is going to be mutilated by building a golf course. Someone might have said the same thing about Royal Dornoch, centuries ago, had they had silly Internet discussions back then.
-
Tom,
I'm sorry the caps and strong language startled you. I stand by every word of it.
In my opinion, and that is what my remarks are, ANY disturbance of THAT ground, even for superbly done, minimalistic golf, IS MULTILATION.
My feelings for that area are as strong as anyone not born there.
I've seen Dornoch change quite a bit since I first visited there in the late 90's. Much of that change, outside of some better dining, hasn't added a lot to the quality of life there. If you have visited there as much as I have/did, you'd render a similar opinion if you are the man I believe you are.
Much of what makes that Highlands area so captivating is the rugged natural beauty that is on full display. "Progress" is nibbling away at it, but so far the feeling still has the goods. When you continue to degrade that, the specialness is soon lost.
John Muir said it best," Nothing dollarable is safe" when he referred to exploitation of our world's natural resources.
This project is a 2016 poster child validating that statement...sadly currently being promoted by folks who are smart enough to do othetwise.
Without a healthy planet....there can not be a healthy economy....
anywhere. The two are "interdependent," not separate subjects.
Let me ask you....have you ever said no to designing a site because you felt was too special to change?
K 8)
-
Kris
What Tom said on the "development" of the original Dornoch course and indeed the various significant changes that have taken place over the years. Also as someone who argued against the development of Balmedie on environmental grounds I'm doubtful that Embro is in the same league in terms of being environmentally sensitive . A closer comparison might be Mach Dunes and even that site was grazed by cattle up until it was developed.
However I think the real issue here is the nature of any development which I think is also the concern of Ken and possibly your late father in law. I'm assuming here that the development is likely to happen in some shape or form given a willing landowner, a fairly keen developer and the likely-hood of planning being granted.
Dornoch has already changed significantly over the years and to see that you only need to look at the club itself. Betterment has arrived and isn't likely to go away. In my own mind it would be better to see a more modest development along the lines of Mach Dunes in terms of the lightness of touch on the landscape allied to a certain homespun charm with the add on development. Not sure if that is the type of development that Mike Keiser would be interested in.
Niall
-
Let me ask you....have you ever said no to designing a site because you felt was too special to change?
I have, though only two times that I can recall.
You're clearly very emotionally wrapped up with that particular piece of property in saying that it should never be touched by anyone ... I always have some hesitation about such statements when they amount to neighbors telling a landowner what he should not do.
The rest of your argument seems to be tied up in "not changing Dornoch," as if it's supposed to stay the same forever. That rarely happens anywhere, and generally only in places where the people who have moved there in the last twenty years want to close the door behind them. That also has nothing at all to do with building a golf course sensitively, on a sensitive site.
I'm not sure what Niall is talking of in terms of "development." I am party to none of the particulars about this project, but in general, Mr. Keiser has no interest in developing housing, and only in developing lodging for golf to the extent that it can't be met by the local infrastructure. I think he just wants to build a golf course.
-
As the owner of a course in a relatively isolated, wild place where all kinds of recreation happens besides golf, we have plenty of wildlife. I won’t inventory the species because I’d leave out hundreds. As with the Cape Wickham thread, habitat can be created to benefit nesting/breeding areas. Our experience is that the critters just move in take advantage of what’s there. They cause some damage to the course, like the porcupines currently eating the bark and killing trees, or the burrows of marmots, so we do a tiny bit of management. Given this diversity, it would seem like a golf course is a pretty good place to live.
-
Niall,
I respect and agree with a lot of your thoughts. I agree that there has been change in the club. That isn't always a good thing, and certainly isn't justification for blessing other changes.
Unless the fix is in, I believe this project, on THAT ground, faces a much stiffer challenge than many realize.
I agree that Machrihanish Dunes is the best comparison out there....but it had FAR more prior human disturbance than the Coul Links site.
The Embo site is complex. Thete is significant diversity in topography and what inhabits it, both regularly ...and seasonally, migration wise.
There are existing dunes capable of offering protection and buffering from storms, but I can't imagine any scenario that wouldn't involve significant disturbance... to the pristine ecosystem that resides there now.
I'm no tree hugger, change nothing ever zealot. I adore links golf, and am the first to champion and applaud RESPONSIBLE golf evelopment.
Bandon, Kingsbarns,Castle Stuart, Machrihanish Dunes, Streamsong
Cabot , and many others are in that realm.
THIS Embo site simply has too much unique quality to it for approval.... for ANYTHING.
Let me ask....is no ground worth leaving alone that might yield a great golf course?
I would assert that the folks that believe it's acceptable to alter any ground, regardless of what is there currently, for golf, are a BIG reason the game suffers such scorn from the non-golfers on the planet.
Sometimes saying no to something, even if it has a lot of upside.... is the right course of action. That's the case with THIS site from my view.
K 8)
-
Tom,
I'm glad you saw the need to say no on passing to change special ground. To do it twice is laudable.
I've seen that Embo ground with my own eyes.
This IS one of those cases.
As an owner or architect, who wouldn't want to create something there!?! It's as good as it gets. But what mother nature and the big guy have there now trumps ANYTHING man could put there.
I have tremendous passion for that which I care deeply about.
It's who I am. My reasoning is sound as a pound why THIS site should be off the table for development.
You say Mike just wants to build a golf course....he's built quite a few already and Sand Valley, an epic, RESPONSIBLE project is well underway. His son,. and their team are going to exhaustive lengths to tease back the native seed bank and restore that which the Red Pine plantation altered.
They ARE as responsible stewards of the land as anyone in golf creation today.
It would be a crowning achievement to plant the flag on a links course minutes from RD, the birth place of his business model vision. There are other parcels that area has to offer. To degrade that Embo site is not just building a golf course...
sorry.
K 8)
-
"Those had raised a myriad of environmental and other issues which have to be addressed. Towards that end a team of independent consultants had been commissioned to undertake research into the site ranging from its biodiversity and topography to hydrology and archaeology."
"A traffic management report has also been initiated. Mr Warnock and Mr Keiser are reluctant to see increased traffic on the single-track Loch Fleet road and are considering a bespoke shuttle bus service from Dornoch town square. Over the winter fortnightly bird studies have also been conducted on the site, which starts three miles north of Royal Dornoch Golf Club and runs along the Dornoch Firth at Loch Fleet."
Unless I am mistaken, the Coul Links site to date is not an SSI-designated area. That makes it different from both the Machrihanish Dunes and Balmedie/Trump sites, which were SSI-designated properties before golf courses were proposed to be built on them.
In light of the above quotations from the Northern Times article I have linked, it appears a thorough and expert analysis of the Coul Links property will be conducted regarding the suitability of building a golf course there.
Why don't we wait to see how how those reports turn out before passing judgement on this project?
-
David,
It doesn't need to have a SSI designation to know it's special!
Didn't matter the SSI limitations for Trumps dump- got railroaded through didn't it? How'd that turn out...he packed up like a little child, and all those jobs...yeh right!
Sorry champ. Not all of us wait for the snake oil when we know something is a no go.
You have a flat there in Dornoch you let out, correct? No vested interest there at all? C'mon.
Do yourself a favor, spend a day and take a good, LONG walk over that Embo ground. Not a peak at it from afar... til your feet know they made a trek. Then tell me you see no problem with a golf course being placed over that ground as the RESPONSIBLE
thing to do.
No proper assessment of the bird life alone there can be done quickly...it takes years.
You are a smart guy that KNOWS deep down the right move here...is NO move on that site.
Imagine if those that came before us had the power to destroy the land that we hold today. Where would our planet be? Puking it's guts out to be sure. It's not far off that right now!
Let's not hasten the stupidity by complicity and just leaving decisions to the government and greed.
That Embo site is NOT an acceptable, responsible trade-off for golf, no matter how great the product.
K 8)
-
Sorry Kris,
I didn't realize you were an expert on hydrology, ornithology, biodiversity, archeaology, et. al.
It's good to know there is someone here that knows more than we all do. ;)
DT
-
David,
Where did I infer all that? A junior high schooler, walking that ground, KNOWS that nothing man can lay over that ground can TOUCH what is there presently.
What I know is what rational, responsible people, with NO remuneration or other benefits from seeing that land developed would conclude.
You, and anyone else is entitled to their opinion on the matter.
What, am I to be muzzled because I might have personal information to share on the subject?
If you walked that ground already and feel no quams about putting a golf course there... God bless ya!
Certain places need to be left alone. That Embo site is one of them.
That farmer, if his family has been there since the Vikings were raiding that area, should be ashamed of himself if he thinks that ground is better suited to a golf course than what is there now?
Most Scots I know TREASURE their ground. I've seen wild pheasants along several of those roads right near the village of Dornoch that dwarf the size of anything I ever saw stateside.
I grew up hearing and seeing wild pheasants in the suburbs of Philadelphia in the 80s. They ARE gone! Development saw to that, and changing farming practices have eliminated them from most of the lower 48.
I'm not some armchair environmentalist. I've lived the degradation. In more places than most on here.
It's real. NO money, or job-base scheme is worth corrupting the planet to where life becomes a shattered mosaic with only one end game...unsustainability!
On the surface, this little site in EMBO seems unimportant. But forever altering something that unique, and estuaries are one of the earth's most precious, and rare commodies ( there's one for the corporate business crowd).
It's irreplaceable once altered that rapidly by man, and it's functionality changes.
Remember, estuaries are nature's nurseries, both on land AND in the sea.
And THAT Embo site is worth degrading for a golf course? Really? Folks who believe that are thinking of NOTHING but their own self interest.
I shudder to think what those future generations will find in Dornoch if mindsets like that have their way up there.
It will be more Coney Island than the incredible place it struggles to remain today, of that you can be sure.
K 8)
-
This has developed into a terrific thread: smart and well-informed posters respectfully disagreeing on a critically important topic (now and, increasingly, in the years to come) in a rubber-meets-the-road context, i.e. universally acclaimed architects with impeccable minimalist credentials paired with the most highly touted and respected golf course developer ever, during that developer's Midas-touch period, and concerning a site of pristine and untouched natural beauty and diversity that lies but a stone's throw from a spiritual home of golf in Dornoch synonymous with the very ethos of the game. It was good that Kris raised this; there is for me certainly no easy answer, but I think it fair to suggest that if it was any other golf developer, and/or any but a small handful of other architects, or if god forbid this was about a housing estate or even a modest public pitch-and-putt instead of Keiser and C&C and an exclusive golfing mecca, there would be no debate whatsoever.
-
Kris -
When was the last time you actually visited Dornoch? How many days have you spent there in the past 10 years?
The population of Sutherland is still 2/3 to 3/4 of what it was 150 years ago! Struggling is indeed the operative word. The people there are struggling to survive dwindling employment, an aging population and diminished public services.
DT
P.S. But there are still plenty of pheasants there. ;)
-
Pete,
Bravo, you nailed it!!!!! And the responsible thing to do is LEAVE it alone. You don't need a study by ANYONE to figure that out.
Check ego and profit at the edge of the path and planet up....we're going to do the right thing in Embo, even though we could
build perhaps the REAL greatest golf course here. We are respectfully going to let mother nature continue to take a bow on this precious parcel of grandness, like she has for thousands of years, and take the disease of modern society to conquer all landforms, even if it means destroying the very elements necessary to sustain, elsewhere!
That Pete, would be the BEST homage that Mike, Mr. Warnock and all the rest of us that really care about the future of what is there should embrace.
There is farmland in that area, with views, much like that which Castle Stuart occupies. I'm sure you'd have farmers lining up to sell some acreage so the grand masters can have a go and create something awesome and special.
You don't need to punish one of nature's rare nurseries for a golf course that doesn't belong there.
It's like opening a whore house up top where the choir sits in a church.
Could ya do it, sure...but would ya... UNLESS your the pimp...we know the answer.
See, there are places "designated" for that type of entertainment.
That Embo site is NOT the place to put golf entertainment for the "retail golfer."
NO matter how many jobs it could create, or economic multipliers could be leveraged.
Yes, I know that last line really gets a few squirmming, but the reality is THAT ground DESERVES to be left as it is.
I appreciate and respect both sides of the equation. My view is the Dornoch and entire Highlands area has a TREMENDOUS opportunity to BETTER market what they ALREADY have up there! Few places have the setting, charm and diverse cultural and natural wonders that part of Scotland enjoys.
It is a tough climate, and that makes drawing certain folks a challenge. For millions, that environment is right up their alley.
Use the noggins and craft a plan. Enlist the help of those from where you wish to draw, and make it happen.
I RAVE to all who express interest in going to Scotland, and the North in particular...GO, it's the best! I've sent a TON of first-timers over during my many years caddying for those that could afford it.
I don't ever want there to be a day I say, " Forget it, it's gone."
Thank you Pete, for your take.
K 8)
-
Not to be rude, but I would find this thread, and the arguments being made herein, much more persuasive without the incessant and unnecessary use of ALL CAPS. I might even read the posts in full were there NO CAPS.
It's great to see someone so dedicated to a cause, but easy on the liberal use of the Shift button, please.
-
David,
The last time I was in Scotland was 2008, visiting Machrihanish Dunes. A superb project that was an environmental triumph of restraint. Sadly, the roll-out was badly bungled. The reviews were not kind, but the leadership blew their chance to grab success. DESPITE their opening right after the economic plummet, that Kintyre region has many of the same qualities of the Dornoch area. A bit more remote, primitive in a generally good way, but it has the goods, just not a course there quite the caliber of RD.
It continues to limp along. Really a shame. Super place...terribly marketed and promoted at the outset...it suffers still. What could have been for the investors had there been a proper presentation early on.
I was last in Dornoch in May of 2007. Quite a bit changed in my life, but I had regular conversations with my mother-in-law, Isobel, who lived there until her sad passing in 2012. I also have other contacts there I keep in touch with. I ADORE the place, and am quite aware of the " changes." The Northern Times does its best as well.
I retained my membership, at fair expense for a man of modest means, with full intentions of returning on the annual basis I had enjoyed previously. Alas, that was not to be.
Moves stateside, running my own business, expense of a new home, and then a very unfortunate end
to what was in the main a wonderful marriage to Mairi, the daughter of Dr. John and Isobel, all conspired to keep me from being able to return.
Fortunately, Mairi and I are still close, we're just not married. She's an awesome woman. Her parents were THE BEST!
I' ve had to reboot my life, which ain't easy when you are 55, and run your own show.
I just gave up my membership to RD this March. It KILLED me to do it, but at this time I couldn't justify retaining it, not have been able to go over and use it since '07.
That is why I have not been over.
That said, RD and that wonderful village, will NEVER be far from my heart, for so many reasons.
I stayed there, at the Macleod home that looks out to just past the 2nd green, over the Dornoch Firth, for 14-17 days at a time, sometimes twice a year, from 1999 to 2007.
I immersed myself in the village, learning the history of it AND the club. Few, not born there, can claim the solid understanding I got from the Macleods. What doesn't the town Doc know?Regarding the club history, he had no peer. It became that important to him to get it right as best he could. It was the final chapter in a VERY rich life of service, to BOTH the town AND his club. I miss him greatly.
I'm certain there would be changes now present that would displease me. Life ain't about perfect, or a static, unchanging existence.
But quite often, change is unnecessary, and detrimental to the overall quality of life in a place. The obscene evidence of this is ample in many places.
The population numbers you cite are spot on for what that region's population SHOULD be!
It's a rural place man, and a damn tough one to make a living!
There are trade-offs in life. You want jobs and industry...live there... in the heavy populated areas where they are present.
If you want clean air, a fairly unspoiled countryside, and a slightly slower pace...ya live in a place like Dornoch.
You DON'T pine for "growth, progress, and then shit it up by stamping man's footprint ANYWHERE you can get a dozer!
Sorry David, Dr.John and countless other members who KNEW the fool's gold of what is now being offered to degrade THAT ground, would NEVER advocate for what is being suggested, WITH complicity by the club I might add! Of that I'm certain...he gave his verdict, and it was a NO go.
The excuse that visitor rounds are maxing out as justification falls flat. Hell, the Struie could use a mulligan...if they are so hot for it, broker a deal that involves funding that new monument of a clubhouse some of the membership has been thirsting for. Add a bus terminal for the Perry gang and all the rest and let's really get the money-spinning going.
Don't stop there, let's claim imminent domain and condemn the caravan park. You know, as one of those "blighted areas" we repurpose to get a "proper" short game and practice facility.
Is that what you came to Dornoch for David, 'cause that's where it's headed.
K :o
-
Brian,
Sorry for the nervous condition. I'll try to cap it. Apologies in advance for my future transgressions.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Kris -
I admire your passion for Dornoch. I am very sorry you have decided to give up your RDGC membership.
There is no point in getting into a debate about who knows or cares more about Dornoch. Suffice it to say in the 24 visits I have made to Dornoch over the past 12 years and the almost 500 days I have spent there, I have a view of the place and its future that is, at the very least, credible.
You will note that no where on this thread I have stated an opinion, in favor or against, on the Coul Links project. For you to question my motivation and integrity based upon that fact I own a holiday home in Dornoch is disappointing and insulting.
To the best of my knowledge, every project Mike Keiser has been involved with to date has been a success on every level, including benefiting the local communities. My guess is he cares about Dornoch and the surrounding area at least as much as we both do.
There is clearly a vetting process in place that will evaluate all aspects of the project and will solicit input from the local community. I can't help but feel that process is much better suited to judge the worthiness of the project than idle, random chatter on this board.
DT
-
David,
If you wish to try and hang a guilt trip on me, fine. I NEVER called your integrity into question. Who ever said you weren't credible?
Where did I claim to know more than anyone else on any of the points I raised?
If you want to dance around the FACT someone stands to gain from this project if they own a property they rent, right in the middle of the Dornoch village were this to be built...be my guest.
Most on here, including myself, are well aware you spend quite a bit of time there. You, more than most, should understand why that ground should remain as it is.
Why is it you can't grasp it? Neither can Mr.Keiser or Mr. Warnock thus far. I'll ask again...
Is NO ground that can yield great golf safe from exploitation?
If you think that Embo site isn't worthy of that level of safeguarding...just come out and say it.
Anyone can stand by and stay neutral. Wait for somebody else to drop the hammer and then weigh in.
As to your thought that Mike cares about Dornoch as much as either of us. YOU may feel that way.
There is NO WAY I would degrade THAT Embo ground for any golf course.... even if it was to be Number 1 for eternity!
People aren't stupid. Greed and ego often get the better of sound judgement. Sometimes the brakes need to be applied.
There is a process, but it can't always be trusted. That's the reality.
Just like a healthy, sustainable economy MUST have a healthy environmental platform to sustain life. Once you' ve crapped enough of it up, you've lost.
I am FAR from being alone in that view. Time will tell.
Idle, random chatter...that's comical. But I'm the offensive one. Sure.
Cheers,
K 8)
-
m not sure what Niall is talking of in terms of "development." I am party to none of the particulars about this project, but in general, Mr. Keiser has no interest in developing housing, and only in developing lodging for golf to the extent that it can't be met by the local infrastructure. I think he just wants to build a golf course.
Tom
It was a reference to your point that RDGC, and indeed, any number of other links courses were developed on similar sites to Embro. What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
Niall
-
What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
I was at Strandhill in Ireland last week, where, along with architect Ally McIntosh of this parish, the club is hoping to build two new holes in the raw dunes between the present course and the water. Interestingly, course manager Jason Kelly told me that the local environmental management types had done a survey of biodiversity on the site, and concluded that there were a lot more species in the area maintained as golf course than there were in the bare dunes.
-
What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
I was at Strandhill in Ireland last week, where, along with architect Ally McIntosh of this parish, the club is hoping to build two new holes in the raw dunes between the present course and the water. Interestingly, course manager Jason Kelly told me that the local environmental management types had done a survey of biodiversity on the site, and concluded that there were a lot more species in the area maintained as golf course than there were in the bare dunes.
Adam
Did the course manager cite any reasons as to why this is the case?
Ciao
-
Not to me.
-
What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
I was at Strandhill in Ireland last week, where, along with architect Ally McIntosh of this parish, the club is hoping to build two new holes in the raw dunes between the present course and the water. Interestingly, course manager Jason Kelly told me that the local environmental management types had done a survey of biodiversity on the site, and concluded that there were a lot more species in the area maintained as golf course than there were in the bare dunes.
Adam
Do the course manager cite any reasons as to why this is the case?
Ciao
I haven't seen the most recent survey other than Jason giving me the highlights a couple of weeks ago. What I do know is that when I put the plan together that involved building two new holes on the south west plateau, I did a lot of research in to what I thought was the best golfing option most likely to receive planning approval. I used a previous 2004 environmental report that indicated the high area was species poor, predominantly marram with no great diversity in flora or fauna such as would be found in the dune slacks further behind. It therefore doesn't surprise me that they have more wildlife on the lower areas where the course is currently situated. Certainly in our last meeting with National Parks & Wildlife, that was the impression they also gave.
-
Kris
I've no idea about Ian's involvement with the project if any. I'll leave him to answer the question if he wishes but irrespective of whether he is or not, I don't think there is any doubt that if the project went ahead that it would add to the economy of the area which I think was the main point that Ian was making. The question is whether that benefit is worth the downside or at least the perceived downside, which perhaps can be summed up by Ken's post (which as Ken admits is perhaps selfish, and I say that as someone who shares his concerns) about how things will change at existing clubs including RDGC, and your principle concern (assuming I read you correctly) which seems to be the development of a environmentally sensitive area.
Personally I suspect you might be overstating the environmental impact of any course development (that of course depends on how they go about the development ie. Balmedie style or Mach Dunes style) but haven't been over the land or read any environmental assessments.
Niall
-
Niall,
There is no question that economic gain would be made with a world class links offering up in Dornoch. I NEVER said I was against any course going in up that way.
NOT that site has been my positon. For a multitude of reasons.
Ian reached out to me and shed light on his position, and his take.
Sadly, as Pete correctly pointed out, this IS a very important topic.
It gets personal some time. My intent is always to try to stay on the subject matter at hand. Knowing to what audience we are speaking to has validity.
Some folks are more private than others. I respect that. But when you swing from this tree house, if we are not candid, forthright or straight, at the outset, on who we are, and where our perspective comes from...there seems to be a hollowness there.
I've said many times that I believe this is the most stimulating portal in all of golf. Discussion on here, at it's best, has no equal.
Feathers get ruffled. It sometimes gets heated. But so long as the content is thought-provoking, and the discourse civil, it's a winner...warts and all.
I've given my views. Others are entitled to theirs. If a go ahead is given on THAT Embo tract, it will be in the hands of as good a group of land stewards as we have in the game.
There is no questioning the caliber of that team.
Cheers,
Kris
-
I do not have any position on this particular issue but appreciate having an opponent speak up here.
The issues raised in this thread are a critical component of almost any golf course development and those interested in GCA should give them serious consideration.
-
It was a reference to your point that RDGC, and indeed, any number of other links courses were developed on similar sites to Embro. What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
Niall
Always amazes me how much easier it is to throw cows into a wetland than place a golf course around it... particularly if you are a local farmer.
It further amazes me how easy it is for third parties to place burdens on owners that go above and beyond the law and prior to facts being established... would love to see the same passion to fundraise, buy and protect the land for posterity.
-
First, a personal thanks to David and Kris. I'm heading to the Highlands in four weeks and am fascinated by this thread. Since my first round will be at Durness I thought this article about its inception was interesting and might cast a different light on the Embo issue.
http://new.durness.org/?page_id=1034 (http://new.durness.org/?page_id=1034)
Down South the provincial approach is to dismiss outsiders with a curt observation that "he ain't from around here." While I value the comments and connections of both David and Kris, it's one thing to own property and visit frequent or marry well into the son-in-law program - it's quite another to "be from around here" and have the soil embedded in your soul. My guess is the locals will figure this thing out. I'm guessing to them it's not about whether it's Keiser or Trump. While one of those two might be better intentioned or more popular on this site I'm reminded that he does in fact charge full retail. Would he do it for sport or love? I sure hope so.
I'm beyond excited about driving the NC500 with Kathie next month. My expectation? I will see some stunning landscapes and meet some wonderful people who today can't fathom they need another golf course in the area. I suspect golf in Scotland is a matter of the heart (but again, how should I know?) - but not of the head or hip pocket. Maybe they need another Durness or two (don't we all?). Another Castle Stuart or Royal Dornoch? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Regardless I can't wait. I read North to the Links of Dornoch 45 years ago at the age of 13. It's been a long time coming.
Respectfully,
Mike
-
Since my first round will be at Durness I thought this article about its inception was interesting and might cast a different light on the Embo issue.
As a point of interest, years ago, Mr. Keiser was VERY interested in the idea of building a new 18 holes in the big dunes beyond Durness. He did not think it had too much prospect of a commercial return, so everything was to be done for a minimal investment ... he just thought the dunes were beautiful, and a big course would convince more people to visit that remote corner of Scotland.
Bill Coore convinced Mike that the course couldn't be built for the modest budget that he envisioned, and he eventually dropped the idea.
-
I’ve tried three times to post a comment because I’ve spent 27 years involved in environmental and land use issues, specifically related to golf and agriculture. I’ve failed each time to come up something that has not already been said, in one way or another, on both sides of this discussion. No dog in the fight, I’ll just read with interest and shut up. Thanks for letting me take myself off the hook. These discussions can get complicated and do damage to passionate beliefs. I have enough scar tissue already.
-
Michael,
You will love Durness! Another absolute charmer up that way. It's a winding, but glorious trek from Dornoch across some of the wildest and varied ground I've seen anywhere.
As Tom alluded to, there is some stunning coastline in that immediate area around Durness.
I'll always remenber the day I made that ride over there, as we were ambling along a VERY rural country road, but not single track, we rounded a bend and came apon a cluster of land rovers. It was late August if I recall, and witnessed an unforgettable scene. An entire bird hunting party was emptying out of the vehicles and forming up to begin the hunt.
The array of magnificent dogs, some beautiful firearms and classic hunting attires worn by the group was a picture from another era... only it wasn't!
That is the type of timeless moment that that region of Scotland STILL delivers. The main reason is because much of that area is locked up in the hands of folks NOT interested in growth, progress and all that goes with it.
As you will see, various crofts (farm or grazing) , many estate lands, moors etc. knit together to maintain a landscape that still has its rugged natural beauty and integrity.
The remoteness of it has insulated it from "development."
So far!
Therein lies the inherent danger of blowing up a village like Dornoch into some bustling "growth" community. No one expects things to remain the same forever. That's a given.
Golf, on it's own, has one of the lightest footprints possible, in the RIGHT places, to provide economic opportunity to a community.
That's been going on up there, and loads of other places, worldwide, since the early days of the railroad.
Let me ask others that have been to them, does the golfing "hub" that is Nairn feel like Dornoch? Does any other golfing in Scotland have the sense of Dornoch?
Where things become problematic is the
" expansion" that is sure to follow when something becomes a focused, designated "hub" for something.
The local population, in the end, USUALLY holds what determination of their community will look like.
That said,, outside influence often has a way of
" convincing" decision makers at the local level to embark on things that end up changing permanently, and often not for the better, what gave the place it's special qualities.
When you layer in governmental agencies that need to justify their existence by " fostering" growth and economic initiatives, that only adds to the haste in generating an opportunity to tout.
Economic gain alone is not enough reason to approve something, especially in the wrong place, if it ends up ruining what gave a community it's defining qualities.
Dornoch has enjoyed a certain vibe, a mystique if you will, that has "entranced" golfers, AND non-golfers to a certain degree, since the 1800's.
It HAS been the small bucolic scale, and intertwined fabric of that village, which provided the special and unique flavor it holds. Lose that, and it loses what separates it from most other places.
Sometimes adding something takes away from the overall presenation. It could be the BEST ingredient in the world. But it changes what made the recipe so good... that which gave the dish it's superb taste.
I saw significant things change during the years I visited regularly, particularly the allowing of housing to be placed without regard to the sense of arrival, that began to alter the formerly quaint feel coming up the road into the village from the A-9. I'm sure it's worse now.
Dornoch is not unlike countless other rural places, worldwide, that wrestle with trying to create economic vitality, yet not lose what they have. I so hope and pray they get it right.
My first trip to Scotland was as a Pebble Beach caddie, on an epic trip in which we played the St. Andrew's caddies in an awesome competition of fellowship and comraderie.
I went up to Dornoch afterward, with two fellow caddies, after reading how amazing the golfing experience AND town was.
What I found there was what Mike Keiser and everybody else found there. It was THAT experience which propelled his vision.
THAT Dornoch was EVERYTHING I had read about!
Will those that go there in the future be able to say the same thing?
Enjoy your trip Michael, while it's still there.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
.
-
It was a reference to your point that RDGC, and indeed, any number of other links courses were developed on similar sites to Embro. What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
Niall
Always amazes me how much easier it is to throw cows into a wetland than place a golf course around it... particularly if you are a local farmer.
Amazed ! really ? Do you not know what farmers do then ?
It further amazes me how easy it is for third parties to place burdens on owners that go above and beyond the law and prior to facts being established... Now you've really got me puzzled. What third parties, and what exactly are they doing outwith the law ? And further more, how are they getting away with it. The last time I looked we were reasonably good in this country at upholding the law, maybe not perfect but pretty good all the same. would love to see the same passion to fundraise, buy and protect the land for posterity. That sounds like you are reducing the issue to who has the most money. In this country interested parties can have a say through the planning process as to how land is used. That at least allows for the public interest to be considered which to my way of thinking is better than deciding the matter purely by who has the deepest pockets.
Niall
-
It was a reference to your point that RDGC, and indeed, any number of other links courses were developed on similar sites to Embro. What's more putting a golf course on links land might be better for the bio-diversity of the site than leaving it to be grazed. It's the sort of thing someone like Mike Wood would be able to give chapter and verse about I'm sure.
Niall
Always amazes me how much easier it is to throw cows into a wetland than place a golf course around it... particularly if you are a local farmer.
Amazed ! really ? Do you not know what farmers do then ?
It further amazes me how easy it is for third parties to place burdens on owners that go above and beyond the law and prior to facts being established... Now you've really got me puzzled. What third parties, and what exactly are they doing outwith the law ? And further more, how are they getting away with it. The last time I looked we were reasonably good in this country at upholding the law, maybe not perfect but pretty good all the same. would love to see the same passion to fundraise, buy and protect the land for posterity. That sounds like you are reducing the issue to who has the most money. In this country interested parties can have a say through the planning process as to how land is used. That at least allows for the public interest to be considered which to my way of thinking is better than deciding the matter purely by who has the deepest pockets.
Niall
I know what cows do to wetlands. I know a golf course intelligently planned around a wetland is better than farming cows in the wetland. I know farmers get away with this more than a golf course developer.
With respect to my comments about the law. I am sure Scotland has good laws protecting land and establishing appropriate processes. I repeatedly see people, including on this thread, trying to place burdens on the land owner prior to facts being established in a fair process that also considers the ownership rights.
I am not reducing the issue to money. If land is important for public interest, either the government or charities can buy it from the owner at a fair price. I would like to see this effort used more than the political process trying to stop initiatives unfairly and forcing the owner to do other things, sometimes less visible but worse for the land environmentally. Two examples of this: farming and social housing.
-
Comparing cow grazing habits impact on THAT site, to the level of disturbance trying to shoehorn a links golf course there would produce, is quite a stretch.
Cows, in the main will: degrade some of the vegetation, rut the ground along their travel routes, and leave urine and fecal matter that the area wouldn't normally have.
While none of those things is good, they ARE consistent with the traditional use of that neighboring land.
Cows also AVOID large portions of certain ground found there because there is little to their liking.
Wildlife and livestock, though sometimes conflicting within a habitat, typically adapt to coexist rather well. They have had centuries to accomplish that.
Square that against : construction equipment, their noise, significant earthmoving disturbance and alteration of the landscape, introduction of irrigation, ongoing course maintainence impacts,
with MAJOR increases in human AND vehicular traffic for what has long been a QUIET, rather isolated sanctuary for birdlife and other estuary denizens.
The injected golf land use, while certainly having agrarian elements, will have RADICALLY different impacts on that site.
The fact bird studies are being undertaken should give ample evidence it isn't a simple farm wetland puddle or beach area site.
As to " burdening " the land owner, when you are significantly changing the land use of a site, the burden is often on them to prove it's a reponsible change and use. This is ESPECIALLY true of areas with proximity to an estuary, one of this planet's most important and unique ecosystems.
The value of an estuary area is basically a normal wetland situation cubed!!!!
Birdlife migrations and numbers cycle up and down. How can ONE year of study on THAT site accurately reflect what really goes on there over time? It can't.
How can the true impact on that estuary area, both short and longterm, of a new golf course on the birdlife, and other site inhabitants be determined when it hasn't ever even been there. It can't.
That's why the "process" is bogus.
Does any honest appraisal of what went on at Balmedie not confirm that ANYTHING can be justified.The science was irrelevant.
Remember, the initial local vote was NO.
The Scottish higher ups stepped in and parted the dunes. Big money spoke, and the snake oil did the rest.
It doesn't matter the quality or caliber of those leading the proposed development.
EVEN if they are the BEST in the world.
What matters is the depth and integrity of the analysis. Then, once that has been throughly examined, a RESPONSIBLE decision must be rendered; not subverted or twisted to accommodate the " economic benefits and jobs" mantra that
DOMINATES the mindsets of government and business folks.
Again, there can be NO sustained economic health WITHOUT environmental health.
If there is never a NO answer, and there rarely is, there is only one end game. A sick, dying planet.
There are some government programs, and numerous private organizations, worldwide, that constantly are committing money, time and personal effort to preserve sites like the one in Embo.
Until golf was recently proposed
for that Coul Farm site, it WAS being preserved. As a coastal estuary buffer to the farmland and other ground inland.
Time will tell what road the"process" takes.
Cheers,
Kris
-
It struck me, when reflecting on where else in Scotland a somewhat similar situation might exist already.....it does, at Brora, not a half hour up the A-9!
That area is far more open in nature than the Embo site though. The Artic Tern, the club logo, breeds on edges of play by the course thete. Certain species, both birds, and other wildlife, can adapt to live their lives on an altered topography.
But MANY can not.
A quick check of the Brora birdlife website reveals an array of birds that frequent the area around there.
Cows and sheep are rotated through the combined farmland\ golf turf during the year.
That is probably the best representation of what an Embo site, AFTER a century of healing... MIGHT look like.
I love Brora, and everything about it. That course is about a half an hour up the coast from Dornoch.
And that's the point! I don't know the exact waterway dispersion along that coastline, but I bet that is the next significant, large river/ stream confluence with the sea up from the Embo estuary.
Heavy human traffic is a constant up in Brora. You can be SURE that certain species willl have their behavior and ability to function SEVERELY disrupted, if not changed PERMENANTLY with the introduction of a new golf course on that Embo site.
Walk the Embo site, and then walk the Brora golf course. Then try to tell someone with a straight face that they are both about the same.
It isn't even close between the two in grandeur OR diversity!
What's the mandate...slam a links course in at any estuary site possible because we can?
There iare ALREADY two golf courses a few miles from the proposed Embo site.
Where does it end? Don't the other creatures on the planet deserve some places to just exist in peace and remain as they are.
Especially areas MOST critical to reproductive survival and early development of those species.
Estuary sites such as THAT in Embo provide the nurseries for critters of the land, air and water...BOTH fresh and salt.
That is why you don't build there.
But I know, the " retail golfer " and that almighty economic gain comes first.
Cheers,
Kris
-
What amazes me is that a "retail" golfer needs a new modern course addition as an incentive to visit the area (or for that mattervirtually ANY partof the UK and Ireland for golf.)
Maybe we just need less retail golfers.....
-
Kris, the cow example in a wetland example might have nothing to do with this specific site that I do not know at all. With a wetland, two dozen cows will be far worse than everything that happens while building and maintaining a sensible 18 hole golf course. The cows WILL severely impact the wetland, if not outright kill all valuable species. The well maintained golf course will showcase the wetland, preserve it and allow it to thrive. Yet in many places I know, cows get placed there without any questioning or interference from public or government while the golf course gets tremendous bad publicity and banned. I am just saying, a fair process should be followed and I am all for protecting the environment, and not only today, Earth Day.
-
Happy Earth Day! How appropriate. I agree that roaming cows can wreck havoc on a wetland.
Fair process needs to apply to the wildlife inhabitants as well. And THAT often gets compromised for the reasons outlined previously.
I'll share a powerful thought I just heard today, and let the tree house chew on it.
"The whole non-human world is singing, but many of us are not listening."
I know this. If one of the most responsible voices in the game takes a step back, that bold statement would have FAR more benefit for golf, and the non-golfing population's view of us as WISE citizens of the world, than ANYTHING that Embo site could deliver.
Cheers,
A listener 8)
-
This reminds me of the song by Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi (Paved Paradise and put up a parking lot...)
A Canadian folk singer, she was dismayed by the rawness of our country's vast wilderness. She lamented the lack of development and industrialization and the corresponding lack of opportunity.
A close listening of the song reveals that in the end, what used to be considered paradise has been paved and everyone is better for it. Not only does it give her townsfolk a place to park their cars, but they can have farmers markets, road hockey tournaments, and even bleach their tires and do brakestands and burn outs in their muscle cars. She even notes how it is an improvement on farming because farms are not always environmentally friendly. (Hey farmer farmer put away that DDT).
In short, sometimes you can improve on paradise by just paving it over.
-
The cows WILL severely impact the wetland, if not outright kill all valuable species.
How do you know this?
Is it not the case that the cows might not only help to prevent certain plants from taking over the site by churning up the ground but also through this give some valuable flora the chance to fill the void left.
-
Where is Any Rand when you need her to set everyone straight. We know what she'd do!! ;D
-
What endangered bird, rodent, reptile, flower, insect, or other life form will be affected here?
I own and read Dr. Macleod's years ago and don't recall mention of this land.
I will be in Dornoch this July and will make a point of seeing this land.
I've been on the wrong side of government interests and almost always sympathize with land owners.
Dornoch is a special place to me.
-
Will,
You've got to be kidding ? Do you even understand the lytics? She talks about trees that used to be....NOW being in museums where people get CHARGED to see them!
She tells the farmers to PUT A5WAY the DDT.... she'll TAKE the spots!!! You know, MORE naturally grown, LESS chemically enhanced.
DDT damn near wiped out the Bald Eagle, the national bird of the USA, and SEVERELY impacted other species.
How you can draw the conclusions you stated from her lyrics of that song is ridiculous.
Steve,
Something DOESN'T have to be endangered to understand it should be ALLOWED a proper place to reproduce and live.
If man continues to show the PATHETIC disregard for the other inhabitants on the planet we have ,we WILL, in the end, destroy our OWN ability to sustain. It's that simple.
Dr. John didn't mention that site in the book. Which is a wonderful club history by the way. He, and his daughter, both keen golfers, felt that while THAT site would no doubt make for great golf....IT SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE due to its uniqueness and importance to area wildlife, particularly the birdlife that uses it. Just because it isn't in the book, doesn't mean it's open season to degrade it!
Remember, that site is in EMBO, NOT Dornoch.
I'll say again, NO WAY he would have wanted that ground changed for golf, and he would certainly be DEEPLY upset that his club, which he supported tirelessly, was advocating for doing so.
It is startling to me, the clear disconnect by so many on here, that we can continue to degrade the planet and everything is fine.
World fish stocks are down like 70% from historic numbers. Cod, for example, have been over harvested to the point that it isn't even a viable fishery in New England anymore! Tuna numbers and size average, are WAY down.
I can go on and on. I fish. I have all my life. But I'm not stupid about taking too many, just because I could. Catch and release, take one or two for a meal, and that's it. There AIN'T enough of them left to do othetwise in most cases!
Sure, there are success stories where we have averted disaster...stripped bass RECOVERY
and improved lobster numbers, with size and quota LIMITS.
But overall, mankind needs to be a much better steward than we have been.
If not, future generations, provided we don't bomb each other to death, will look back on our time and say, " What IDIOTS, they helped destroy their own home!
We're capable of so much better. Man's often a selfish beast. We SHARE the planet folks. And in the grand scheme of things, our ignorance of that reality will probably cost us our existence.
Food for thought...
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
This reminds me of the song by Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi (Paved Paradise and put up a parking lot...)
A Canadian folk singer, she was dismayed by the rawness of our country's vast wilderness. She lamented the lack of development and industrialization and the corresponding lack of opportunity.
A close listening of the song reveals that in the end, what used to be considered paradise has been paved and everyone is better for it. Not only does it give her townsfolk a place to park their cars, but they can have farmers markets, road hockey tournaments, and even bleach their tires and do brakestands and burn outs in their muscle cars. She even notes how it is an improvement on farming because farms are not always environmentally friendly. (Hey farmer farmer put away that DDT).
In short, sometimes you can improve on paradise by just paving it over.
I really don't understand this post.
Sarcasm?
-
This reminds me of the song by Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi (Paved Paradise and put up a parking lot...)
A Canadian folk singer, she was dismayed by the rawness of our country's vast wilderness. She lamented the lack of development and industrialization and the corresponding lack of opportunity.
A close listening of the song reveals that in the end, what used to be considered paradise has been paved and everyone is better for it. Not only does it give her townsfolk a place to park their cars, but they can have farmers markets, road hockey tournaments, and even bleach their tires and do brakestands and burn outs in their muscle cars. She even notes how it is an improvement on farming because farms are not always environmentally friendly. (Hey farmer farmer put away that DDT).
In short, sometimes you can improve on paradise by just paving it over.
I really don't understand this post.
Sarcasm?
My first thought when reading it was "Wookin Pa Nub" ;D
-
You guys can't possibly be serious. Listen to the song.
-
Will,
That song is not applauding development.
The ENTIRE song is all about losing what was dear to her.
Joni Mitchell wrote a LOT about societal issues in that period.
That song was written in 1970. The height of flower power and all the rest of it.
Do you think younger artists of that era were all about paving over the natural world?
To help you, type in Big Yellow Taxi and look at the Wikipedia information on THAT song.
In black and white, she is quoted as telling a journalist her inspiration for THAT song was when she was in Hawaii and looked out a window... first
gazing at the awesome green mountains and then being disgusted by tbe sea of pavememt below them.
Kindly read that EXACT quote and then try and explain where the endorsement for the better, "modern" world you claim she's touting is in those lyrics !?
Hate to say it, but your take is exhibit A of the disconnect.
It might be a good idea to do a little deeper homework for "context" before making an assertion.
Cheers.
Kris
-
As someone who grew up in rural Canada in the 1970s I think I have a pretty good knowledge of what she is saying. We were her audience. The struggle was far too real and she spoke to us. I've always found the song inspiring.
Anyway, sorry for sidetracking.
-
Check that Wikipedia information on Big Yellow Taxi. I'm not looking to blast you, but misinformation IS a major problem when discussing important environmental issues. Even songs, misinterpreted, can confuse people.
-
It is a good song. We just need to be sure what it means.
Cheers.
Kris
-
As someone who grew up in rural Canada in the 1970s I think I have a pretty good knowledge of what she is saying. We were her audience. The struggle was far too real and she spoke to us. I've always found the song inspiring.
Anyway, sorry for sidetracking.
I'm not arguing. I'm just genuinely interested-and I happen to think your commentary is extremely ON topic.
Wikipedia is only as good as its source-plenty of misinformation there.
It's a perspective I had never thought about and never in a million years would've thought that's what she meant.
I'm intrigued.
-
[quote author=Tim_Weiman link=topic=62771.msg1494303#msg1494303 date=
i was told that RDC's ferilizer budget would fund Golspie's entire greenkeeping operation for a year. Now, that's not the way it should be IMHO, but it gives you an idea of why they're a little jealous.
This is an incredible claim. Who exactly told you this Ken? As head greenkeeper at Golspie I can tell you that is categorically false. Our course spend is around £20k/year now, with wages budget of around just under 3x that. As for the ridiculousness of the last bit about being jealous, that too is an insult. Firstly we are quite comfortable growing our budgets in line with visitor numbers. We have no reason to be jealous. RD is a world class course and we need RD to be the magnet for this area in order to get the spin off. Staff at RD have been massively supportive of the course and especially the improvements at Golspie. They send many visitors our way and even support our club further by holding their Carnegie Shield spin offs in August. This has resulted in us having an opportunity to showcase our course to some of the best golfers visiting the area and many of them then become members. This is one of a number of reasons we are the exact opposite of jealous. We are indeed hugely grateful of RD.
Now that I'm off my soap box i can now get back to this original thread that David started, Coul Links.
As a born and bred Embo lad, a golfing fanatic since the age of 4 and Greenkeeper for the last 18yrs, I can't tell you enough how massive this is for our village. Most of the village folk, not all, are hugely supportive of the proposed Links. The job opportunities and the tourism regeneration by turning the area in to a destination would be fantastic. There are some people that are a little sceptical of the initial proposal not having a clubhouse and instead running the golfers by shuttle from Dornoch, therefore by passing Embo altogether. There was then the proposal that it would be handed over to RD once the initial costs were recuperated by the developer. That did not go down well with a lot of the people. I'm sure the developers will rethink some of this, as I get the impression they are here to better the area and not to make a quick buck.
The land itself is a huge swathe from Embo, north towards Littleferry some 2.5mls away. It then moves inland westwards following Loch Fleet for around 3/4mile. It is around 600yds wide at it's narrowest point and has various sizes of dunes in the dune slack area and has some lovely contours around the area used for Agriculture. The area floods in winter due to the 4 water sources entering the property that then run to ground. These could easily be diverted in to the main carrier stream, the Cluain, that runs out to sea. The area, although a SSSI, has become overgrown with some broad leaved grasses which a re choking out the native marrams etc. There are some fenced off areas throughout which I assume are of more significance. I'd say that these will be avoided in the routing, there is more than enough room to skirt these and avoid the primary dunes also. When you think that the area at RD is around 250yds from boundary to sea on the 4th to 13th Tee, you can see with the vastness of Coul, the lack of problems these SSSIs will pose in routing.
If the course does get the go ahead, it won't be the first time golf has been played on the Coul Links. I was playing along there in school holidays some 25yrs ago and still hit balls on it to this day. It is an area of huge importance for the village of Embo, with walkers using it on a daily basis. One look at the site and you'd see why, it's the most beautiful place you can imagine. I get what the chap says regarding Doctor John's thoughts, and with absolutely no disrespect intended, I think he would maybe feel a little different to that since the opening of Castle Stuart. Their opening has hit our clubs up here hard. Believe it or not, their opening has exasperated the phenomena that sees golfer race up the A9 to jump out and play RD then race back to Inverness and stay the night. It has made Inverness the centre point of their Highland travels and not Dornoch. The proposal of Coul Links then turns Dornoch in to the destination for anyone coming up. If they come up on a Monday to play RD, they will play Coul also in a day. The likelihood of them going straight down the road afterwards is greatly reduced and then offers the other clubs in the area the opportunity to have them play the next day. It's a great idea and having seen the effects of Castle Stuart's opening, I am positive it is one that Doctor John would have reevaluated. Yes the land for the proposed site is special, there is nobody more aware of that than the Embo folk, the people that make use of it on a daily basis. We love the area, and we would not support any vandalism of it. That is where Mr Keiser is, in my view, the perfect developer should it get the go ahead. His assigned architects are superb with working with the land. I'd be surprised if they weren't very sensitive to the land first and foremost, using the advice of SNH on the SSSI issues and then there's the feelings of the locals. There is a long way to go in this feasibility stages and should it get the go ahead, I'm positive that clubs in the area would be hugely supportive of it. Having spoken to some at Golspie, I know they are excited about the prospect of an increase in visitor numbers staying in the area.
Great thread guys and glad to see some passion from all involved. Regardless of what happens, it's a hugely exciting time for Embo and there's a large proportion of the village praying it gets the go ahead. Fingers crossed!
-
Alexander,
A thoughtful take. Thank you! I respect and agree with portions of your views.
There are a few areas where I would share some concerns,
and certainly would appreciate a bit more illumination.
First, on your belief that Dr. John would perhaps rethink his position in the light of Castle Stuart's dampening round numbers at RD's surrounding courses.
Did you know him? I hope you did, because he was an ace of a human being and a very wise man.
I wish he was still here. He thought deeply, and from a broad spectrum of nterests. He had GREAT affinity for the other area clubs, in fact telling me, with a wry smile, on several occasions, how much he, and other members loved traveling for away matches or just day trips for a go!
He certainly understood the economic pressure and challenges they faced, especially in slower years. I recall him mentioning that RD had some mighty quiet times after Lockerbie and a couple of other slow periods, when they resorted to car boot sales of household extras to raise money for the club! It got that dire at times....even for RD.
I'm not sure that adding Coul Links will lead to that much more play at Golspie or other courses, beyond what they are getting now from their proximity to RD.
First-timers, unless they are the savvy, or more discerning types, aren't venturing to the second tier offerings that first trip up, in most cases. Revisiting golfers generally will be back to immerse more locally, and the Dornoch area gets a fair share of those.
I believe that continuing to strengthen and sharpen marketing of what you HAVE, highlighting an overall experience worth lingering for, will deliver more than just the piggyback, or drafting effect of a Coul Links.
Refine YOUR product; make it special in the ways that are possible.
All that said, I do not think Dr. John would advocate disturbing that ground for golf or ANY other significant impact. He recognized, as most folks do that don't believe making money is the most important criteria, when making a decision, that certain places simply need to be left alone. Period.
Walking that now takes place at that Embo is a quiet, passive use. The impacts of a new golf course build alone, and then the radically altered daily activities of maintenance, and other needs to deliver for the belt notcher crowd that descends on the place during the season, WILL stress the wildlife inhabitants severely. That is a MAJOR problem, and you don't seem to be very
concerned about that.
Respecting that SOME wildlife can adapt to increased human intrusion within their environment, MANY can not.
There are breeding and resting areas in numerous locations there.
Is passing off disturbing that site, as acceptable collateral damage for an economic opportunity, really responsible stewardship of the land?
Given the VAST experience THAT development team has in creating exceptional golf ....on ALREADY altered ground, wouldn't the more prudent choice, for ALL involved, be to secure LESS environmentally sensitive ground for the project?
There are plenty of alternative parcels in the area, with the views and the setting to stoke that superb talent, to produce something special.
The excuse that it needs to be that Embo site, or they pack up and go home....to me calls into serious question as to what is really in play. And it should to YOU as well.
EVERYONE, including you, knows that place is very unique and something of rare quality.
It is an estuary area for goodness sake. SSI locations and the need for extensive ( but not really) bird studies...c'mon Alexander...you siimply DON'T put a golf course there!
Sure, you may be able to snake a routing in amongst the SSI, but that doesn't prevent the negative impacts. Again, certain species do not do well in heavy human traffic situations...which will be unavoidable in a golf course scenario.
This is particularly true when trying to find wayward shots on an often windblown course. How much width can be responsibly put into such a routing?
It floods...because thats how it should function. Alter than, and you are significantly changing the site. You mention the four water sources. More reasons to NOT build there.
It's not a question of vandalism, or that the architects would do illegal things, they wouldn't...it's that the "process" will be bias to finding a way to support approval, when in any proper decision, based on what's best for the ACTUAL inhabitants that use it, we KNOW that verdict is a NO GO on that Embo site!
Since they don't have a voice, other than the scanty studies offered as "evidence"...it's easy to skew the data to gain approval, and that once majestic site is degraded forever.
Sorry, that is the reality of what often goes down. Look at Balmedie
...a complete farce....ZERO integrity to that "process."
My rather detailed posts are not those of an expert, but of a fairly informed individual who has sadly, seen the same manipulated endgame firsthand in similar situations.
The squeeze is on for approval. It doesn't smell good.
I know the ground. That is NOT a responsible site for a links golf course.
In closing, I find it sad that a son of Embo feels that money is justification to forever alter the UNMATCHED natural importance and beauty of perhaps it's most arresting ground. WOW.
I hope it all works out, but a feeling of dread, for ALL the change it will bring. gripped me the moment I heard it might go under the blade... and it has only deepened.
Cheers,
Kris
-
I fully understand local ambition for more economic development, but I have to wonder what is the point of designating land as special in any way? Why is tax money being spent on this sort of thing if expert opinion on why land is special is to be ignored? Its bewildering to me. Part of the reason for designating land is to protect it when temptation rears its head. But it seems as soon as a good offer comes along protection be damned. Lets at least hope lessons are learned from the Trump fiasco and the decision is left with the local authority should an application ever be submitted.
All that said...I do think one more class course in the area would encourage golfers to spend an extra night in the area. Has there been a study to show the impact of an extra 10,000 stays in the area? All that said again, the model of the course is incredibly important. Pay & play probably works, private may be a disaster for the smaller clubs in the area.
Ciao
-
Sean
The SSSI designation (meaning Site of Special Scientific Interest) is an important part of identifying sites that are worth considering and preserving. There will be times when for one reason or another the SSSI designation will not be enough to stop development of a particular site but in most instances it will either stop or greatly modify development it. The latter is likely to be the case at Coul Links. The one outstanding case where SSSI was ignored or at least the authorities felt there was an over riding reason for ignoring the SSSI was Balmedie. And they got bounced into that by a shameful bit of grandstanding by the Scottish Government which I suspect they later regretted.
That instance aside I suspect that the SSSI designation has been very useful to the extent that existing courses often get all or part of their course designated and then work with the authorities to help maintain what is there. That's what Kris doesn't really appreciate, that golf courses can often be an environmental haven if managed the correct way.
Niall
-
Sean,
a new private members club in the Dornoch area would not effect the other clubs in the area as it would go bankrupt before it opened. The figures for new private clubs in the north of Scotland just do not add up and believe me I do know what I am talking about.
Jon
-
Jon
I suspect that Mike Keiser and Todd Warnock will be working on a slightly larger budget than you are ! With Keisers rep and that of the architects, I suspect that a "traditional" members club or some variance thereof, with a sizeable overseas membership and a high level of visitor play could work. I'd also imagine that Mr Keiser has deep enough pockets to bankroll it and tweak his working model until it does work. Time will tell, assuming it gets built.
Niall
-
Niall,
I most certainly DO understand that a golf coursr, or several for that matter, CAN coexist and even enhance wildlife in CERTAIN situations.
However, there are also certain locations whete this is NOT the case! This will be one of them.
As an individual that has made his modest living from both golf, as a caddie for decades, AND as a professional in landscape design/property management,
I have a fair handle on the subject.
Given what I just stated, I should be one thirsting to see this project a reality.
But I know that site is not a RESPONSIBLE place to put a golf course when there are certainly other, less impactful options.
What part of what I just said doesn't make sense? Why the fixation on putting a course on that particular ground given the CLEAR envronmental sensitivity present.
It may be the best site...it is ALSO the WORST choice given what is there.
The zeal for the quid is beyond glaring, and the justifications are based ENTIRELY on profit.
John Muir said it best, "Nothing dollarable is safe!"
Ego is also present in abundance. ANYONE denying that is not being honest. If we can...we will.
If approved, there will be a hell of a price paid, on many levels.
If you've seen it before, and I have, you know what's coming.
Cheers,
Kris
-
What amazes me is that a "retail" golfer needs a new modern course addition as an incentive to visit the area (or for that mattervirtually ANY partof the UK and Ireland for golf.)
Maybe we just need less retail golfers.....
and more wholesale golfers that learn to appreciate the kind of golf courses Jeff often promotes here.
-
Niall,
I most certainly DO understand that a golf coursr, or several for that matter, CAN coexist and even enhance wildlife in CERTAIN situations.
What certain situations Kris? I'd love to hear a reasoning on this
However, there are also certain locations whete this is NOT the case! This will be one of them.
Again, why are you so sure? Are you really that dismissive of the developers abilities to work with the land, or to take on board the advice of the SNH and others?
As an individual that has made his modest living from both golf, as a caddie for decades, AND as a professional in landscape design/property management,
I have a fair handle on the subject.
I'm not doubting that for a second, how much development experience of golf courses have you got? Do you have an insight on as to why there is huge amounts of data on the increase in wildlife after a golf course has been built? Links courses included. Having said that, I have to agree with your (possibly someone else's) criticism of Balmedie, Trump in my opinion should be jailed for that monstrosity. I'm certain that is why this one will be completely different.
Given what I just stated, I should be one thirsting to see this project a reality.
But I know that site is not a RESPONSIBLE place to put a golf course when there are certainly other, less impactful options.
Where are these Links areas?
What part of what I just said doesn't make sense? Why the fixation on putting a course on that particular ground given the CLEAR envronmental sensitivity present.
It may be the best site...it is ALSO the WORST choice given what is there.
What is there present that makes this the worst choice?
The zeal for the quid is beyond glaring, and the justifications are based ENTIRELY on profit.
John Muir said it best, "Nothing dollarable is safe!"
Ego is also present in abundance. ANYONE denying that is not being honest. If we can...we will.
If approved, there will be a hell of a price paid, on many levels.
If you've seen it before, and I have, you know what's coming.
Cheers,
Kris
I'm genuinely interested in the points you've raised. I don't mean to sound rude/short but this was done in a hurry as I'm heading out to dinner. I look forward to returning and reading what makes you so passionate about this being the wrong site for a course.
All the best Kris
Alexander
-
The cows WILL severely impact the wetland, if not outright kill all valuable species.
How do you know this?
Is it not the case that the cows might not only help to prevent certain plants from taking over the site by churning up the ground but also through this give some valuable flora the chance to fill the void left.
Jon, I know this from spending time with scientists on the ground studying a large wetland in Patagonia, that has been subjected to cow pasture for a few decades now. My learning is that cows will ruin a wetland in time, killing most if not all species that are unique to the wetland (ie not present in the rest of the property). Scientists wanted every cow out of the property immediately.
-
Jon
I suspect that Mike Keiser and Todd Warnock will be working on a slightly larger budget than you are ! With Keisers rep and that of the architects, I suspect that a "traditional" members club or some variance thereof, with a sizeable overseas membership and a high level of visitor play could work. I'd also imagine that Mr Keiser has deep enough pockets to bankroll it and tweak his working model until it does work. Time will tell, assuming it gets built.
Niall
Niall,
I think most projects are done with a slightly larger budget than mine. I know what you are saying and think that a combination of country and oversees membership might be workable though very unpopular with other clubs in the area. I do not see a standard membership working unless they were to offer it for between £400 to £600 which I doubt would be feasible. However, I am sure that Mr. Keiser will use a model that will work.
MC,
I have no experience of Patagonian wetlands only continental European and Scottish Highland ones so cannot comment on your finding other than to say I am sure they are correct. I was led to believe by both the SEPA and SNH specialists that the hoof marks left by cows created opportunities for certain species of flora which otherwise would not appear. Of course, overgrazing or grazing in the wrong places at the wrong time is not desirable. I am not sure however how relevant South America is to Northern Scotland in this case nor if grazing would destroy all desirable plant life or not.
Jon
-
[quote author=Tim_Weiman link=topic=62771.msg1494303#msg1494303 date=
i was told that RDC's ferilizer budget would fund Golspie's entire greenkeeping operation for a year. Now, that's not the way it should be IMHO, but it gives you an idea of why they're a little jealous.
This is an incredible claim. Who exactly told you this Ken? As head greenkeeper at Golspie I can tell you that is categorically false. Our course spend is around £20k/year now, with wages budget of around just under 3x that. As for the ridiculousness of the last bit about being jealous, that too is an insult. Firstly we are quite comfortable growing our budgets in line with visitor numbers. We have no reason to be jealous. RD is a world class course and we need RD to be the magnet for this area in order to get the spin off. Staff at RD have been massively supportive of the course and especially the improvements at Golspie. They send many visitors our way and even support our club further by holding their Carnegie Shield spin offs in August. This has resulted in us having an opportunity to showcase our course to some of the best golfers visiting the area and many of them then become members. This is one of a number of reasons we are the exact opposite of jealous. We are indeed hugely grateful of RD.
Now that I'm off my soap box i can now get back to this original thread that David started, Coul Links.
As a born and bred Embo lad, a golfing fanatic since the age of 4 and Greenkeeper for the last 18yrs, I can't tell you enough how massive this is for our village. Most of the village folk, not all, are hugely supportive of the proposed Links. The job opportunities and the tourism regeneration by turning the area in to a destination would be fantastic. There are some people that are a little sceptical of the initial proposal not having a clubhouse and instead running the golfers by shuttle from Dornoch, therefore by passing Embo altogether. There was then the proposal that it would be handed over to RD once the initial costs were recuperated by the developer. That did not go down well with a lot of the people. I'm sure the developers will rethink some of this, as I get the impression they are here to better the area and not to make a quick buck.
The land itself is a huge swathe from Embo, north towards Littleferry some 2.5mls away. It then moves inland westwards following Loch Fleet for around 3/4mile. It is around 600yds wide at it's narrowest point and has various sizes of dunes in the dune slack area and has some lovely contours around the area used for Agriculture. The area floods in winter due to the 4 water sources entering the property that then run to ground. These could easily be diverted in to the main carrier stream, the Cluain, that runs out to sea. The area, although a SSSI, has become overgrown with some broad leaved grasses which a re choking out the native marrams etc. There are some fenced off areas throughout which I assume are of more significance. I'd say that these will be avoided in the routing, there is more than enough room to skirt these and avoid the primary dunes also. When you think that the area at RD is around 250yds from boundary to sea on the 4th to 13th Tee, you can see with the vastness of Coul, the lack of problems these SSSIs will pose in routing.
If the course does get the go ahead, it won't be the first time golf has been played on the Coul Links. I was playing along there in school holidays some 25yrs ago and still hit balls on it to this day. It is an area of huge importance for the village of Embo, with walkers using it on a daily basis. One look at the site and you'd see why, it's the most beautiful place you can imagine. I get what the chap says regarding Doctor John's thoughts, and with absolutely no disrespect intended, I think he would maybe feel a little different to that since the opening of Castle Stuart. Their opening has hit our clubs up here hard. Believe it or not, their opening has exasperated the phenomena that sees golfer race up the A9 to jump out and play RD then race back to Inverness and stay the night. It has made Inverness the centre point of their Highland travels and not Dornoch. The proposal of Coul Links then turns Dornoch in to the destination for anyone coming up. If they come up on a Monday to play RD, they will play Coul also in a day. The likelihood of them going straight down the road afterwards is greatly reduced and then offers the other clubs in the area the opportunity to have them play the next day. It's a great idea and having seen the effects of Castle Stuart's opening, I am positive it is one that Doctor John would have reevaluated. Yes the land for the proposed site is special, there is nobody more aware of that than the Embo folk, the people that make use of it on a daily basis. We love the area, and we would not support any vandalism of it. That is where Mr Keiser is, in my view, the perfect developer should it get the go ahead. His assigned architects are superb with working with the land. I'd be surprised if they weren't very sensitive to the land first and foremost, using the advice of SNH on the SSSI issues and then there's the feelings of the locals. There is a long way to go in this feasibility stages and should it get the go ahead, I'm positive that clubs in the area would be hugely supportive of it. Having spoken to some at Golspie, I know they are excited about the prospect of an increase in visitor numbers staying in the area.
Great thread guys and glad to see some passion from all involved. Regardless of what happens, it's a hugely exciting time for Embo and there's a large proportion of the village praying it gets the go ahead. Fingers crossed!
Thanks for this post, Alex. You, more than anyone else on this thread, can best offer us a balance of passion and knowledge regarding Coull Links.
As I've mentioned on many related threads over the past 15 years, I first knew of Coull Links when I first visited Dornoch in 1976. I went to see it again yesterday with my wife, stepping though the cow patties adjacent to the local football pitch and onto the land. It is a great site, but not as magnificently blank a canvas as Sand Hills was 20+ years ago. Given respect and freedom, Coore and Crenshaw can build one (or maybe even two) world-class courses on that land, and as you say and imply, that improved land has the possibility of significantly improving the attractiveness and the economy of Dornoch and its environs, which I love.
Rich
-
I understand Kris’s passion and have had similar views about developing natural land into something as artificial and manmade as a golf course. I also promised to shut up and listen because others have already pointed out that golf courses are fairly friendly places for wildlife. What I don’t understand is the wildlife Kris claims will be disrupted, forced to adapt, or displaced. I’ve seen most of Scotland and have a personal affection for the Highlands—wild places like Rannoch Moor, glens, and mountains along the west coast. However, in my travels the one thing that seems to be missing from my memory is significant wildlife populations. Given that I was born and raised in the sparsely populated Western US deserts and mountains, Scotland seems rather civilized by comparison. I’ve seen some stags, birds, marine life, and so on, but mostly I remember grazing domestic animals. Maybe that is source of Kris’s passion: the need to preserve the wild places that remain. I don’t know Embo, but have a hard time imagining something like Yellowstone or the Frank Church Wilderness Area of Central Idaho and the wildlife that thrives there.
I don’t mean to be cynical or belittle Kris’s passionate defense of leaving the Embo dunes alone and keeping them as traditional grazing grounds for a few cows and wild critters. I respect his passionately held views. OTOH, I live and work at golf course in a dramatic wild landscape that could be easily viewed as sanctuary for wildlife given the density and diverse populations that seem to thrive here. Rather than displacing wildlife, we seem to be maintaining a habitat that is far more productive than the millions of acres of native ground that surround us. There are far more wild critters than there are golfers. We spend vastly more money and labor repairing damage done by our wild neighbors than we do controlling them. And more money cleaning up natural predation, as well. Fair enough. In fact, one of the charms of playing here is that it is virtually impossible to play golf without encountering the wildlife.
Sure, one could argue that we’ve created an artificial habitat for some species over others, however our experience is more about making the golf adapt to the wildlife than the wildlife adapting to the golf. For critters that like to eat grass and those that prey on them it’s a year around buffet.
-
Thanks for this post, Alex. You, more than anyone else on this thread, can best offer us a balance of passion and knowledge regarding Coull Links.
Rich, +1, well said.
Alexander, welcome and excellent posts above. I well recall playing Golspie and a few others nearby a couple of years ago and being extremely impressed with the conditioning even more so when the very helpful lady in the shop/office told me how few there are in your team....indeed your greens rolled superior to somewhere much more high profile along the road! I look forward to a return visit.
Atb
-
Rihc,
well said, fully agree. Did you enjoy the blizzards today? ;D I have about an inch on the ground just now so guess I should get the skis back out.
Jon
-
Rihc,
well said, fully agree. Did you enjoy the blizzards today? ;D I have about an inch on the ground just now so guess I should get the skis back out.
Jon
Hi Jon
Flurries in the morning on the coast and on the way back home. Josie played 18 on the Struie in the morning and survived.
Rich
PS--let us know when you get a few more inches on the ground. I'd love to ski your course, including the bunny slopes on the 1st green!
All the best
Rich
-
Woke up to a couple of inches so skiing is now a definite possibility. I actually reduced the height of the mound in the first green by about half though was not able to completely remove the big rock that was the reason for it being there. Still, the green and hole are much better for the alterations.
Jon
-
The North of Scotland doesn't have a Yellowstone, or any other type of place with loads of diffetent, high order mammals or big game.
It is part of an island. A rather small one, that has had human habitation for thousands of years.
Were there not a feudal system in place for some of it, there wouldn't be any stags, or much of anything else left there.
Royalty and others of the nobility CONTROLLED (and in some cases, their descendants STILL do) the hunting rights.
You could be killed, many were, for poaching back in the day.
The land around the Dornoch region has some of the nicest mixed cover habit left for what limited wildlife still exists in Scotland. If you drive into the higher ground, the land becomes more stark, less capable of supporting the larger beasts.
That Embo site's ecological importance centers on the birdlife critical nature it possesses, AND it's essential role as a estuary edge buffer, with all the various species present that inhabits those types of places, be they land, sea and air.
I've given PLENTY of information on why I feel as I do. Those wanting more can do their own additional digging and research if they want.
As someone who has been a lifelong outsdoorman, hunter/ fisherman, and made his living from golf, including the destination scenario, I understand the challenges.
Among the finest in the business are poised to do the BEST job humanly possible on THAT site if approval is given.
NOTHING man can create will IMROVE on what is there currenty from an OVERALL, ecological standpoint. Remember also, it floods there in the winter, and when large storms occur.
The NATURAL beauty currently present is on full display; no one disputes what's there is special, unless you are blind or greedy.
The almost incurable disease of financial gain, regardless of what may be compromised, is behind this.
Golfers have been coming to Dornoch for golf since the 1880's.
This is NO Bandon scenario. At all.
What will occur here, should it be approved, and I have little doubt it won't be, will be yet another shining example of the game heading down the wrong path. Sadly, by those within golf that should know FAR better.
When ALL of the rest of the RESPONSIBLE folks on the planet are advocating for: PRESERVING special ecology, reducing our footprint, conserving natural resources, maintaining existing wetlands etc. etc....where is golf?
Heading to 8,000 yd courses and developing facilities in/near SSI and other CLEARLY sensitive areas.
If the "bring on the NOT COULEST LINKS " crowd can't figure out you are on the WRONG side of the equation here, by condoning using THAT site...there is little hope.
When I KNOW what her lyrics meant to convey, yet need to dig, to find proof to explain that Joni Mitchell's BIG Yellow Taxi was NOT about the glorification of "modern society" and that superb economic gain that is the be all and end all for SO many on here; that's a window to the collective apathy.
Mankind is now enjoying RECORD : mental illness, obesity,, drug and alcohol addiction, air and land pollution, fouled water( bottled water in disposable plastic anyone!), declining golf numbers (GASP!) and a host of under undesirables.
If you think a MAJOR disconnect from our natural world isn't a significant factor in all of this, you better head to a padded cell.
I'm a VERY optimistic, upbeat person by nature, and my life spent LISTENING to the singing of the planet's non-human vocalists is a HUGE reason for that spirit.
Many here seem deaf to what is really happening environmentally.
It is not good. We ALL can do a little to change things for the better.
It starts between the ears...understanding what is at stake.
I hope each of you takes the time to reflect, and then CHOOSE'S to make a difference, in whatever way you decide.
A listener FIRST,
Kris
-
Kris,
Who woulda thunk it?? Building a handful of golf courses is the cause of all the worlds major ills.
-
Kris,
Who woulda thunk it?? Building a handful of golf courses is the cause of all the worlds major ills.
Kalen,
He brings up some very interesting and perhaps valid points-he's certainly respectful of the proposed developer.
There are a LOT of underutilized links courses in the UK, and courses in the world in general-not sure every remote piece of land should be a candidate for a new remote course.
And golf is DEFINITELY not on the fastest path to sustainability, unless you consider ever longer courses, ever faster greens, ever increasing maintenance, ever rising equipment costs, the massive SCALE of nearly all high end modern projects, all steps in the right direction.
I'm not on anyone's side here, just think considering contrary points of view(however seemingly extreme) is important.
Then I can at least feel better about being a hypocrite ;) ;D
-
Jeff,
I'm with you on this one and I appreciate his insight and passion on the topic.
But his last post I think does more harm than good in some ways by taking it to that level....
Whats next? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_JPcBwYGmo
-
Kris,
Who woulda thunk it?? Building a handful of golf courses is the cause of all the worlds major ills.
Kalen,
He brings up some very interesting and perhaps valid points-he's certainly respectful of the proposed developer.
There are a LOT of underutilized links courses in the UK, and courses in the world in general-not sure every remote piece of land should be a candidate for a new remote course.
And golf is DEFINITELY not on the fastest path to sustainability, unless you consider ever longer courses, ever faster greens, ever increasing maintenance, ever rising equipment costs, the massive SCALE of nearly all high end modern projects, all steps in the right direction.
I'm not on anyone's side here, just think considering contrary points of view(however seemingly extreme) is important.
Then I can at least feel better about being a hypocrite ;) ;D
Jeff,
yes Kris does raise some very valid points but also states points with great conviction as fact which are not correct. For instance, he claims 'If you drive into the higher ground, the land becomes more stark, less capable of supporting the larger beasts.' This is factually wrong. The remote higher areas of Sutherland supports a thriving population of red deer which is the largest game animal in the UK. This is something that along with his shouting does lessen the points he is making.
[/size][/color]
[/size]Jon[/color]
-
Kalen,
You historically have been one of the more intelligent posters on here, so I'll just assume you are having a bad hair day...along with that other chap who has issues with what's up there near that part of the body.
A final thought. I probably have about as much understanding of placing a modern, NEW BUILD, links golf course, in concert with SSI areas as anyone on here, who wasn't ACTUALLY involved with creating the Machrihanish Dunes project.
If there has been a more responsibly done links project, in ANY era, with regards to what was ALREADY there, I want to hear from any of you out there where it was done....ANYWHERE in the world. I'm waiting...
I'm talking about regular monitoring of the entire project with governmental, scientific ovetsite.
That's what occurred there.
And this is a site that just primarily focused on SSI locations with unique plantlife.
You know, that don't : move much, need a parent to nurture them, have places to breed or rest, and escape predators as they migrate, etc etc.
I was flown over there from the US, in 2008,, at owner Brian Keating's request and expense, WELL AHEAD of the course being finished, to discuss creating the caddie program and outside presentation in generall, for the visiting "retail" golfers that was their target client.
I spent 5 days there. Worked with the grow-in team. Walked the ENTIRE course area several times, extensively, with Euan Grant, the VERY talented grow-in supetintendent, and one of the finest, most thoughtful, bright people I've ever met. He came from St.Andrew's to assist David McClay Kidd and the team, to carefully tease out a links routing from that sensitive ground. I remained in touch with him quite a bit as the project evolved from there.
I played Machrihanish. I took the time to play the absolute wee gem that is the par three heavy, "golly golf" fest that is Dunaverty, and squeezed every moment I could to immerse myself in what was there. In totality, from an community experience perspective.
What I found there at THAT Machrihanish Dunes site was right at the very edge of RESPONSIBLE links golf course creation in a sensitive, coastal environment.
I've seen the ground at both. firsthand. I have no vested interest in gaining ANYTHING from that Embo site.
MD was not an estuary situation of that scale. The diversity of inhabits is less than that EMBO site.
By a fair measure, beauty etc. , the two sites are not really in the same class.
And that is the BEST comparison out there....and why it is a NO GO if one is honest about doing the right thing!
That area of Kintyre is MUCH quieter economically than the Dornoch Highland area.
If still more golf is needed up there near Dornoch, a rather dubious claim, there is plenty of OTHER ground to create a links- like expetience.
As I said earlier, there are farmland sites, similar to the Castle Stuart project....that worked out well, fom all accounts I read on here and elsewhere.
To the cries ( not mourning moonbats ) of ....well, it's not true links ground and it would ( hold back the DEEP gasps here!) cost MORE to build on such a site....what a shame!!
And Mr.Keiser, and others, will run that inconvenient excuse right up the Coul Links has to be on that site flagpole.
Cause it's EASIER to push around some birds and degrade a unique environment with a sandy base, than to do it in the CLEARLY more appropriate place....one that ALREADY has been significantly degraded by man.
It's about cost and profit.
So the proponents can dance around reality all they want. In the end, it's about financial gain and ego, NOT the most responsible choice.
That's my take. It comes from a soul who has lived a life of golf, the outdoors, AND a profound reverence for our natural world.
You can make your own decision.
I, for one, will NEVER put a peg in THAT ground, on a NOT COOL LINKS. If it was #1 in the world and I could play for free. To do so would be the height of hypocrisy.
Nuff said,
Kris
-
Kris,
I should have been more specific, I was referring to this part of your previous post on page 4 that seemed over the top:
When I KNOW what her lyrics meant to convey, yet need to dig, to find proof to explain that Joni Mitchell's BIG Yellow Taxi was NOT about the glorification of "modern society" and that superb economic gain that is the be all and end all for SO many on here; that's a window to the collective apathy.
Mankind is now enjoying RECORD : mental illness, obesity,, drug and alcohol addiction, air and land pollution, fouled water( bottled water in disposable plastic anyone!), declining golf numbers (GASP!) and a host of under undesirables.
If you think a MAJOR disconnect from our natural world isn't a significant factor in all of this, you better head to a padded cell.
P.S. For the record, I actually am very pro oversight on these kinds of things as they relate to building new courses. I think its important to ensure good decisions are being made with all stake holders in mind.
-
Jon,
That's ONE species my friend! I said " less capable," with regard to that environment's carrying capacity of numerous, different big game animals.
If you'd bother to absorb what I wrote above that line, that remark was tied to the MULTIPLE
varieties of higher order mammals of a Yellowstone, or more DIVERSE species environment.
Tell me four more high order game mammals that have lived up there NATURALLY in the last 200 years? Sorry champ, ya can't. They have been EXTERMiNATED, or that environment ceased to have the required means to sustain that diversity within that ecosystem.
Try to assimilate the context of my overall thoughts, instead of select cherry picking to criticize, for what aims ...I don't know?
This topic has lost the plot.
Cheers,
Kris
-
I just do not understand how - in the face of SNH, HIE, et. al - that one single person can anoint themselves the expert, the arbiter, the moral compass and the standard bearer of all that is correct for a new links construction site....anywhere.
I have but one small suggestion: Please let the good people of Embo and Dornoch sort this out for it is their issue and opportunity and not yours.
If the local sentiment is against the project, if Brora and Golspie resent the very notion of a new course, if the SNH determines that the process is too invasive, if the feasibility studies come back negatively, then the sound judgement of the local decision-making bodies will no doubt prevail. If not, then I dont think the developers want to do something that is counter to local wishes.
But, unless you bring new ideas for the economy or new thoughts that represent the sentiments of the residents, I suggest (again) that you respect the will of the good people of Sutherland. Or, as the latest NT article says, when the public hearings begin, please tell us how you will take this well-intended passion and make it heard in a venue that actually matters and not just on some internet chat forum where hiding behind a keyboard, instead of standing in front of an audience, does not really accomplish much.
The "plot" remains alive and, again, you are not the judge in that area either.
We have heard your passion. Now, as someone has already recommended, let's wait until there really is a project to discuss. That might be in a year or two. So be it.
We all have listened and, thanks to Kris, we may have a better understanding of the environmental sensitivities. I do for sure. But, the local authorities and interested parties have a process and it is one that does not involve the people on this site. Let's give them some respect first and judge later for NO ONE deserves to be judged before any action has been consummated.
-
Ian,
Sorry you don't like or agree with what you are reading.
I gave AMPLE ideas on how to BETTER approach both this project, and the marketing of what ALREADY exists up there. What are you adding to the discussion other than some bleating for me to shut up and go away?
Variety is the spice of life. That includes thoughtful opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Ian,
Sorry you don't like or agree with what you are reading.
I gave AMPLE ideas on how to BETTER approach both this project, and the marketing of what ALREADY exists up there. What are you adding to the discussion other than some bleating for me to shut up and go away?
Variety is the spice of life. That includes thougjtful opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
Thanks, Kris. I learned a lot in this thread and am appreciative.
As Americans, we have overstayed our welcome on an issue here that does not directly involve us. Let's respect the process of others and see what happens.
All the best,
Ian
-
Kalen,
You historically have been one of the more intelligent posters on here, ...
Wow, you really lost me with that one.
-
Kalen,
You historically have been one of the more intelligent posters on here, ...
Wow, you really lost me with that one.
Cmon...Garland, you know my IQ is 140+ ;D
-
Jon,
That's ONE species my friend! I said " less capable," with regard to that environment's carrying capacity of numerous, different big game animals.
If you'd bother to absorb what I wrote above that line, that remark was tied to the MULTIPLE
varieties of higher order mammals of a Yellowstone, or more DIVERSE species environment.
Tell me four more high order game mammals that have lived up there NATURALLY in the last 200 years? Sorry champ, ya can't. They have been EXTERMiNATED, or that environment ceased to have the required means to sustain that diversity within that ecosystem.
Try to assimilate the context of my overall thoughts, instead of select cherry picking to criticize, for what aims ...I don't know?
This topic has lost the plot.
Cheers,
Kris
Kris,
just exactly which big game animals have been eliminated by a lack of habitat. Here in the UK the only naturally found native larger game animal is red deer but this animal has no problem and is indeed thriving as I already said. Other than that the only other largish sized game animal still about is the roe deer though the wild boar used to roam the land but this was eliminated by farmers and land owners due to the amount of damage.
So, there are the only three native game animals the UK has had during the last 10 millennium so that is the reason I cannot mention 4 which kind of backs up my point about you blustering about thing as though they are fact when you are patently wrong. What other game animal did you think there would be? and for goodness sake stop shouting.
Jon
-
Jon,
You are trying so hard to use semantics to discredit me. I admire the effort. Why?
The only reason I brought that point into the discussion was in reference to another poster wondering what was there at that Embo site, in comparison to larger wild areas like US National parks.
Did I ever state there were hoards of different game animals in Scotland?
And you use ONE species to try and make a case...a pathetic one I might add. Please.
When I asked you to name four more, it was to convey how FEW of anything like that is there.
The Scottish Wildcat, a top predator of the region, and subspecies of the European Lynx, though exceedingly rare, also exists in northern Scotland. It is heading for extinction, probably less than 200 purebreed wildcats remain, according to latest estimate figures given on the scottish wildcat website. There has been some controversy as to the methodology and validity of the approach some in the scientific community are utilizing to try and save them. It may be too late.
Because the cat is so reclusive, and recent studies lacked the funding to do more extensive, comprehensive fieldwork, exact numbers vary according to the source, and are difficult to assertain. But they are falling, that's for sure.
Habitat loss (imagine that) has been cited as the historical reason for the wildcat's dwindling numbers, though interbreeding with feral cats, degrading the gene pool purity, has become a serious concern of late.
Among the most imperiled cats in the entire world, I believe it is the subject for the club logo at Royal Dornoch. If so, how ironic.
The wild boar, by your own admission, was exterminated.
That leaves two deer
species...about the most adaptable game animals on the planet. What diversity!
Give it up. Sadly, that Embo site is about as wild as Scotland has left.
If the foolish approve it, and I have full confidence they will, I'm sure you'll be there for opening day to toast the MASSIVE success that Embo site project will bring to the Highlands. Enjoy the triumph.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
PS- ALL CAPS is shouting in my book. I haven't gone there yet.
-
Kris,
my point was the lack of habitat is not the issue with the lack of larger wild animals in Scotland or the UK as a whole. Wolf, wild boar, bear have all been hunted to extinction because of the threat they posed to livestock and people. It had nothing to do with a lack of habitat. As for the wild cat, yes it appears it is really struggling and this is possibly due habitat constraints though the experts also admit that due to how reclusive the wild cat is it is and how remote much of its potential habitat is the best they can do is guess at the numbers. It is interbreeding with domestic cats that appear to pose the biggest threat in the end. I just find your big animal comparison to the US somewhat spurious and irrelevant.
I agree that SSSI sites should be generally left alone but is Could Links all SSSI or just parts of it? In the end any sort of development that will increase the local economy needs to be looked at very seriously. It is all very well and fine for those who visit the area for a few weeks each year to want to keep all as it is but in the end it is the locals who's lives are affected day to day who should decide
Jon
-
Wild boar....careful. WB are big and angry, don't take prisoners and like rooting around including trashing golf courses......and there may well be more of them about than you reckon - http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/index.htm?map2.html - the meat makes tasty sausages however. 😊
Atb
-
Wild boar....careful. WB are big and angry, don't take prisoners and like rooting around including trashing golf courses......and there may well be more of them about than you reckon - http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/index.htm?map2.html (http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/index.htm?map2.html) - the meat makes tasty sausages however. 😊
Atb
Thomas,
I have been unfortunate enough to come face to face with an angry wild boar in the south of France and it is not an experience I would wish to repeat. The amount of destruction they can cause in one night is quite mind boggling. There are some people who would like to see it re-introduced to the UK but hopefully they will be blocked.
Jon
-
Boar are a huge problem for golf courses in European locations where they live. Castiglion del Bosco in Tuscany is right next to forest that's teeming with them, and has had to fence off the entire golf course -- if a couple of boar get onto the course they wreck an entire fairway in one night. That said, at Castiglion, they have a special licence to shoot the boar if they get on the course, in season or not. And then they put them on the menu -- salsicce dei cinghiale, quite delicious.
Vidauban in France had a similar problem. Only there they call them sanglier. Still tasty :)
-
Jon and Adam,
Nice try gents. I hunt. I'm well aware of the damage wild boar can do. They are fast multipliers, largely nocturnal, and difficult to control once they establish in most terrain.
It doesn't change the fact Jon, I was 100% dead on....that species was exterminated.
The Scottish Wildcat used to range down to England. It's habitat has shrunken...drastically in more recent times, as human pressure reduced the size of the habit it needs to function properly. It's not maybe Jon, it's irrefutable!
The feral cats issue, again class
..was brought to the region by the Red Deer. No, it was humans who have them as pets.
The bear, wolves and other "problem" animals you suggest are killed because they are a threat to man or livestock etc. have been here as long as we have. Longer in some cases, perhaps.
We CAN coexist, but man needs to respect their requirements enough to not degrade the habit to such a degree, or shoot them all, for them to survive.
Take black bear, for example. A large omnivore, it has a very stable and healthy population in Pennsylvania. A heavily populated state. The black bear there include some of the largest specimen's in the world. They are well- managed and hunted. We can get it right. Often do.
But certain species are more sensitive to habitat or human pressure Impacts.
Machrihanish Dunes, the example I pointed to as really the limit for doing it right with close proximity to SSI, had mainly plantlife as the sensitive species. You can rout delicately amongst them in many cases, and unless hackers are: slashing at them, trampling them, or taking them home as gifts, they will probably be OK with some monitoring.
That Embo site has more birdlife centered concerns. They move, need varied requirements to breed or feed, etc etc. ....in short, a whole different proposition. Even if you aren't right on top of them, there are issues due to that nearby intrusion.
Then the estuary proximity and flooding function enters into the equation.
The stunning NATURAL beauty of that location provides another reason to just leave it alone.
Look, I have ZERO personally against anyone on here, or this project. The development team are fine people, and their approach is usually top notch, by every measure, in my view.
This situation is special, they are missing something on that one, at present. And that is being thoughtful enough to accept the fact that sometimes, even if it could be THE site, to build the best links golf course in the world, the responsible thing to do is leave it be, and look for a different site to create.
And they shouldn't need bird studies or a government approval, local or above, to recognize that. It's simple common sense.
But the potential to profit, or put something in a place as a monument, often clouds the judgement. And that's what is currently occurring here.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
It pains me to say this, but the cat on the logo of the Royal Dornoch shield is the Sutherland Wildcat...basically the Scottish Wildcat.
I want to thank the many posters who brought me to doing a bit more homework. I was aware of the cat, and knew it wasn't doing well. I had no idea the true, critical state of peril it was in.
I need to reflect, but this really complicates the issue.
When those that claim to love and respect something, yet are proposing to put an "economic growth driver" into basically what should be a protected coastal area, that will most certainly aid all that comes with it, in hastening the potential extinction of the iconic, living symbol of the club and region.....we have a problem.
Cheers,
Kris
-
Kris, I too did a little looking around and found this publication about Scottish Wildcats...
Wildcats live in habitats that satisfy two main requirements: shelter and food.
Woodlands and areas of dense gorse or juniper thickets provide shelter
and resting places. Young forestry plantations in particular are an important
habitat for wildcats because they are protected from grazing and support a
high density of small mammal prey. Rocky areas also provide den shelters for
female wildcats during the breeding season.
Wildcats require open patches of habitat, such as pastures or riparian areas,
for hunting. However, when moving around their territories, they prefer to
avoid open areas, using woodland or scrub and stream edges for cover.
Heavy snow makes it difficult for wildcats to move around or catch prey, and
if there is deep snow on the ground for long periods, wildcats will move to
forested areas or lower altitudes, where there is typically less snow cover.
The Scottish wildcat will venture to an altitude of around 800 metres but it
is not generally found higher than 650 metres. It avoids heavily urbanized
areas, areas of intense agriculture and exposed coasts.
The habitat used by the Scottish wildcat differs regionally. In the east of
Scotland, wildcats prefer the margins of moorlands, pasturelands and
woodlands, whereas in the west they prefer uplands with rough grazing and
moorlands with limited pastures. These differences are due to the type of
prey and cover available in these areas. For example, low rabbit densities
in the west of Scotland mean that the wildcat needs to hunt voles and mice
that are found in greater concentrations in areas of rough pasture, scrub and
woodland edges.
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/naturallyscottish/wildcats.pdf
-
For a different perspective on this, the past two days, I've driven Highway 1 up north from San Francisco, with my wife. At Fort Bragg, there is a great old industrial site right on the cliff tops, not being used for anything at all, most likely because it would fall under the purview of the California Coastal Commission and they won't let anything be developed there. Further north, there was some of the most beautiful land I've seen for a golf course, but of course, you can't build a golf course on the coast in California.
My own wife tells me I'm nuts for thinking that golf courses should be built everywhere. But I'm not trying to justify everywhere ... I just think it's crazy when people start saying you can't build here, or there, or there, or anywhere that's beautiful. Scotland and Ireland are all the proof in the world that golf can coexist well with Nature.
I tried to explain to my wife that the reason I have to fly all the way to New Zealand to build a beautiful course [or to Mexico where I'm going to look at a site next week] is only because those clients aren't allowed to develop their course near where they live in California. God forbid that Scotland goes the same way that Ireland and Europe have gone in that regard.
I'm very open to the idea that there are sites that shouldn't be developed, but that argument can only be made on a case by case basis, and should involve more than just people saying "Not In My Back Yard." Or, not in your wife's parents' back yard, as the case may be.
-
Tom,
Amen to that, taken that drive a few times myself and completely agreed. There is plenty of space to build a course or two and totally keep the rawness of the place intact. I've lost track of how many they've built in Bandon now and the wildness of the place is still entirely intact.
P.S. Tough break on the wife's viewpoint there...can't even get support from your favorite gal !! ;D
-
While the Coul Links property is 3 miles north of Dorncoh, it is worth noting that a new stretch of links/dunes land is developing/enlarging to the south of Dornoch. If you stand on the 16th green at Royal Dornoch and look south over the beach towards Tain, the beach is clearly wider and the dunes land reaching into the Dornoch Firth is much larger than it used to be. Who knows, maybe that could be a site for a course in another 20 years. ;)
The buildup has been noticeable in just the 12 years I have been visiting Dornoch regularly. So much sand is accumulating in the Dornoch Firth that it is almost possible to walk to Tain when the tide goes out. I do not know where the sand is coming from, but I suspect some of it is coming from the beach at Golspie that has been eroding.
-
Kalen,
What startling revelations are in that information? It is a reclusive, mixed cover, edge hunter.
It's historical range has been compressed greatly to where it now struggles for it's very existence.
I assume that bold text was meant to convey significance.
What..that its avoids heavily urbanized areas...what did you expect it be stalking the streets of Inverness?
C'mon, where's the context?
Tom,
Really, you are going to try and get a few cheap digs in? Well, fine then, you have plenty of company on here.
I never have held the view you couldn't build a golf course anywhere it was beautiful...to start with.
Second, my remarks on that Embo site have been anything but a broad brush verdict of no new links golf anywhere. And ANYBODY who read what I've written, digesting it with any objectvity at all, wouldn't make the feeble claim you have.
As to my now deceased inlaws, they were two of most solid individuals in that town.
Dr John , the town doctor, a member for 50 years, was a KEY figure of that club. A past Captain, he also was deeply intertested in it's history, and the connection of the club to the town.
What started as a curious delving into some past records, evolved into writing a superb club history.
He finished the book shortly before his passing.
During that period of his writing the book, the almost two years I was fortunate to know and spend time with him, we became quite fond of each other, and shared A LOT of conversions about the game and Royal Dornoch. They were quite in-depth, and he offered many astute observations from an individual who knew the town, AND his club as well as anyone.
Those invaluable insights, and other information I absorbed interacting with longtime, mostly local members, have stayed with me.
They are the bedrock from which I form my views on Dornoch and the club.
Things change, but the timeless, essential elements for maintaining something special do not.
I was a member there for 10 years. I came over as much as I could. THAT Royal Dornoch is as good as it gets.
I care about Dornoch as much as anyone on here. That's why what is being championed at that EMBO site is so disturbing. It will destroy the specialness of that site. The ripple effect might bring more quid, but it will ruin the vibe in that Dornoch area forever!
If you don't think I'm right, or don't care, that's your choice.
But your slights add ZERO.
Cheers,
Kris
-
To expand on a comment by Ryan on another thread and David above, is there an opportunity to significantly upgrade the Struie and the land around it and leave the Embo site as it is?
Atb
-
Thomas,
but what would be the difference between developing the dunes south of Dornoch? Yes, it would be possible and there is some great land there for this but it is no more or less special than the Embo site.
The one point where I do agree with Kris is that impact on a SSSI should be kept to an absolute minimum, indeed avoised if at all possible which with the Embo site is the case and the impact on SSI should have mitigation built into any project. Where I do not agree with Kris is his apparent opposition to any development in the Dornoch area. In the end it will be for the people living in that area to decide upon this project as it is them that it effects on a day to day basis.
Where the Trump's Balmiedie project process went wrong was that the locals voted against it only to have outsiders (in this case the Scottish government) step in and over rule them.
Jon
-
In the case of Balmedie, the majority of locals were actually for the project but true, Aberdeen Council cast it down by the deciding vote....
It's a difficult one when you feel emotionally connected to a course or area - it heightens your sense of injustice against any decision made that you don't agree with. For Balmedie, I was excited by the prospect of the course (though vehemently opposed to the level of infrastructure planned with it). Only when I found out the second course was planned to encroach on the more public dunes where I played as a kid did I start to get upset about those plans.... At Portmarnock, my stomach turns every time they make the smallest of tweaks that disturbs the natural ground and that I disagree with...
There are SAC's and natural areas of beauty that I would hate to see turned in to a golf course... And then there are others where the prospect would excite me. Almost always, those preferences are not based on the small environmental differentials (for I don't know them) but on some connection to the memories I have with that particular piece of land.... So for me, it's pretty subjective.
As for Embo, contrary to what Peter said before, a municipal pitch and putt wouldn't be a bad idea. If a golf course eventually gets built there, then I hope all semblance or smell of "international development" is a million miles away. Like Kris States, I would like to see a Mach Dunes level of disturbance, mowing out fairways rather than stripping and starting again (even in the minimalist vein). Only then will the golf course truly feel "of the land".
-
Fair points Jon.
If the width of the sand-dunes-land is growing it raises an interesting question about ownership. Not sure about Scotland, but in England and Wales I believe the area below the high-tide mark is owned by the Crown while the area above the high-tide mark is owned by whoever owns the adjacent land. So if a course owns the adjacent land and the beach area expands over time.........more golf space? And vice-versa unfortunately.
Interesting comment from Ally for when I drove past Embo a year or so ago I pondered, as I usually do when I see a potentially good looking area for golf, a very minimalist approach, ie a couple of men with hand rakes, maybe a scythe and hatchet, and mowing out fairways and with one day a wooden hut for a clubhouse.
Atb
-
Kalen,
What startling revelations are in that information? It is a reclusive, mixed cover, edge hunter.
It's historical range has been compressed greatly to where it now struggles for it's very existence.
I assume that bold text was meant to convey significance.
What..that its avoids heavily urbanized areas...what did you expect to it be stalking the streets of Inverness?
C'mon, where the context?
Kris
I suspect the bit Kalen intended to highlight was the bit about the wildcat avoiding exposed coasts. Do you see Embo being a typical wildcat habitat if left undeveloped ?
Niall
-
Kalen,
What startling revelations are in that information? It is a reclusive, mixed cover, edge hunter.
It's historical range has been compressed greatly to where it now struggles for it's very existence.
I assume that bold text was meant to convey significance.
What..that its avoids heavily urbanized areas...what did you expect to it be stalking the streets of Inverness?
C'mon, where the context?
Kris
I suspect the bit Kalen intended to highlight was the bit about the wildcat avoiding exposed coasts. Do you see Embo being a typical wildcat habitat if left undeveloped ?
Niall
Niall,
Thank you. I was a bit surprised given Kris' claimed background in these matters that he didn't put 2 and 2 together. To boot not only is Embo on exposed Coast, from what I can see on Google Maps, its surrounded by a large agricultural area, also places they avoid.
So given where these cats typically roam and hunt, Embo is one of the last places you would expect to find them...aka the potential impact would be beyond minimal.
-
Hey gang, it's a protected area primarily for birdlife. I'm NOT asserting it is prime Scottish Wildcat territory.
I'm not dead set against any new golf in that area. I personally believe that better marketing what is already there would suffice. But anything new certainly should be placed in a responsible site.
That Embo site is the LAST place it should be going. For the numerous reasons stated.
Thomas raised a solid point. The Struie is an excellent opportunity to craft an arrangement that could deliver an efficient, tasteful new clubhouse, and a superb second course.
I believe there still are the several older holes ŕemaining, not currently in play by the Struie, which could serve as a quick spin for juniors, seniors, or those looking for a chance to quickly knock around a few holes.
The club would retain ownership, Mike and his group would get a cut, C&C get a great site. The footprint is already there. There's loads of sand right down the beach there.
With some compromise and collaboration, something great could emerge and that Embo site can remain the special place it is.
The club, of course has the final say, but they should be just as eager on that effort, as they are to broker support for the Embo site.
Otherwise, they are the really the NIMBY crowd.
Another option. That ocean of sand on the beach, again working properly with the oversight responsible, could be trucked to a more appropriate site to augment or cap what would be needed.
There are a lot of ways to skin the cat...and I don't mean the Scottish Wildcat. There are plenty of sharp people in the loop, that can craft a way to deliver an exceptional links course, without altering one of that area's most special places.
If the Balmedie charade was doable, sure as hell this is! It takes common sense and a collective will to do something great, responsibly, for it to become reality.
Cheers,
Kris
-
Just took a quick look at the land south of the Struie. In addition to sandy stretches, there looks to also be a caravan park, an airstip, and the town shitter, so not without complications.
-
"Just took a quick look at the land south of the Struie. In addition to sandy stretches, there looks to also be a caravan park, an airstip, and the town shitter, so not without complications."
Dave M. -
My mention of the dunes/links land developing south of the Struie as a possible site for a course was not meant to be taken 100% seriously. I really don't know how large the area is. My guess is it would take decades for that land to mature/stabilize before it was suitable for a course.
On the other hand, it is likely that it could provide a suitable habitat for any birds that might be displaced from the possible construction of a course the Coul Links site.
DT
-
Mine wasn’t entirely serious, either, David. I’ve only been there once, so I was just being a satellite tourist and having a look around. I agree, there seems to be quite a lot of non-golf linksland along the coast besides the Coul property. Maybe not so much for golf development, willing landowners, and so on, but I doubt the birds will care.
Kris, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so no need to respond. I’m only interested because I happen to own some scenic wild ground, with a golf course (next to a town shitter!) and will have to go through this process if ever I were to develop the native ground that makes up the majority of our property. I’m sure there will be many who feel as you do that such development should not be allowed. Ironically, I expect the most vocal opposition will come from developments on the Canyon rim that were built because the views we provide, the NIMBY factor. Views, of course, go both ways and ours used to be totally natural and pristine. It’s complicated, of course, with many passionate views. At the very least, I hope you understand my interest and bias.
-
More pics of the property here:
http://www.linkshousedornoch.com/page.php?coul-links-63 (http://www.linkshousedornoch.com/page.php?coul-links-63)
FYI, my understanding is the golf course would not occupy much more than 50% of the entire property.
-
David,
From my satellite tour, I used Google Earth's measurement tool and did a quick and dirty estimate that the entire property is +/- 350 acres, so your understanding seems about right.
-
More pics of the property here:
http://www.linkshousedornoch.com/page.php?coul-links-63 (http://www.linkshousedornoch.com/page.php?coul-links-63)
FYI, my understanding is the golf course would not occupy much more than 50% of the entire property.
I believe the property is almost 450 acres.
Course, practice and facilities would take what....150 acres tops?
Leaves 2/3 of Coul Links untouched.
Sounds like there can be "peaceful coexistence. Yes?
-
You guys are heartless....think about the sad kitties you'd displace.
(http://www.thecatniptimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/sad-cat-diary.png)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/9c/b8/2f9cb8feafded87e9c99acdeefac8809.jpg)
-
Great interview and story on Mike Keiser done by Matt Ginella.
Worth watching. Should be its own thread entirely but appropriate here given the context.
It's mostly about Cabot Links/Cliffs and the impact on Inverness, NS.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/keisers-golf-course-saves-nova-scotia-town/
-
Cabot is a whole different animal.
First course on a largely degraded mining site, with a town on the ropes. Hardly a Not Coul Links near Dornoch scenario...at all.
Half joking about using the Struie site? Why, that's where it should be going!
If everyone is so hot for it...you know, all the townsfolk, members and such, why not the most responsible place? Existing footprint, historical use no-brainer. Steps from RD, not one ounce of petrol for shuttles or the need for them.
Tie in a funding deal for that tasteful, new club house the posh crowd has been lusting for...you know, a win-win for everybody.
You really would need to use the current Struie footprint, because below that is too low. Tidal storm surges already nip at the edges of a few of the newer holes of the existing Struie. The extra, older holes could provide those not wanting a fulmonte their place. Member times could be part of the new course model.
There are all sorts of options for a group, and a club that really wanted to do the most responsible project to benefit the community.
On the...well the not Coul Links course would only take up a third of that Embo property. It floods in a fair few places. A sizeable portion of it is that dune slack scenario, which probably would need a good bit of it to stay as a coastal buffer. Then there is the SSSI.
So until you really have all the constraint requirements nailed down, it's difficult to know what is actually even viable.
That proximity disturbance doesn't just go away because you only use a third of the property. It's complicated...that is why you stay away from it and let it function beautifully....as it has for a very long time.
While it's easy to just joke about, or brush aside concerns for that Scottish Wildcat; it's fate is in serious question.
I find it rather shocking that so little has /is being done in Scotland to do some
comprehensve research and determine how best to stabilize/restore the population.
It basically is the equivalent of the Bald Eagle in significance to Scotland. In some ways it transcends that comparison. It's found no where else on earth and it's current range is tiny in totality.
There is a great opportunity here for the club ( it is the subject of the logo after all) AND Mr. Keiser to forge a way to draw attention to helping the MOST threatened member of that Highland area community ...the Scottish Wildcat.
Why not actually take the lead on something that both golfers, and non- golfers would appreciate and support?
When does golf do that. Almost never. And that's why so many out there look at golf as the sport of the uncaring elite and somewhat selfish.
What if both his project(wherever it would be built besides that Embo site) AND the club agreed to donate a couple of quid per round, to a fund established to aid respected Scottish Wildcat research and preservation efforts?
Now THAT would a story to tell. The press coverage that storyline angle could generate would be off the charts.
It would blow away any Top 50 whatever squalk that only a miniscule fraction of the world cares about.
Think about that. GOLF stepping up to do it's share, to save one of the planet's most endangered species. In Scotland, the real home of golf where it all began. It gets no better than that.
That story, with Keiser's new Wildcat Lnks on a responsible site, and a RD club, with the very species on it's logo, teaming up to make a difference.
That story would leave a not Coul Links in the dust. No matter how high it was ranked!
And who's to say something of equal stature couldn't be crafted at a more responsible site. With the talent of that team, it most certainly could.
Yeh, really nailing it in the way I've described is just a stupid pipe dream from some pie in the sky caddie from America.
It's too big an idea for most to grasp... that we can actually do the right thing.
I should just shut up and wait for the good people of the Highlands to implode their own superb way of life, with outside influence, chasing all that economic gain, that ends up exterminating the very symbol of their unique region.
I'm done. And sadly, so is the Dornoch I fell in love with...barring divine intervention.
No cheers,
Kris
-
Ally,
I found very few people in favor of Balmiedie and none of the people with a view of the property were.
Kris,
the Dornoch you fell in love was always going to disappear that is the way of the world, tings, place and people change. Dornoch has altered quite a bit in the time that I have known it and you cannot expect that not to happen just to suit your purposes. The area is in need of every job and developement it can get as long as it is justified and is sustainable. I know exactly what protection is in place to prevent ill suited projects from going ahead (unless the Scottish executive sticks its nose in) and so have no real worries that this project would go ahead if it were to have a significant impact.
DT,
if you go along the back coast road towards the driving range there is plenty of land out there though north of Dornoch does seem to offer more interesting oportunities.
Jon
-
No Jon, I never felt that Dornoch specialness was always going to disappear. It doesn' have to, and that's the point.
There are places that continue to get it right in the modern era. The key is a solid respecting of what has provided that specialness and not selling out!
It's been a fantastic place to visit for golf, or do about anything on offer up there, since the 1880's!
But when you blow something up, out of scale from that which is practical, that's where it all goes wrong.
As to being confident iabout the protections in place...you MUST be joking.
Balmedie was a poster child for gross abuse of any legitimate
" process " at all.
And all you need to do is look at that Scottish Wildcat's plight to recognize your confidence in that purported protection is laughable.
You are not alone. Most folks hit the jobs justification button every time.
So in the end, the need to make money trumps all.
Case closed. Before it even started.
Three cheers for progress,
Kris
-
.
-
I have been watching Ken Burns' film series on the history of the National Parks, which has been re-airing this past week on PBS here in the USA. This discussion reminds me that it's ironic or perhaps symbolic that John Muir, a Scotsman in American, was so influential in getting Yosemite protected as one of the first national parks.
The point is that there are indeed areas of special interest that do need to be protected against economic development and preserved for posterity. I don't know whether this particular area is one of those, but Kris certainly seems to be suggesting that. If that is the case, then I hope the people of Scotland and their government will do the right thing and preserve this area. Economic development sometimes does need to take a backseat to the greater good. Unfortunately, however, that all too often does not seem to be the route we take.
-
No Jon, I never felt that Dornoch specialness was always going to disappear. It doesn' have to, and that's the point.
There are places that continue to get it right in the modern era. The key is a solid respecting of what has provided that specialness and not selling out!
It's been a fantastic place to visit for golf, or do about anything on offer up there, since the 1880's!
But when you blow something up, out of scale from that which is practical, that's where it all goes wrong.
As to there being confident in protections in place...you MUST be joking.
Balmedie was a poster child for gross abuse of any legitimate
" process " at all.
And all you need to do is look at that Scottish Wildcat's plight to recognize your confidence in that purported protection is laughable.
You are not alone. Most folks hit the jobs justification button every time.
So in the end, the need to make money trumps all.
Case closed. Before it even started.
Three cheers for progress,
Kris
Kris,
really, that is so lame to even try that. If you bothered to read what I have written then you might give a balanced and appropriate response.
Jon
-
Brian
Thanks for injecting a very salient point when referencing Mr. Muir. He was basically a naturalist nomad. He spoke of preserving places he visited! He wasn't even ever a member. Imagine the howls he'd get on here....impudent Scot!
Ian,
It's not a question of the development team. They are great.
It's the wrong site! On a couple of scores. But as Balmedie proved, with the mouldy carrot of economic gain...they found a way to part the dunes.
And what is the chalice being held up at Coul Links. The same mouldy carrot of economic gain. See, it doesn't matter if the hand holding it is divine, a way is always found to see it approved. The verdict is preordained before the process even starts. It's bogus.
As to Pebble Beach, nice try. You don't know squat about what went on when I was there. But I'll share...I lived it.
That was about my 5th stop as a full-time caddie. It was the best, and ONLY place in the world when I started there, that a caddie could make a living YEAR round without seasonal moving.
Your claim I could work at 50 other courses really takes the cake. You are now telling me where I could have worked. Are you me sir? I believe that is about the most clueless statement I have ever read on GCA. And that is really saying something!
The quality of life there, given my outdoor pursuits, was superb.
I'm a bit of a foodie, and like a solid bottle of wine when the spirit moves me.
There isn't another area on the planet that can touch the concentration of either better than the Monterey Bay.
That coastal area is stunning and still very wild in most places.
They have mountain lions moving thru that Del Monte Forest. And everything else.
You can dis it all you want. Sure it's over the top, but they haven't destroyed their environment.
Big Sur is as far from Pebble Beach as Embo is from Dornoch. You couldn't dare put a course there. They get it...you don't!
When I first got there, PB wasn"t cheap, but it was not extortionate either. The round was $275.00 and the caddie rate, with a good tip, was $60.00 per bag. Hardly a savage bite.
Remember also, California has one of the highest cost of living in the world. Gas, even then, was not far off $4 per gallon.
My early years there, the place still had a cool vibe. Busy, but
having a relaxed, low key feel.
But then, you guessed it, the beancounters got mercenary, with ownership changing a couple of times, finishing with the current American owners who took the kill and bill mentality to really offensive levels.
You have NO idea how diffiicult it was for me to stomach what I saw happen there.
They ruined it, and much to the absolute amazement of my fellow caddies, I left!
But I hung in there as long as I did, because I loved taking players around the courses, especially Spyglass, which was my home course. It STiLL has a private, understated rightness. Totally different setting than PB.
I was one of the top guys there. No one had more repeat clients, or request work. I took care of my players. For me it was all about the golf. And well paid for my efforts.
I spoke up more than most. I certainly did NOT hide my feelings. Believe it or not, you can have a strong constitution and still keep your job.
Actually got some positive things done there with some other engaged caddies.
By 2002, I'd had enough. Yes. Ian....2002! They made the terrible call to bring in the wretched outsource outfit, and there was no way I was working for them.
So I left, and returned to doing more landscape design work back East.
I find your associating my time on the Peninsula with this thread about as convoluted as it gets. Pebble opened in 1919.
What role could I possibly have had in the evolution of that course and area.
Because I worked at a place once that wasn't some model you identify as acceptable for me, I'm a hypocrite?
By the way, there is plenty of golf in California. And it is quite dry there frequently. It would be irresponsible to put more golf on the coast, except on a redo, or repurposed site from my view.
So you can call me a hypocrite if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that Embo site is the last place the not Coul Links should be going.
Three cheers for hypocrisy!
Kris
-
But as Balmedie proved, with the mouldy carrot of economic gain...they found a way to part the dunes.
And what is the chalice being held up at Coul Links. The same mouldy carrot of economic gain. See, it doesn't matter if the hand holding it is divine, a way is always found to see it approved. The verdict is preordained before the process even starts. It's bogus.
Kris
As someone who was against the Balmedie project in the form it took, and also someone who is involved in the property business in Scotland I have to say your comment above about it being preordained is bollocks. The project may well get planning permission, and judging by the way they seem to be going about it, I'd be surprised if they didn't, but to suggest that its already a done deal just shows ignorance of the system. Either that or a lack of respect for those involved that does you no credit.
Niall
-
Niall,
I want to respect the process. When do they ever say no when that economic gain is in play?
Cheers,
Kris
-
Kris
While not strictly a planning consideration (as far as I'm aware) plenty of developers will promote the economic case. Sometimes it will be the focal point of their case, at least in terms of how they present in public, but it doesn't follow that planning will be granted because of perceived or alleged economic benefits to the community at large.
That said, each local planning authority publishes periodically a local development plan that links in with central government planning guidelines. The local development plan will be in plan form with planning guidelines/policy attached. I haven't seen the local plan for this site (it's a published document so should be on line somewhere) but imagine that the land might be zoned as being safeguarded for Open Space (or something similar) with at least part designated as SSSI.
That does not mean you can't develop the land but there are guidelines/policy as to how you might go about it (subject to being granted planning permission).
As an example I'm looking at a site at present that sits on a river as it meets the sea and is part links and part rolling countryside with a wetlands area that is a haven for birds and other wildlife. From my very early initial discussions with the planners they have expressed a level of support for the idea of two golf courses. One skirting and effectively circling the wetlands area and the other on the links. The planners are broadly supportive because they recognise that a minimalist style (ie. limited earth moving, no tree planting) course would help protect and compliment the wetlands area while the links land is in some ways less sensitive and a course could be accommodated without touching any sensitive areas. Will this development go ahead ? Not without a developer it won't (any interested developers please contact me ;D) and certainly not without planning permission.
The reason why you are perhaps not aware of planning authorities saying no to development is because firstly a lot of these things fly under the radar and secondly it is costly to pursue a planning application and not many take it forward if they are unlikely to succeed.
Niall
-
I have been watching Ken Burns' film series on the history of the National Parks, which has been re-airing this past week on PBS here in the USA. This discussion reminds me that it's ironic or perhaps symbolic that John Muir, a Scotsman in American, was so influential in getting Yosemite protected as one of the first national parks.
Just curious: have you ever been to Banff or Jasper or Cape Breton Highlands? They provide a different take on recreation in national parks, because the Canadian government was a few years later to the party about protecting the land, and they worked in concert with the national railways. All three are wonderful golf courses that bring many visitors to the parks each year, and seem to coexist with nature quite nicely. At Jasper, some of the holes are fenced off to keep the big animals out, but others are unfenced to allow the animals to move across. I highly recommend seeing any or all of them.
I'm not against conservation; I just don't know where it ends. You could easily make the case that any of our great courses are on land that should have been preserved. The pine barrens of southern New Jersey are now largely protected, to give one example. Cypress Point is another obvious one, the California Coastal Commission would just say no today. The property I saw yesterday would be off limits, too, but fortunately won't be, because of where it is. I'm just skeptical of the people who draw their lines in the sand.
-
Tom
I am skeptical of much, including development on land which was deemed important enough to preserve. The world is getting ever smaller and any chance we have to properly preserve environments is worth exploring so far as I am concerned. I am not saying the Embo site is worth saving, but I have no problem with no golf courses in national parks because they either be public government owned courses which compete against private enterprise or rich men's playground courses at the expense of public land. Neither scenario makes sense to me. Sometimes, leaving things be is progress.
Ciao
-
Sean
I think maybe the issue here is that a lot of folk tend to look at this in terms of black and white. As Tom alludes to in his post about the Canadian courses, and the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, there is absolutely no reason why golf courses can’t fit comfortably within or add to a national park or environmentally sensitive area, depending on how they are done. After all a golf course is only areas of cut grass that provide a habitat for all sorts of species.
The SSSI designation doesn’t mean no development (a golf course is a development, as is a coastal path, in the strict meaning of planning legislation) it just means you have to tread carefully and take into consideration the environmental issues. Many existing courses have SSSI designation on part or all of their course Are the environmental issues such at Embo that that you couldn’t fit a golf course in on what is I believe 250/300 acres ? I don’t know but I doubt it.
Niall
-
Tom, I have not been to those parks in Canada that you referenced. I'm sure they are wonderful, and there are absolutely examples of places where golf courses can co-exist and/or complement nature. I don't dispute that.
But personally, I do believe there are certain places of national (and even international) interest that ought to remain entirely undeveloped and preserved for wildlife and enjoyment for future generations as raw, natural spaces. In my mind, placing a golf course or other development in the middle of Yosemite or Yellowstone or Acadia or our other national parks would be a shame.
-
There is a golf course in Yosemite at Wawona.
-
Niall,
I want to respect the process. When do they ever say no when that economic gain is in play?
Cheers,
Kris
Kris,
Most species would be a lot better off if we wiped humans off the planet. You obviously have an axe to grind here. I know nothing of the site, and at the end of the day you may in fact be right that it is a special spot which should remain untouched. Keiser has been through this before, i.e. Bandon etc., and if there is a chance of doing something which can coexist and perhaps even give some funds back to help protect species, dunes etc. while helping the local area economically and building a low impact course, I'd suggest he may be the best candidate to do so. The cynic would say better him than someone else. I'm going to reserve judgement till the process unfolds. One would hope that lessons were learned from the Trump course and if mistakes were made there they would not be repeated here. Yes, Keiser is another rich guy who's likely used to getting what he wants, but the difference appears to be that he's not simply a real estate spiv looking to make a buck at all costs (maybe he can promise a huge hotel component with his name emblazoned in gold blinking lights!), but rather a guy who simply wants to build great courses on great sites and is not purely motivated by economics at this point in his career. This difference is not trivial.
-
There is a golf course in Yosemite at Wawona.
I stand corrected. Although, I prefer that golf courses and other developments stay out of national parks, national forests, etc. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me on this, and that's fine. But I still stand by my statement that there are certain places that should remain raw, natural spaces.
The national parks in this country also were intended as a place for the general public to enjoy nature. So if a golf course is built in these places, it ought to be easily accessible by all. There are other places for high-end destination courses. National parks are not those places, in my opinion.
-
There is a golf course in Yosemite at Wawona.
I stand corrected. Although, I prefer that golf courses and other developments stay out of national parks, national forests, etc. Obviously, not everyone agrees with me on this, and that's fine. But I still stand by my statement that there are certain places that should remain raw, natural spaces.
The national parks in this country also were intended as a place for the general public to enjoy nature. So if a golf course is built in these places, it ought to be easily accessible by all. There are other places for high-end destination courses. National parks are not those places, in my opinion.
Yosemite isn't the only one. Highland Links on Cape Cod and Furnace Creek in Death Valley come to mind. Jeez now that I think about it there are at least three in DC national parks alone. Rock Creek, Langston and East Potomac -- heck, if you were of a mind you could nail the NPS's national HQ from the White course.
Obviously the NPS believes golf is an important part of our national parks experience.
-
Maybe some of our NPS employees and their families like to golf. I tried to make the point that golf and wildlife are not necessarily incompatible, but I really don't know squat about Coul, so concluded just to be an observer of the process. Having been involved in many land use and environmental debates and dealings with USA regulatory agencies, I'm pretty cynical about many things. I wish the good folks of Scotland and the Dornoch area the best in working this out.
-
I'm not suggesting that we start building golf courses in National Parks. [State parks might be another story.] Just suggesting that golf goes not have to be a huge threat to the environment, and can coexist to the acceptance of nature lovers if done right. It's amazing how many times it's been done and done well, yet every new project must overcome the fear that it can't be done!
Niall, the SSSI designation of the dunesland areas at The Renaissance Club was actually VERY strict. They identified as untouchable both the steeper dune features and patchwork colonies of moss, to the point that 30-40% of the site was deemed untouchable, and the parts remaining were patches of such odd shape and size that we couldn't do very much with them. In the end, the new 9th green and 10th fairway are all built in areas that had been covered by buckthorn -- which we were mandated to remove as an invasive species -- and only the tees for the 10th are on the dunesland, located in between spots that were off limits. Sadly, there is no way you could build 18 holes on the 250 acres between Muirfield and The Renaissance and the Firth, based on those rules.
I noticed when I played Gullane after the permitting walk-through that there are many similar patches of moss in the roughs on those courses, but I would assume that there was also moss where there are now fairways before it was built 100+ years ago.
-
See link to article in today's Northern Times with latest update on Coul Links.
While I realize this also invites some well-documented and respected opposing views, the article provides some more detail on the cooperation and support of the neighboring clubs as well as a second article with some opinions and info from Embo.
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Clubs-backing-drive-for-new-championship-course-12052016.htm
I could not find a link to the Embo article, so I have pasted the content below from a PDF that was sent to me. To clarify: The link above is about the course and the article below is about Embo.
Embo in line to benefit
A TINY Sutherland community stands to gain
should the Coul Links golf course get the go
ahead.
The seaside village of Embo is being offered a
new facility such as a park or recreation area.
Coul Links developers are currently negotiating
with local farmer Jock Mackintosh to buy a piece
of scrubland near to the village’s football pitch.
Part of the ground would be incorporated into
the new course, which is earmarked to run
alongside the Dornoch Firth at Loch Fleet,
But developers Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser
are offering to provide Embo with a new facility on
the rest of the site.
Mr Warnock said: “The Abel Smith family, who
own the land on which the golf course is to go,
have insisted we make a contribution to the Embo
community and we fully agree.”
Embo resident Jim McGillivray, ward councillor
for East Sutherland and Edderton, has been asked
to lead an Embo Working Group in order to gauge
local feeling on the issue.
Mr Warnock said: “We will meet in early June to
find out what the community input has been and
we will be excited to hear local people’s opinion.”
Councillor McGillivray said the issue was set to
be discussed in the first instance at the AGM of
Embo Trust next Friday.
He said: “There is an interesting discussion to
be had as to what people would like to see put in
place. It is an opportunity for the village.”
Golf course developers intend to preserve
walking paths on the course and build two walking
bothies, one near Embo and the other near Coul
Farm.
Mr Warnock said: “These will be small,
traditional bothies that would provide information
on the walking trails, flora and fauna on the new
course along with its history.
“The walking paths will be clearly designated to
make sure walkers know where the golfers are
and golfers know where the walkers are so both
can live in harmony.
-
There is a golf course in Yosemite at Wawona.
Is it as shameful as the one in Glacier Park?
-
"There is nowhere else in the UK that has as many extraordinary links golf courses as closely situated as East Sutherland."
Discuss ;D
Niall
-
"There is nowhere else in the UK that has as many extraordinary links golf courses as closely situated as East Sutherland."
Discuss ;D
Niall
St. Andrews, Gullane, Prestwick, Southport......
Clearly ill informed and misguided ;)
-
Jon & Niall -
In the U.S. we would call a statement like that "Chamber of Commerce hyperbole."
DT
-
Jon & Niall -
In the U.S. we would call a statement like that "Chamber of Commerce hyperbole."
DT
Or Chambers Bay of Commerce? ;D
-
David
No offence to Todd Warnock who seems like a good bloke but that's the sort of statement that Trump would make. He maybe just got carried away. That said, there are a lot of very good courses, not necessarily links and not necessarily championship, up that way.
Niall
-
On the...well the not Coul Links course would only take up a third of that Embo property. It floods in a fair few places. A sizeable portion of it is that dune slack scenario, which probably would need a good bit of it to stay as a coastal buffer. Then there is the SSSI.
So until you really have all the constraint requirements nailed down, it's difficult to know what is actually even viable.
That proximity disturbance doesn't just go away because you only use a third of the property. It's complicated...that is why you stay away from it and let it function beautifully....as it has for a very long time.
While it's easy to just joke about, or brush aside concerns for that Scottish Wildcat; it's fate is in serious question.
I find it rather shocking that so little has /is being done in Scotland to do some
comprehensve research and determine how best to stabilize/restore the population.
It basically is the equivalent of the Bald Eagle in significance to Scotland. In some ways it transcends that comparison. It's found no where else on earth and it's current range is tiny in totality.
There is a great opportunity here for the club ( it is the subject of the logo after all) AND Mr. Keiser to forge a way to draw attention to helping the MOST threatened member of that Highland area community ...the Scottish Wildcat.
Why not actually take the lead on something that both golfers, and non- golfers would appreciate and support?
When does golf do that. Almost never. And that's why so many out there look at golf as the sport of the uncaring elite and somewhat selfish.
What if both his project(wherever it would be built besides that Embo site) AND the club agreed to donate a couple of quid per round, to a fund established to aid respected Scottish Wildcat research and preservation efforts?
Now THAT would a story to tell. The press coverage that storyline angle could generate would be off the charts.
It would blow away any Top 50 whatever squalk that only a miniscule fraction of the world cares about.
Think about that. GOLF stepping up to do it's share, to save one of the planet's most endangered species. In Scotland, the real home of golf where it all began. It gets no better than that.
That story, with Keiser's new Wildcat Lnks on a responsible site, and a RD club, with the very species on it's logo, teaming up to make a difference.
That story would leave a not Coul Links in the dust. No matter how high it was ranked!
And who's to say something of equal stature couldn't be crafted at a more responsible site. With the talent of that team, it most certainly could.
Yeh, really nailing it in the way I've described is just a stupid pipe dream from some pie in the sky caddie from America.
It's too big an idea for most to grasp... that we can actually do the right thing.
I should just shut up and wait for the good people of the Highlands to implode their own superb way of life, with outside influence, chasing all that economic gain, that ends up exterminating the very symbol of their unique region.
I'm done. And sadly, so is the Dornoch I fell in love with...barring divine intervention.
No cheers,
Kris
Kris, Having read much of what you’ve written on the local habitat and environment at this area, perhaps you might spare a thought for us, the local indigenous people who are under threat from opinionated incomers who seem to think they know better. As a local to the area I live with and understand nature, it’s benefits and sometimes even its shortcomings, we are capable of all this by using balanced thought and reasoning.[/size]
[/size]Blundering regulations and one size fits all eco politics is a bigger danger than local intuition and understanding of the area for future generations and its requirements.
[/size]As an obviously ill informed and easily mislead local I find it hilarious that you can decry monetary greed against a tiny eco-environment while justifying the price of a round of golf on Pebble against the price of gas!
[/size]On the wildcat issue, reading a couple of stories google has pointed you to only allows you an opinion but it doesn’t mean it’s right. I’ve followed the wildcats plight for decades and I’m only grazing the surface compared to those in a better and more knowledgable position dealing with them. A couple of paragraphs on here isn’t going to do much saying what is happening and the efforts made, yet with your newly googled knowledge you can declare nothing is being done and Scotland has failed the wildcat.
[/size]Oh to live in such a simplistic world.
-
New blog just went up about the Coul Links project with the latest updates on town, council and development meetings.
Bill Coore just made his 4th trip there I am told and left last week.
https://coullinks.wordpress.com/
-
From today's Northern Times:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Sport/Golf/New-coul-Links-golf-course-bid-taking-shape-23062016.htm
-
Andrew,
While it pains me to have to revisit my remarks to correct the potshot mentality the threatened on here frequently demonstrate, It would be irresponsible of me not to address the inaccurate.
Where sir, did I EVER justify the pricing Pebble Beach charges?
Their rates ARE extortionate, but I did point out, regarding the somewhat higher base caddie fees questioned by another poster, that the cost of living in that area is among the highest in the world. But in no way can you construe that into justification...nice try.
Others posting here besides you have tried mightly to assert I'm just an armchair knowledge ranter with some eco-axe to grind.
That couldn't be further from reality.
I support and applaud responsible projects, be they golf or otherwise.
I just returned from a visit to Sand Valley, the latest Keiser project being created on a former red pine plantation in Rome, Wisconsin.
It is a superb site, being returned to more of it's natural state as the course is being built.
I met Michael Jr. while on my visit. We spoke face to face for 20 minutes on a variety of subjects. The Embo project was part of our conversation. I was very candid with him on my take. He respected my position, and said he himself wrestled recently with moving forward on another property they were looking at given the environmental constraints.
It was a thoughtful, classy exchange throughout.
In fact, there is a very good chance I will join that Sand Valley team in some capacity shortly.
See, just because you may disagree on something, that doesn't constitute having no respect for someone, or ability to have a relationship or collaborate.
As to the assertion the extent of my Scottish Wildcat knowledge was just derived from some google search; I've had several in-depth exhanges with Steve Piper, who is directly involved with the Western Highland Wildcat Haven program.
He gave me a comprehensive overview of their efforts, and also information on some other factions that are approaching it differently.
He stated that the plight of these cats had been grossly underfunded, and research efforts have suffered from inconsistent data and study in general.
I appreciate you are local. You don't seem to value how special that Embo site is...UNDISTURBED!
Don't worry... IT WILL be built. The bird studies will come in, it will be blessed with some provisions to address that and the SSSI, and the next links monument will find a home in Embo.
It will forever alter that special ground, your town, the greater area, and yes, hasten more development encroachment on what remains of the wild habitat in the Northern Highlands.
Enjoy the prosperity my friend!
My wife Mairi, who grew up in Dornoch, was coming home late one long summer evening in 1990, having stayed after hours doing some legal work at the office in town.
She was walking across the top course, approaching the par three second green, which sits near the back gate of her family home, when she said she saw a low- crouching cat, unlike any cat she ever saw before, explode out of the left bunker and race across the back of the hole and into the gorse.
She told me she never saw anything move that fast. She was as sober as a church mouse. While it was dusk, she said she clearly could see a longish, bushy tail, and that it was much larger than a normal cat.
She is almost certain it was a Scottish Wildcat. I believe her.
Good luck seeing that again at RD.
Respectfully,
Kris
Ps.- I have never questioned the talent of those involved to do the best they could in building responsibly on that Embo site.
My view, based on: the SSSI areas present, the extensive, unique bird habitat, frequent flooding that occurs where estuary proximity exists, and the areas awesome NATURAL beauty, rationally assessed in total...demands it should be left as it is. To function wonderfully, as it has, providing a pristine balance for farm, wildlife on both land and sea...and all working to mankind's benefit with the current state it enjoys.
-
Thanks for the update David. That structural footprint is getting bigger no?
-
From the Northern Times, July 29:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Meeting-will-take-Coul-Links-golf-course-proposals-a-step-forward-28072016.htm
-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/14695482.Trump_Mk_II__now_his_business_rival_plans_golf_course_which_threatens_Scottish_environment/?ref=rss
Trump Mk II: now his business rival plans golf course which threatens Scottish environment
5 hrs ago / Exclusive by Rob Edwards
A major row is brewing over plans by a US millionaire to build a golf course on a precious wildlife site in northeast Scotland – but it’s not Donald Trump this time...it’s his business rival.
Mike Keiser, a wealthy businessman behind some of the most expensive and prized golf courses in the world, wants to build one at Coul links, on the coast north of the Dornoch Firth near the village of Embo.
In so doing he will trash a highly protected network of sand dunes treasured for birds, insects and plants just as Trump destroyed the dunes at Menie round the Aberdeenshire coast, experts say.
Conservation and community groups are gearing up for another epic battle with a powerful American tycoon. “It’s the Trump golf fiasco all over again,” said one.
Keiser, famed for his high-ranking Bandon Dunes golf courses in Oregon, was last year labelled as “Trump's biggest rival in the golf business” by US Fortune magazine. He has teamed up with a US banker and entrepreneur, Todd Warnock, who already owns property in Dornoch, to develop Coul links.
They have submitted an application notice to Highland Council, and are now preparing to apply for detailed planning permission. Their 18-hole championship golf course will attract 20,000 visitors a year and put over £6 million a year into the Highland economy, they say.
But it is facing angry and concerted opposition. Dr Tom Dargie, a leading dune expert commissioned but then ignored by Trump at Menie, says that Keiser’s proposal will be much more damaging.
He estimates that a golf course at Coul will destroy 48 hectares of the Loch Fleet sand dune Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This is more than double the area damaged by Trump’s course.
Coul is also part of a special protection area for birds such as teal, wigeon, plovers, and terns. It is home to an array of rare moths, ants and flies, including Fonseca’s seed fly which only lives on that stretch of coast.
“The scheme is simply plain wrong on multiple environmental grounds,” said Dargie, who lives locally. “It could cost more jobs than it creates and risks leaving a burden of severe coastal degradation for future generations.”
Jonathan Hughes, the chief executive of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, lived and worked at Coul in the 1990s. “Like Trump, Keiser has a track record of getting his own way whatever it takes and like Trump, he seems to think protected area laws can be torn up for his own private financial gain,” he told the Sunday Herald.
“Allowing another sand dune SSSI to go the way of the benighted Trump development at Menie would be an unforgiveable and tragic loss of a protected area.”
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) described the plan for Coul as “extremely worrying”. The developer has refused to meet with the society and other conservation groups, it said.
“This is highly unusual and cause for great concern, especially since Scotland has a very poor recent track record dealing with high-profile international golf developers,” argued RSPB Scotland’s planning chief, Aedán Smith.
Craig Macadam from the insect conservation group Buglife, promised to fight the development. “A golf course can be sited anywhere, but many of the species found at Coul are completely reliant on these fragile habitats,” he said.
The government wildlife agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, is awaiting further studies before deciding its stance. Conservationists expect it to object.
David Patterson, who is leading on the case for SNH, said: “The environmental impacts of any development have to be fully understood before we can provide advice on whether or not it should go forward, or whether mitigation is required to minimise any impacts.”
A spokesman for the developers’ agent, the property company JLL, stressed that plans were still at an early stage. Criticisms from conservationists were “therefore without foundation”, he argued.
Keiser and his designers were “world renowned experts in golf course design and construction methods which seek to enhance and preserve the natural environment,” he said.
“We have been in extensive dialogue with Highland Council, Scottish Natural Heritage and other statutory consultees for a considerable period to agree the scope and requirements of numerous environmental studies which will be used to inform the development of the proposals and to undertake an environmental impact assessment.”
Plans for Coul will not be finalised until the findings are known, the spokesman stated. “The project team will continue to consult widely on the proposals and once the detailed design is developed and finalised the proposals will be shared with all relevant interests."
-
"Craig Macadam from the insect conservation group Buglife...."
Are we sure this is not part of a Monty Python sketch?
-
It would surprise me if the representatives and experts were really using the language being reported in the this piece. There is a process in place for planning applications which lays down which bodies are to be consulted. The reason they have not been consulted is because they are not on this list as they should be discussing things with SNH. It will be interesting to see how this develops and what it actually turns up. On the point made about Trump's place it should not be forgotten that the planning process led to his project not being recommended and being refused by the planning authority. In that case the planning processed worked perfectly and it was political interference that scuppered the system.
Jon
-
It's 'silly season' time in media-land so expect all sorts of stories to appear promoting various angles on various subjects.
Atb
-
In case anyone will be in the Dornoch/Embo area next week, there will be public presentations regarding the proposed Coul Links project in Dornoch on August 30 and in Embo on August 31.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1003336/public-get-second-chance-to-view-coul-links-golf-course-plans/
-
More news from the Northern Times:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Four-conservation-groups-write-objection-letter-to-Coul-Links-golf-course-developers-29082016.htm
-
Still more news:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Debate-continues-over-Coul-Links-golf-development-22092016.htm
-
The implication that simply building a second high profile golf course would keep wealthy American's up in the town for longer frustrates me.
I bet most people would be stunned at the number of golfers who travel up to play Dornoch but skip Castle Stuart. If golfers are not all playing a World Top 100 Course that is hard not to drive past, then would they stay to play Coul Links?
[/size]I'm not saying it wouldn't help but they need to significantly upgrade the lodging for that demographic. There is not enough good quality accommodation in Inverness, let alone Dornoch, to keep the wealthy American's up there for longer.I absolutely adore Dornoch; the town, the course and the club, but the well-healed guy needs more. Hopefully Castle Stuart can push ahead with their second course and proposed lodging that will keep people up there for longer. For the foreseeable future St Andrews and Gleneagles will remain the places wealthy US golfers want to stay for longer than 2 nights.
-
The implication that simply building a second high profile golf course would keep wealthy American's up in the town for longer frustrates me.
I bet most people would be stunned at the number of golfers who travel up to play Dornoch but skip Castle Stuart. If golfers are not all playing a World Top 100 Course that is hard not to drive past, then would they stay to play Coul Links?
I'm not saying it wouldn't help but they need to significantly upgrade the lodging for that demographic. There is not enough good quality accommodation in Inverness, let alone Dornoch, to keep the wealthy American's up there for longer.I absolutely adore Dornoch; the town, the course and the club, but the well-healed guy needs more. Hopefully Castle Stuart can push ahead with their second course and proposed lodging that will keep people up there for longer. For the foreseeable future St Andrews and Gleneagles will remain the places wealthy US golfers want to stay for longer than 2 nights.
Cart vs. Horse I would think, Simon.
Americans (or others) do not need consummate luxury for lodgings. Look at Bandon, Cabot, etc.
When/if the first shovel hits the ground, watch how fast this place trades: http://www.bayhotels.co.uk/our-hotels/bay-dornoch-hotel-dornoch
Mostly (Shearings) pensioners spending 60 pounds/nt.
Great bones, UNBELIEVABLE location on first hole of RDGC, 105 rooms, but tired and worn.
It's been for sale for over a year. I wonder how much it is...ahem...appreciated since Coul Links conversations started.
Would make a perfect golfer's hotel.
-
Dornoch now has a few overpriced gin palaces and a dwindling number of B&B's. What it really needs is a Premier Inn or Travelodge, ideally where the abbatoir used to be, with a spit and sawdust bar at one and/or the other
The Burghfield House Hotel in Dornoch was the greatest golf hotel that ever existed, particularly in the 1970's and 1980's.
Requiescat in pace, my old friend.......
-
Simon,
I do not follow how you think that a second course at Dornoch will not attract golfers to stay in the area longer but the same at Castle Stuart will or did I misunderstand?
I do think that a second course would be a positive thing and that it would encourage more golfers to stay in the area longer.
Rich,
I think you are pretty much spot on though any new hotel would be well advised to create multiple bedroom suites so groups of 8 to 10 have private space.
Jon
-
Hi Iain,
As has been said before, the Golf Club Atlas mindset is very much in the minority among travelling golfers. Hotel quality dictates base location 99 times out of 100 for wealthy groups. It's not an assumption.
Whatever happens I wish only the best for the town. Great place and great people.
-
Rich -
Agree on the budget nature of lodgings. Would love to see a "Marriott/Hilton/Hyatt Suites" or something buy the Dornoch Bay Hotel.
The bar in the hotel has great bones and a nice view. Would make a wonderful 19th hole.
Simon -
Castle Stuart is just a standalone course with nothing in the area. Dornoch has a town, etc. Makes for a better day and week destination. Apples/Oranges.
Jon -
Agree on room "format".
Bandon has perfected that. Small cottages with 4 bedrooms and shared LR/DR/Kitchenette. Brilliant.
-
Simon,
I do not follow how you think that a second course at Dornoch will not attract golfers to stay in the area longer but the same at Castle Stuart will or did I misunderstand?
I do think that a second course would be a positive thing and that it would encourage more golfers to stay in the area longer.
Hi Jon,
Sorry for any confusion. "I'm not saying it (Coul Links) wouldn't help (keep more goflers in Dornoch) but they need to significantly upgrade the lodging for that demographic" My post was in reaction to the implication in that article that the second course alone would keep wealthy Americans in Dornoch. That simply wouldn't be the case, in volume, without more top end accommodation.
The reference to Castle Stuart was their proposed lodging will hopefully work more than "just" adding their second course. The new course and lodging will go hand in hand to make their package really appealing to travelling groups and tour operators as a destination.
I'm stating how to keep wealthy golfers in one place for more than one hit. Decent golf and very good accommodation. No doubt people will name exceptions but I'm stating the obvious that this gent from FineGolf may have overlooked.
Hi Ian - Forgive me but without a decent inventory of top end accom, I fear its a 36 hole day and out of there. There is no arguing how nice Dornoch is as a town but on a limited time in Scotland most golfers are not here to walk around the town.
-
....In that case the planning process worked perfectly and it was political interference that scuppered the system.
Jon
I'd suggest that political interference didn't scupper the system, it is the system.
A Deputy Minister I knew liked to pre-emptively silence those likely to complain about politicians interfering with the civil service by saying: "I'm glad that elected officials get to trump bureaucrats -- otherwise we'd all be living in the Soviet Union!"
A "humorous" and none-too-subtle way to tell his underlings that he expected them to play the game; when politicians said "jump", the only right response was to ask "how high?"
If the "Yes, Minister" view of senior public servants was accurate once, it certainly isn't any longer. In my experience, the only type of official who now rises to the upper echelons of the bureaucracy is the one who thinks himself/herself savvy enough to simply and always ask "how high"....though not in those exact words of course.
Peter
-
The implication that simply building a second high profile golf course would keep wealthy American's up in the town for longer frustrates me.
I bet most people would be stunned at the number of golfers who travel up to play Dornoch but skip Castle Stuart. If golfers are not all playing a World Top 100 Course that is hard not to drive past, then would they stay to play Coul Links?
I'm not saying it wouldn't help but they need to significantly upgrade the lodging for that demographic. There is not enough good quality accommodation in Inverness, let alone Dornoch, to keep the wealthy American's up there for longer.I absolutely adore Dornoch; the town, the course and the club, but the well-healed guy needs more. Hopefully Castle Stuart can push ahead with their second course and proposed lodging that will keep people up there for longer. For the foreseeable future St Andrews and Gleneagles will remain the places wealthy US golfers want to stay for longer than 2 nights.
The Links House in Dornoch is a significant upgrade in lodging and they will be opening more rooms next summer.
http://www.linkshousedornoch.com/
-
Rich -
Agree on the budget nature of lodgings. Would love to see a "Marriott/Hilton/Hyatt Suites" or something buy the Dornoch Bay Hotel.
The bar in the hotel has great bones and a nice view. Would make a wonderful 19th hole.
[/quote
As you may or may not know, in the 1920's when the good and great (Wethereds, Holdernesses, etc.) visited Dornoch, they took the train from Golspie and stayed at was then the Dornoch Hotel. It does have great "bones" but its intestines are 100 years old. Trust me. I've stayed there with my wife and sprogs a few times and its has potential but need LOTS of money to become attractive to people who live in the 21st century.
-
....In that case the planning process worked perfectly and it was political interference that scuppered the system.
Jon
I'd suggest that political interference didn't scupper the system, it is the system.
A Deputy Minister I knew liked to pre-emptively silence those likely to complain about politicians interfering with the civil service by saying: "I'm glad that elected officials get to trump bureaucrats -- otherwise we'd all be living in the Soviet Union!"
A "humorous" and none-too-subtle way to tell his underlings that he expected them to play the game; when politicians said "jump", the only right response was to ask "how high?"
If the "Yes, Minister" view of senior public servants was accurate once, it certainly isn't any longer. In my experience, the only type of official who now rises to the upper echelons of the bureaucracy is the one who thinks himself/herself savvy enough to simply and always ask "how high"....though not in those exact words of course.
Peter
Peter,
though a good point it not accurate in this case as the planning committee which rejected the planning proposal in the first place was made up of locally elected politicians who are not interested so much in the national picture but are rather beholden to their electorate. It was the national executive at Holyrood that stepped in and overruled.
Jon
-
Simon
I'm interested to read your comments as you have an inside track on the tour operator perspective. Does on site lodging not reduce your value in the sense it's easier for golfers to organise their won trip a la Bandon ? Also doesn't Skibo effectively act as the place to stay for the wealthy visiting golfer going to Dornoch area ?
Rich
I recall the Burghfield House Hotel with great affection having spent a few family holidays there when I was a nipper. I've also spent a couple of nights in the Bay Hotel in the last couple of years. As you say, very tired. Also the difference between the Burghfield House then and the Bay Hotel now, or perhaps most hotels now, is that back then the family stayed for a week. The hotel was the destination. Now it seems everyone is moving through on the way to somewhere else.
Niall
-
Hi Niall,
It's actually much more helpful for us to have onsite accom. At our level the client is not thinking about saving by arranging the trip himself. Its not difficult to organise a trip to Scotland but there is lots of time saving measures that are important to the guys we are talking about. Especially when they wont to fit so many courses in such a short timescale.
Then the opportunity cost which is way out of whack in terms of the time spent planning the trip versus what he/she could earn in that time, or better still, be spending his/her limited leisure or family time doing. Unless that is, they get a real kick out of putting all the pieces together, which they kind of get to do anyway with someone like us to bounce ideas off.
I'm not a wealthy man but I'd buy a package ski holiday every day of the week even though I've done it all myself in the past. I've not got the time!
Most here know how to put a golf trip together but some are way off on what the top end guys wants. No doubt there are exceptions to the rule but in general, here you are:
It's St Andrews or bust for 95% of new clients. They will only come if the Old is on the itinerary
[/size]Similarly in Ireland its Portrush and RCD or bust for the North - Ballybunion for the South
They want all the top courses, which translates to Open rota, Kingsbarns and MAYBE Dornoch if they are a list guy
Only on repeat trips are they open to suggestions like North Berwick, Cruden Bay, Crail - in addition to the must haves
They only come for 5-7 days if they are still working
They only want to stay in 5* hotels with all the associated facilities in a town/resort where they can eat well every night - the pub food novelty wears off after one sitting but they will happily get stuck into the drinking scene after a decent feed elsewhere
Unless its a couples trip its extremely rare for guys to take much of a walk around or do anything outside of golf, eat and drink
Luxury van and driver
No amount of preaching will convince this type of client they are doing it the wrong way - they are A type personalities. Plus it's no-ones to place to tell them they are wrong since its their vacation.
This is why Turnberry is already very high-occupancy next year even though its the most expensive golf resort in the country, and in the middle of nowhere, 40 minutes from the next world class course. It has all the bells and whistles so that demographic wants to stay there.
Compare Turnberry to Troon, which has that great cluster of superb golf within 5-10 minutes drive. It has no really outstanding hotel or food so we don't place anyone there. The ones we have historically have complained so why would we risk losing a client by giving them the "its not about where you stay its the course you play" line?
Gullane is another good example. Lots of courses right there, even more within 10 minutes drive. Arguably as golf rich as anywhere in the country but no great hotel. Greywalls is quaint but lacks any Spa which doesn't cut it anymore. On a personal level you know it kills me to say that about East Lothian! They all stay at the Caley or the Balmoral and take the 40 minute drive on the chin.
Hopefully that gives some insight as to what that guy wants. Once again, thats purely pulling apart the Fine Golf article that seemed to imply that the second course would keep wealthy tourists in Dornoch longer when I know that alone will not do the trick. I'd just get them in an out on a heli, they would maybe take the drive from Inverness and do 36 in a day, or they would just play one and get out.
Links House is very nice but there are so few rooms, even with the new building, it doesn't come close to the scale it would need to get the wealthy guys staying there on mass a la Gleneagles, Turnberry or Old Course.....and hopefully never will. Dornoch is just fine the way it is but its for the local people to decide that.
Clearly if it was me on a mates trip I would do it differently! I love the place.
-
Simon -
Thanks for the summary. Your take on things is spot on. You describe well what many of my friends look for when they book a golf trip to Scotland or Ireland.
A mystery to me is why there are not more tours of courses around London. I'm thinking Surrey and Kent. Or are there?
Bob
-
Simon
I can understand these guys wanting to do it in style and of course you will look to cater for their needs. From the perspective of the golf club however I wonder how much of their market comes from the 5 star brigade that you describe ? Should the club worry about catering for these guys as after all they pay exactly the same green fee as the regular punter.
The club I play at isn't on the A list but nonetheless is an Open Qualifier therefore gets a decent level of visitor income. I'm advised it was c.£200K the other year of which 75% came from UK&I visitors, 17% from continental Europe (Germans counting as the largest portion) and the rest largely from the US. It's likely that the vast bulk of the UK&I visitors won't be paying top dollar for accommodation and I suspect the same goes for the continental Europeans.
To my way of thinking, from the clubs perspective they would be much better off with good affordable accommodation being nearby rather than the top end accommodation. Arguably the 5 star guys might pay a higher green fee but are you going to get enough of them to make up for the shortfall in visitor numbers if you hiked the prices up ? Judging by the way a lot of clubs have increased their prices in recent years then possibly yes, which just shows you how solid my logic is :-\
Niall
-
I see Niall's point here.
There will always be the hi-end "box-checkers" who need to play Trump, Castle Stuart and RDGC before hitting Gleneagles, etc.
But, I get the impression that the Coul Links project seeks to create an anchor for tourism in the Highlands who want to come to Dornoch as their "hub" and then have the choice to play 1. RDGC 2. Coul 3. Brora 4. Golspie 5. Castle Stuart 6. Tain 7 Nairn 8. Moray - and perhaps even Boat of Garten or Wik (all within 30-90 mins drive from Dornoch) all within a 15 to 90 minute drive?[size=78%]; perhaps for 2-3 nights before moving on down the road.[/size]
Yes, I've stayed at Links House and it is superlative for sure. But, in subsequent trips (with the Mrs.), we have stayed at B&Bs - specifically at No. 9 - and had a fantastic experience for less than 1/3 the price of Links House. Each time we encounter golfers from Sweden, UK, US there all seeking the same thing: value and comfort.
From my own experience, (as a US tourist) I dont need 5 star accomadations. In fact, it can be a negative if - as an example - I need to stay at "The Old Course Hotel" as part of some package to play TOC.
I think a larger questions is: will golf tourists seek to play Coul Links in Scotland instead of playing the older established courses?
Mike Keiser has always been a proponent of "destination courses". Bandon, Cabot and certainly Barnbougle are all remote and, for some, harder to access than Dornoch. In fact, I have heard that Cabot was booked SOLID all season.
Bill Coore says Coul is the best site he has ever seen. Given that his latest courses have all debuted in the "global top 100", what happens if Coul is in "Top 50"? Will golfers make a special trip to play it and RDGC or simply play it if they happen to be up there?
RDGC sees about 10,000 visitor rounds per year. I wonder what % are from "transient" tour groups. Simon, any guesses?
-
There's a very nice post from Simon above which begs me to ask the question of whether there are
any particular times of the year when the 5-7 day big name course trip visitors tend to concentrate?
The reason I ask is they are the sort of trippers who I suspect many herein hope to avoid so details of usually quiet periods within such tour schedulings would be nice to know.
Atb
-
From the Press & Journal (Aberdeen):
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1042508/developer-argues-economic-and-ecological-case-for-coul-links-golf-course/
-
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1299771/major-plans-for-world-class-golf-highland-golf-course-poised-to-be-unveiled/
Major plans for world class golf Highland golf course poised to be unveiled
by JAMIE MCKENZIE
August 1, 2017
(https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/Capture-51-579x372.png)
Major plans for a new world class Highland golf course are poised to be unveiled in the coming weeks.
The US developers behind the £6-10 million Coul Links project, businessman Todd Warnock and renowned golf course developer Mike Keiser, could submit their planning application next month.
The investors had been expected to lodge the plans for the golf course – zoned for a site just north of Embo in Sutherland – at the start of this year.
Mr Warnock, who owns the Links House hotel and Carnegie Courthouse in Dornoch, said previously that Coul Links would reverse a present trend of golfers coming to play Royal Dornoch for a day but returning to their Inverness base, without staying and contributing further to the east Sutherland economy.
He also said that his team, led by renowned golf course architects Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, can build the course in an ecologically sensitive way.
But conservationists maintain that the development would have a negative impact on the area’s untouched coastal dune habitats.
The site is in a special protected area and has designated sites of special scientific interest.
East Sutherland and Edderton councillor Jim McGillivray, who lives in Embo, said: “It seems that September looks to be the likeliest opportunity for the plans to go in.
“We will need to wait and see what happens, as it will be up to the developer.
“There is a full appreciation of the potential of the site for an international links golf course. I think they believe also that they can overcome the environmental challenges.”
In May, experts from RSPB Scotland, Butterfly Conservation and Buglife Scotland gave public presentations on the ecological importance of the Coul Links dune system.
Residents questioned why so much was being made of the threat to Fonseca’s Seed Fly – a critically endangered species – despite no solid evidence of the species existing on the Coul Links site.
Conservationists said that studies conducted on sites at Dornoch sands and Embo sands showed the presence of the fly which, given the similar habitat, could mean it is present on Coul Links.
But Mr Warnock said previously that when plans are published there will be a clear suggestion that the habitat for this fly would be “preserved, if not strengthened,” and that only 50 acres will be turfed.
Craig Macadam, conservation director at Buglife, said: “Hopefully they have taken into account all the things that have been raised during the consultation period and public meetings.
“I find it very difficult to see how a golf course could be engineered into the landscape without having a detrimental effect on the landscape.
“I am looking forward to seeing these plans after all this time.”
-
Thanks for posting this Brian.
Interesting that the main objection is based on the theoretical existence of fauna not actual. This sort of thing does not help with the image. I wonder what they plan to spend £6 to £10 million on?
Jon
-
Interesting that the main objection is based on the theoretical existence of fauna not actual. This sort of thing does not help with the image.
Fonseca's Seed Fly is considered fauna? Here in Canada we consider them pests.
-
It is interesting to me that this fly supposedly exists on the dornoch sands but a golf course in the Coul location would not allow the fly to survive. Are the Dornoch sands mentioned near the golf course? Anyway, here's a site devoted to protection of the fly:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-fonesca-s-seed-fly
-
Thanks for posting this Brian.
Interesting that the main objection is based on the theoretical existence of fauna not actual. This sort of thing does not help with the image. I wonder what they plan to spend £6 to £10 million on?
Jon
clubhouse and dormie house provision perhaps ?
Niall
-
But that site doesn't mention why anyone should give a damn about whether Fonseca's Seed fly becomes extinct.
-
But that site doesn't mention why anyone should give a damn about whether Fonseca's Seed fly becomes extinct.
or it's just genetic cosmic debris
-
Thanks for posting this Brian.
Interesting that the main objection is based on the theoretical existence of fauna not actual. This sort of thing does not help with the image. I wonder what they plan to spend £6 to £10 million on?
Jon
clubhouse and dormie house provision perhaps ?
Niall
I believe that a significant investment will be made in "local infrastructure improvements" to accommodate the new facility.
Specifically on the the road between Dornoch and Embo which, at present, is wide enough only for one car.
The developers will also build a new football pitch for the residents of Embo as well as an enhanced walking path through Coul Links for locals and tourists alike.
There will also be a practice range built.
To put in perspective, RDGC is considering the addition of a driving range and the proposed budget is just under $2M.
-
Ian
I wish RDGC well but that's bonkers. Sad to see it turning even more into an American style country club, and I don't mean that as a knock to country clubs, just that they should be in the US :)
How long is the road they are having to rebuild ?
Niall
-
Ian
I wish RDGC well but that's bonkers. Sad to see it turning even more into an American style country club, and I don't mean that as a knock to country clubs, just that they should be in the US :)
How long is the road they are having to rebuild ?
Niall
Niall -
It's being voted on at this year's AGM.
RDGC has a nice looking balance sheet....;-) If the members want a driving range, then they will approve the project.
You must be present to vote so most voters are local, not overseas.
My guess is that the road from Dornoch to Embo that may need to be widened is about 1 mile long.
When David Tepper gets off the links, he can chime in with better info i'm sure...;-)
Cheers,
Ian
-
Niall,
the plan deliberately stated it was going for a low key development including a very basic clubhouse that might just be a glorified starters hut. I share your concern about the danger of RDGC losing it's identity.
Ian,
with the small amount of increased traffic this project will create and knowing the road a dozen passing places would cover it. I know there is the possibility that the local council might be using this as an opportunity to upgrade the road but knowing a couple of people living along it there are a lot of residents against this as it is already a race track.
Jon
-
Jon
I'm assuming that the road would be a planning obligation. Depending on the spec and length of it that could be a £1m plus right there.
Niall
-
I hope that if this goes forward it creates the right conditions for courses like Brora to benefit. Essential to get some kind of package, 3 course-4 course, even 7 course green fee packages. Staying a few nights up north in Dornoch is a great experience and you could even market this is a full week in and out of Inverness with a new course.
Dornoch, Brora, Coul Links, Nairn, a repeat at Dornoch, and another local course and leave via Inverness aftar a round at Castle Stuart is a very compelling golf week.
I loved getting to Brora at 6pm and playing with rain and a 5 club wind. Awesome course. Many others would benefit from an additional course I believe.
-
"another local course"
GOLSPIE!!! ;)
-
"another local course"
GOLSPIE!!! ;)
David,
it would be nice for some trade to be spread to some of the other local clubs. Indeed some might say that these days Golspie, Tain, Brora and their brethren offer a far more authentic Scottish golfing experience than the bigger courses.
Jon
-
"It would be nice for some trade to be spread to some of the other local clubs."
Jon -
You are absolutely right about that. An extra 500 rounds of visitor play yearly at any of the clubs you mention would help the finances of those clubs greatly.
Sadly, it is hard to break thru the "bucket list" mentality of too many visiting golfers, who are reluctant to stray from the Top 20, 50 or 100 lists
DT
-
"another local course"
GOLSPIE!!! ;)
I teed it up for you David but unfortunately I did not get the chance to play or see Golspie so I did not mention by name.
-
"It would be nice for some trade to be spread to some of the other local clubs."
Jon -
You are absolutely right about that. An extra 500 rounds of visitor play yearly at any of the clubs you mention would help the finances of those clubs greatly.
Sadly, it is hard to break thru the "bucket list" mentality of too many visiting golfers, who are reluctant to stray from the Top 20, 50 or 100 lists
DT
That is where I think the concept of flying in and out of Inverness and spending a full week in the Highlands is important. I am pretty sure that if Coul Links happens and it is really good, having 3 top courses, plus another 3-5 excellent options, and quality hotels and B&Bs will make a difference.
Lets say you are contemplating three 1-week golf trips to Scotland over your lifetime and have the means to play top courses. As things stand today, you will not spend a full week in the Highlands if you want to maximize the Scotland experience. With a succesfull Coul Links, I think you might start thinking of dedicating a full week to the North or North and Northeast.
-
"With a succesfull Coul Links, I think you might start thinking of dedicating a full week to the North or North and Northeast."
Marcos -
If Coul Lnks does get built, I certainly hope it works out that way and visiting golfers will spend an extra day or two or three in the area to play the very worthwhile nearby local courses. Again, it is a question of overcoming the "bucket list" mentality.
DT
-
"With a succesfull Coul Links, I think you might start thinking of dedicating a full week to the North or North and Northeast."
Marcos -
If Coul Lnks does get built, I certainly hope it works out that way and visiting golfers will spend an extra day or two or three in the area to play the very worthwhile nearby local courses. Again, it is a question of overcoming the "bucket list" mentality.
DT
Has anyone seen anything on what a new Coul Course will do to the tee sheet at RDGC?
I personally thinking building a new Keiser links just up th road from Dornoch is a bad idea that will ultimately lead to ruining the quaintness of Dornoch, but I get the reasons driving local development.
-
The other courses in that immediate area are all, weather permitting, 365 days per year play. I wonder if Coul will be as well? Note - Castle Stuart isn't.
Atb
-
"The other courses in that immediate area are all, weather permitting, 365 days per year play. I wonder if Coul will be as well? Note - Castle Stuart isn't."
Thomas D. -
That is because the other courses are golf clubs with local memberships who live in the area year round.
Castle Stuart is a daily fee course. It is highly unlikely CS could generate enough fee revenue over the winter months to justify the cost of staffing and operating the facility, especially given the short hours of daylight and the frequent frost delays.
I suspect Coul Links will close as well over the winter months, for the same reasons. A number of restaurants & hotels in the Dornoch also close over the winter season.
DT
-
The other courses in that immediate area are all, weather permitting, 365 days per year play. I wonder if Coul will be as well? Note - Castle Stuart isn't.
Atb
From what I understand, Castle Stuart does not have "members". Perhaps a mistake as it cuts off a vital consistent revenue stream.
It's strictly a "pay for play" high-end venue that, in the three times I have been there, has been WIDE open.
Have they broken ground on the new "Palmer" course? I saw the site and it looked like boring farmland.
-
The other courses in that immediate area are all, weather permitting, 365 days per year play. I wonder if Coul will be as well? Note - Castle Stuart isn't.
Atb
From what I understand, Castle Stuart does not have "members". Perhaps a mistake as it cuts off a vital consistent revenue stream.
It's strictly a "pay for play" high-end venue that, in the three times I have been there, has been WIDE open.
Have they broken ground on the new "Palmer" course? I saw the site and it looked like boring farmland.
Ian,
I think you will find CS turns a decent profit and at £185 a pop for 18 holes they have enough GFs through the summer months. As for memberships it comes with a lot of expense on extra infrastructure and I doubt they could ask more than £500 to £600 a year so not so lucrative.
I do not believe they have broken ground on the second course but when they do I am sure they will create a very good course. The present course was built on very boring farmland and a rocky shoreline.
If Coul Links does get built I hope they ensure it has an authentic Scottish feel and not the corporate tartan that is sadly creeping into the scene.
Jon
-
Another top notch course in the Dornoch area would help the smaller venues imo. I am not convinced Dornoch will benefit though as it doesn't need more visitors!
Jon
I am not sure what authentic Scottish feel is, but I think you will not find it at a new high end course.
Ciao
-
Lets say you are contemplating three 1-week golf trips to Scotland over your lifetime and have the means to play top courses. As things stand today, you will not spend a full week in the Highlands if you want to maximize the Scotland experience. With a succesfull Coul Links, I think you might start thinking of dedicating a full week to the North or North and Northeast.
Define "the Scotland Experience". Note - this isn't some sort of snidey question but genuinely interested what you think the Scotland Exeperience is or should be ? Indeed did your ideas change after your trip ?
Niall
-
Another top notch course in the Dornoch area would be help the smaller venues imo. I am not convinced Dornoch will benefit though as it doesn't need more visitors!
Jon
I am not sure what authentic Scottish feel is, but I think you will not find it a new high end course.
Ciao
Sean, when you say that you are "not convinced Dornoch will benefit", are you referring to the town or the golf club?
True, RDGC does not need more visitor rounds nor does it need any "help" attracting outside interest. However, as cited previously, following the opening of Castle Stuart, the town of Dornoch saw a net LOSS in visitor room/hotel nights. That trickles down to everyone: restaurants, shops, pubs, etc.
It became clear that golf tourism was treating Dornoch in a very transient manner that benefited RDGC, but bypassed the town. It is also well-documented that the developers of Coul Links first came to RDGC with a proposal.
Part of the appeal of the developer's proposal behind Coul is that it could add the need for 100 more hotel beds in the area. Is that good or bad? Well, it depends on your perspective. If the town of Dornoch became a golf tourism "hub" in the Highlands, instead of a "spoke" of Inverness, that could lead to a net benefit for Brora, Golspie and the town.
-
Another top notch course in the Dornoch area would be help the smaller venues imo. I am not convinced Dornoch will benefit though as it doesn't need more visitors!
Jon
I am not sure what authentic Scottish feel is, but I think you will not find it a new high end course.
Ciao
Sean, when you say that you are "not convinced Dornoch will benefit", are you referring to the town or the golf club?
True, RDGC does not need more visitor rounds nor does it need any "help" attracting outside interest. However, as cited previously, following the opening of Castle Stuart, the town of Dornoch saw a net LOSS in visitor room/hotel nights. That trickles down to everyone: restaurants, shops, pubs, etc.
It became clear that golf tourism was treating Dornoch in a very transient manner that benefited RDGC, but bypassed the town. It is also well-documented that the developers of Coul Links first came to RDGC with a proposal.
Part of the appeal of the developer's proposal behind Coul is that it could add the need for 100 more hotel beds in the area. Is that good or bad? Well, it depends on your perspective. If the town of Dornoch became a golf tourism "hub" in the Highlands, instead of a "spoke" of Inverness, that could lead to a net benefit for Brora, Golspie and the town.
I was referencing the club.
Honestly, I don't go to the Dornoch area enough to really be invested in whether or not the town could be boosted by a major new golf development. That said, more rooms in a "resort" like place doesn't sound like it would bode well for Dornoch attracting people to spend money in the town when they visit the club.
Ciao
-
Ian
Re: your post # 224, and in particular your comment on the nature of golf tourism becoming more transient, do you think a high end, high cost development will really change that trend ? Do you think it will increase bookings any at the Eagle Hotel ?
It seems to me that the greater the cost of the golf, the more likely it is that those paying that kind of money are the type who are doing the grand tour of must see venues, and those types aren’t going to be spending time in Dornoch, and probably not the Eagle Hotel.
The days of families going up and spending a week playing golf have long gone I suspect, unless of course they are members. The move from those that are inclined to those that can afford it, is caused not through a lack of high cost golf but because of it. That’s just my perspective.
Niall
-
There is already a high end, high cost development in the Dornoch area.
It's called Carnegie/Skibo - here's Ran's profile from 2007 - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/
Atb
-
There is already a high end, high cost development in the Dornoch area.
It's called Carnegie/Skibo - here's Ran's profile from 2007 - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/)
Atb
That is a very high end few members and visitors allowed model. It doesn't mean this nor that in the big scheme of things.
Ciao
-
There is already a high end, high cost development in the Dornoch area.
It's called Carnegie/Skibo - here's Ran's profile from 2007 - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/)
Atb
Exactly what Sean said.
But will add: $500+ to play, hard to get access, course done by Donald Steele. It's one of those "one and done", "check that box" courses for belt notchers.
-
I would take issue with the notion that "high-end" golf is not a legitimate part of the fabric/history of golf in Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that the development of luxurious resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry (and at the time Cruden Bay) introduced the notion of a traveling to a "golf resort" to the world.
Obviously the vast majority of golf in Scotland was developed to serve the local communities. But the many "golf hotels" adjacent to the first tees of many courses suggest that there were numerous golf "resorts" back in the day.
-
Lets say you are contemplating three 1-week golf trips to Scotland over your lifetime and have the means to play top courses. As things stand today, you will not spend a full week in the Highlands if you want to maximize the Scotland experience. With a succesfull Coul Links, I think you might start thinking of dedicating a full week to the North or North and Northeast.
Define "the Scotland Experience". Note - this isn't some sort of snidey question but genuinely interested what you think the Scotland Exeperience is or should be ? Indeed did your ideas change after your trip ?
Niall
Niall,
My reference to the Scotland Experience is part geographical, part course diversity. I think you should get to know diverse towns and regions, and play in diverse types of courses. I had no interest in inland courses, but I was interested in some of the classic greats, some modern courses and some Brora type courses.
If I were to recommend Scotland itineraries today, based on no more than three, 1-week trips to Scotland in a lifetime, I would not recommend one of those weeks is spent entirely in the Highlands. There is just too much else to see in Scotland. If Coul Links turned out to be a top 10 Scotland course, I might consider staying and recommending a full week based in Dornoch (in a small B&B not a resort) or even a 5 day stay adding 2 courses north east.
Did my trip change my ideas? Well it did in some ways. Scotland is so much better than I imagined! The trip reinforced the idea of how much fun we could have on a course rated a touch below the 9s and 10s, as well as on a Brora type course. It reinforced the idea of diversity. The 3 guys that came with me allowed me to plan 100% of the course selection and the only comments I received ahead of time were about leaving out a Carnoustie and including a Gullane #1 or a Brora. I believe today all 4 of us are extremely happy with the balance and we are planning a second trip with the same type of course diversity.
While some of the market is always going to try to play the 8 most expensive or famous courses across the whole country and maybe repeat that 5 years later, I think sticking to 1 or 2 regions per trip, covering all regions after 3 trips and playing across greater diversity of courses gives you the best Scotland Golf Experience.
M
-
I would take issue with the notion that "high-end" golf is not a legitimate part of the fabric/history of golf in Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that the development of luxurious resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry (and at the time Cruden Bay) introduced the notion of a traveling to a "golf resort" to the world.
Obviously the vast majority of golf in Scotland was developed to serve the local communities. But the many "golf hotels" adjacent to the first tees of many courses suggest that there were numerous golf "resorts" back in the day.
David,
that is not what I am saying. You can offer a high end experience without it being a corporate one. Maybe a little less of the fake tartan everywhere and a starter giving the 2 minute concept speech whilst handing over the little bag of logo stuff. I am not saying there is no place for this and I do like it occasionally but it seems all the new 'resort' courses and some of the classics are doing it. I hope Coul Links comes up with something original and authentic.
Jon
-
Jon -
Understood and agreed! But I see nothing wrong with a starter handing out complimentary course guides and offering a few welcoming words. ;)
DT
-
I would take issue with the notion that "high-end" golf is not a legitimate part of the fabric/history of golf in Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that the development of luxurious resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry (and at the time Cruden Bay) introduced the notion of a traveling to a "golf resort" to the world.
Obviously the vast majority of golf in Scotland was developed to serve the local communities. But the many "golf hotels" adjacent to the first tees of many courses suggest that there were numerous golf "resorts" back in the day.
David,
that is not what I am saying. You can offer a high end experience without it being a corporate one. Maybe a little less of the fake tartan everywhere and a starter giving the 2 minute concept speech whilst handing over the little bag of logo stuff. I am not saying there is no place for this and I do like it occasionally but it seems all the new 'resort' courses and some of the classics are doing it. I hope Coul Links comes up with something original and authentic.
Jon
The good thing about Coul, Jon, is that you can check four other places to see what has been done by Mike Keiser and Coore/Crenshaw:
1. Bandon Dunes
2. Barnbougle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQ4a7_MmlI
3. Cabot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THVlPhl_G-I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THVlPhl_G-I)
4. Sand Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZnxNzXs2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZnxNzXs2s)
Remember, there will no housing or lodging at Coul.
A few things:
a. Look at where the courses are ranked globally
b. Look at the impact the courses have had on the local economies: [size=78%]http://www.golfchannel.com/media/keisers-golf-course-saves-nova-scotia-town/ (http://www.golfchannel.com/media/keisers-golf-course-saves-nova-scotia-town/)[/size]
-
No talk of the golf course here.
A question:
On a sliding scale, do you think we will get a course that is closer identified as a traditional old school links.... or do you think it will tip closer to a Coore and Crenshaw style built over beautiful authentic links land?
Both of which would be excellent. But I know which I'd prefer to see - a course routed by modern masters with a great deal of restraint in the visual fireworks department.
-
No talk of the golf course here.
A question:
On a sliding scale, do you think we will get a course that is closer identified as a traditional old school links.... or do you think it will tip closer to a Coore and Crenshaw style built over beautiful authentic links land?
Both of which would be excellent. But I know which I'd prefer to see - a course routed by modern masters with a great deal of restraint in the visual fireworks department.
I think you will see C/C's masterpiece with substantial influence from RDGC as well as the classic links courses NE of Dublin.
-
No talk of the golf course here.
A question:
On a sliding scale, do you think we will get a course that is closer identified as a traditional old school links.... or do you think it will tip closer to a Coore and Crenshaw style built over beautiful authentic links land?
Both of which would be excellent. But I know which I'd prefer to see - a course routed by modern masters with a great deal of restraint in the visual fireworks department.
I think you will see C/C's masterpiece with substantial influence from RDGC as well as the classic links courses NE of Dublin.
So you don't believe it will be instantly recognisable as a C&C course then? Or at least as a modern links course?
Out of interest, which courses north east of Dublin and why them?
-
Ally,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you suggesting some type of tribute course? C&C are known for their restraint. While they perhaps didn't invent the name 'minimalism', when you look it up in the dictionary, Bill Coore's picture comes up.
-
Ally,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you suggesting some type of tribute course? C&C are known for their restraint. While they perhaps didn't invent the name 'minimalism', when you look it up in the dictionary, Bill Coore's picture comes up.
Jud,
that depends on your definition of minimalism. I think C&C understand the style of the Scottish links but will the have the nerve to produce such a course given the fact it would get less fawning from the golf press where as if they produce what is for them their box standard look I would imagine it will be much better received in the short term.
Jon
-
Ally,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you suggesting some type of tribute course? C&C are known for their restraint. While they perhaps didn't invent the name 'minimalism', when you look it up in the dictionary, Bill Coore's picture comes up.
Jud,
that depends on your definition of minimalism. I think C&C understand the style of the Scottish links but will the have the nerve to produce such a course given the fact it would get less fawning from the golf press where as if they produce what is for them their box standard look I would imagine it will be much better received in the short term.
Jon
Jud; This is what I mean
I have written a fair bit about this. Subtlety vs eye candy. Just because C&C are minimalists, it doesn't mean that aesthetic style isn't high (top?) on their list.
The perverse thing is that for me, the most interesting part of this course will firstly be what kind of bunkering they build. And secondly how they establish the fairways. If they want the course to feel 100 years old then they might want to consider just mowing the fairways out and then bringing them on. Is that really going to happen with all the bucks behind it? Perhaps environmental restrictions might necessitate this a la Mach Dunes - that could be an unexpected benefit.
Total speculation - they'll build a fantastic course, one of the very best. But one that can be identified quite readily as being built in the modern era.
-
.......Perhaps environmental restrictions might necessitate this a la Mach Dunes - that could be an unexpected benefit.
Nice wording.
Be nice if the environmental cloud could, in some circumstances, have a silver lining for golf after all.
Atb
-
Ally,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you suggesting some type of tribute course? C&C are known for their restraint. While they perhaps didn't invent the name 'minimalism', when you look it up in the dictionary, Bill Coore's picture comes up.
Jud,
that depends on your definition of minimalism. I think C&C understand the style of the Scottish links but will the have the nerve to produce such a course given the fact it would get less fawning from the golf press where as if they produce what is for them their box standard look I would imagine it will be much better received in the short term.
Jon
Jud; This is what I mean
I have written a fair bit about this. Subtlety vs eye candy. Just because C&C are minimalists, it doesn't mean that aesthetic style isn't high (top?) on their list.
The perverse thing is that for me, the most interesting part of this course will firstly be what kind of bunkering they build. And secondly how they establish the fairways. If they want the course to feel 100 years old then they might want to consider just mowing the fairways out and then bringing them on. Is that really going to happen with all the bucks behind it? Perhaps environmental restrictions might necessitate this a la Mach Dunes - that could be an unexpected benefit.
Total speculation - they'll build a fantastic course, one of the very best. But one that can be identified quite readily as being built in the modern era.
Ally
Do you think these obviously modern designs will become less so in 50 years? Of course, in some cases the moderns are built on land which immediately screams modern, but putting that aside...
Ciao
-
Sean,
I think what Ally is getting at is that modern courses have very smooth fairway which are unnatural. Natural land has lots of random micro-movement in it and it is something that no GCA in the last 50 years has really got right. The best example of this is if you stand on the 10th tee at Kilspindie and compare the wonderful natural contours to what has been built over the wall.
Jon
-
There is already a high end, high cost development in the Dornoch area.
It's called Carnegie/Skibo - here's Ran's profile from 2007 - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/skibo-golf-course/)
Atb
But isn't that the point, that at £145 a round RDGC has become a one and done for the great majority of golfers ? £145 might not be a high cost for someone who has flown over the Atlantic and is used to paying even more than that back home, but for the ordinary club golfer that kind of level of greenfee is way over the top. That's not a pop at RDGC, there are many that are worse (Western Gailes at £165 ! and the Queens course at £195 !!).
Niall
Exactly what Sean said.
But will add: $500+ to play, hard to get access, course done by Donald Steele. It's one of those "one and done", "check that box" courses for belt notchers.
-
I would take issue with the notion that "high-end" golf is not a legitimate part of the fabric/history of golf in Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that the development of luxurious resorts like Gleneagles and Turnberry (and at the time Cruden Bay) introduced the notion of a traveling to a "golf resort" to the world.
Obviously the vast majority of golf in Scotland was developed to serve the local communities. But the many "golf hotels" adjacent to the first tees of many courses suggest that there were numerous golf "resorts" back in the day.
David
Absolutely correct about Cruden Bay which came before Turnberry which came before Gleneagles. All developed by the railway companies, however I think the discussion, for me anyway, is more about the level of greenfees. Back then locals and visitors alike could get on a for a reasonable cost. That's not really the case any more, and I think it is that which is alien to the Scottish golf scene.
Niall
-
Jon -
Understood and agreed! But I see nothing wrong with a starter handing out complimentary course guides and offering a few welcoming words. ;)
DT
Nonsense David, there should be no such thing as a starter, just some bloke in the pro shop saying "the first is over that way and don't let me catch having practice swings on the tee !". Scottish hospitality at its best. :)
Niall
-
Ally
Setting aside the aesthetics such as bunkering style I strongly suspect that the course will, if it ever gets built, be very much modern in scale ie bigger, with free form fairways rather than the rectangular strip you get on traditional links. I expect it to be much in the CS mould with much wider fairways than trad links and with less hazards. It will be very nice !
What reason do I have to say that ? None really, just my perception of modern American built resort courses. I've never played a C&C course so perhaps/probably being totally unfair in that assumption. BTW, how much Crenshaw will be in this course ?
Niall
-
I think you will see C/C's masterpiece with substantial influence from RDGC as well as the classic links courses NE of Dublin.
Ian
You already have the RDGC influence in the design of both Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart, do you not ?
Niall
-
The trip reinforced the idea of how much fun we could have on a course rated a touch below the 9s and 10s, as well as on a Brora type course. It reinforced the idea of diversity. ...................................... I believe today all 4 of us are extremely happy with the balance and we are planning a second trip with the same type of course diversity.
M
MC
Many thanks for that, I enjoyed reading it. Picking up on some of your comments about diversity and fun to be had on lower ranked courses it reminds me of a discussion about Scotlands second tier courses being much poorer than Englands, and in a sense that is right. However in a perverse kind of way I think that also the joy of a lot of the lower ranked courses in Scotland in that they wouldn't be classified as great or even very good but at the same time they could have some great golf on them as well as some really unusual and interesting golf.
In short because of the age of a lot of those courses, the fact that many of the lower ranked/unranked courses haven't significantly altered over time due to constraints such as lack of expansion space/money/interest in making changes etc they just don't conform to standard modern thinking. I should say I'm thinking of a lot of inland courses when I say that. Perhaps when you plan your fourth trip over here you might brave the dark heartlands of Scotland ;D
Niall
-
I think what Ally is getting at is that modern courses have very smooth fairway which are unnatural. Natural land has lots of random micro-movement in it and it is something that no GCA in the last 50 years has really got right.
When chatting with a local member at Ballyliffin I was told "The Old course was created by one man with a mower. The Glashedy course was built using big machines". And you can really see the difference.
Atb
-
Sand Hills is regarded as C&C's best work and on sandy soil. Are the fairways there flat? If so, did they flatten them? If they didn't flatten fairways on an American course, can anyone give a reason why they would come to Scotland and do so?
-
Maybe instead we can get the Old Tom actor from the commercials, give him 18 sticks and a fifth of scotch, then let the sheep loose...
-
It's not about flattening fairways - they won't do that. Although they might strip the entire area and put a little bit of their own expert shape in to them, along with wide free-form fairways, a significant number of large blow-out style bunkers and an emphasis on maximising visual drama.
In this respect, it may resemble Castle Stuart more than Royal Dornoch.
This is not the wrong option. I'm not saying that. But I'll be interested - like Jon - on how much they tone it down.
-
Although the website isn't apparently affiliated to the project, the website highlighted by David in his opening is worth looking at or revisiting for the photos of the area in the gallery section - https://www.coullinksgolf.com/ (https://www.coullinksgolf.com/)
In addition, if you look at Streetcam you can see what the nearby roads mentioned above are presently actually like and also get an inkling of the what the location and landscape involved are like -https://www.instantstreetview.com/@57.918579,-4.010837,14z,0t (https://www.instantstreetview.com/@57.918579,-4.010837,14z,0t)
Irrespective of golf, a delightful part of the world for sure.
Atb
-
Some interesting perspectives from those at Skibo, RDGC, Tain, Brora and Golspie:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Clubs-backing-drive-for-new-championship-course-12052016.htm
Latest article says that planning applications will be submitted shortly:
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/planning-application-for-coul-links-set-to-be-submitted-in-coming-weeks
Having walked the property extensively, I believe that total acreage is ~600 yet total proposed turf coverage will be ~50.
Preliminary routing can be seen here: http://www.coullinks.com/traffic.html
Click on map to see it in full.
-
Interesting, but that first article is now 15 months old and contains a bit of hyperbole, such as "There is nowhere else in the UK that has as many extraordinary links golf courses as closely situated as East Sutherland." - no offence to the Northern courses, but for lots of Links courses in close proximity you have East Lothian and Fife. How many excellent links courses are within five miles of Gullane hill?
-
Interesting, but that first article is now 15 months old and contains a bit of hyperbole, such as "There is nowhere else in the UK that has as many extraordinary links golf courses as closely situated as East Sutherland." - no offence to the Northern courses, but for lots of Links courses in close proximity you have East Lothian Ayrshire and Fife. How many excellent links courses are within five miles of Gullane hill?
Once again Wayne, I've had to fix your typo. ;)
Niall
-
Interesting, but that first article is now 15 months old and contains a bit of hyperbole, such as "There is nowhere else in the UK that has as many extraordinary links golf courses as closely situated as East Sutherland." - no offence to the Northern courses, but for lots of Links courses in close proximity you have East Lothian and Fife. How many excellent links courses are within five miles of Gullane hill?
You miss the point of the article, Wayne, and the date is unimportant.
The point is to show that local courses are supportive of Coul Links and welcome it's prospects.
They underscore how another world-class venue may serve to benefit their courses as well.
(This had been discussed and debated recently here.)
-
Interesting initial routing as it appears to have a loop of 8 and a loop of 10.
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
There is ample acreage for another course, but developers have assured one and all that there will be one course only with NO chance for homes or hotels.
The only thing to be built west of the access road will be the practice area.
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
There is ample acreage for another course, but developers have assured one and all that there will be one course only with NO chance for homes or hotels.
The only thing to be built west of the access road will be the practice area.
Developers assurances mean nothing. Things change...councils change, officers change, regulations change, owners change....Once a door is open there is no telling when it will be shut. I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of this project...just sayin'.
Ciao
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
There is ample acreage for another course, but developers have assured one and all that there will be one course only with NO chance for homes or hotels.
The only thing to be built west of the access road will be the practice area.
Developers assurances mean nothing. Things change...councils change, officers change, regulations change, owners change....Once a door is open there is no telling when it will be shut. I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of this project...just sayin'.
Ciao
Sadly I go along with this. Assurances often/usually/normally/always don't mean much, especially in the longer term and when £, ego's etc are involved.
Atb
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
There is ample acreage for another course, but developers have assured one and all that there will be one course only with NO chance for homes or hotels.
The only thing to be built west of the access road will be the practice area.
Developers assurances mean nothing. Things change...councils change, officers change, regulations change, owners change....Once a door is open there is no telling when it will be shut. I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of this project...just sayin'.
Ciao
While I do appreciate the ample dose of cynicism, it is sorely misplaced here and unfounded. While that could be said of many developers, it is hardly the case here. Sean, you know Keiser's other properties, right? He is not a "carpet bagger".
If the town does not want the course, he will not build it and will walk away to focus on other projects.
Implying doubt in their intentions is natural, I agree, but with so many projects to reference, the track record is well established.
-
I just checked out the routing. I'm guessing the southern loop is the back nine with a par-3 10th?
Looks like a neat project. I like that its only going to be 18 holes on a 600 acre site. That leaves quite a bit for preservation, as compared to jamming 2 (or 3?) courses into the same amount of land.
If it turns out to be a great design, you would have to imagine Dornoch would see a big influx of additional visitors.
-
Sean/Dai,
Plans change and plans evolve, much the same as golf courses. While you get developers who prove themselves untrustworthy and speak with forked tongue (step forward Mr Trump) the majority act in a straight forward and above board fashion. They submit a planning application to the relevant authority which decides the application in terms of a legal framework that involves public consultation.
In approving an application they can, and more often than not, do impose conditions on the approval. It is up to the authority to ensure that those conditions are complied with. Should the developer subsequently wish to change his plans or add to them then they have to go through the same process. A fairly democratic process I think.
Where it all goes wrong is where you momentarily get a couple of very large egos (Trump and Salmond) aligning and then the system gets over ridden like in some third world country. I don’t know about Mike Keiser or Todd Warnock to compare them to Trump but I very much doubt any Scottish Ministers will act as Salmond did given the outcome at Balmedie.
That’s just my personal view.
Niall
-
Ian and Niall,
All that I have heard and read about the intended developers, their track record, etc etc, indicates integrity and an approach that gives confidence.
What happens down the line though, perhaps many, many years down the line is where the cynicism/caution is. Circumstances, ownership, £, personalities can/will change over time. Contracts, agreements etc need to be tightly written or else potentially one day.........
Atb
-
Old farm and buildings as the Clubhouse etc later replaced by new-build.
Access road coming from the Dornoch side and across farmland etc which makes me wonder about ownership and space for another course.
Atb
There is ample acreage for another course, but developers have assured one and all that there will be one course only with NO chance for homes or hotels.
The only thing to be built west of the access road will be the practice area.
Developers assurances mean nothing. Things change...councils change, officers change, regulations change, owners change....Once a door is open there is no telling when it will be shut. I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of this project...just sayin'.
Ciao
While I do appreciate the ample dose of cynicism, it is sorely misplaced here and unfounded. While that could be said of many developers, it is hardly the case here. Sean, you know Keiser's other properties, right? He is not a "carpet bagger".
If the town does not want the course, he will not build it and will walk away to focus on other projects.
Implying doubt in their intentions is natural, I agree, but with so many projects to reference, the track record is well established.
Ian
Its not about Keiser's integrity. Its about there being no such thing as ever or never where business is concerned.
Ciao
-
Keiser's "project" will leave a very light "footprint". Trust me.
-
I'm recently back from 2 weeks in Dornoch, and I can assure readers of this thread that Coull Links is well below the radar of most locals and long-term visiting golfers such as me.
Having walked the land, and being familiar with a number of Coore & Crenshaw courses I have no doubt that a great course can be built there, but do have doubts that it will be financially feasible, unless significant infrastructure is built in and between Dornoch and Embo (where CL will be situated). Dornoch is overwhelmed by visitors in the high season, and most of these visitors stay elsewhere because accommodation and watering holes are very limited (particularly at the high end, where CL visitors will want to frequent). Embo is a very small village with one local shop and a large caravan park (Grannie's Heilan Hame). I very much doubt that high-end golfing tourists will want to stay there--unless a Bandon-like reservation is built near CL. But, of course, posts above assure us that these facilities will not be built.
Even if they could be built, would destination visitors spread much lucre over the likes of Tain, Brora and Golspie? I doubt it, for many reasons (about which I will happily write, if anyone cares to listen).
-
PS--a bit about Embo....
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/its-aloha-from-embo-sutherland-village-twins-with-hawaii/
-
PS--a bit about Embo....
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/its-aloha-from-embo-sutherland-village-twins-with-hawaii/ (https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/its-aloha-from-embo-sutherland-village-twins-with-hawaii/)
-
Keiser's "project" will leave a very light "footprint". Trust me.
Terry
No offence, when someone says trust me that's when I start worrying ;D
Also, a very light footprint in American terms won't be the same as in the UK. In golf development terms, projects over here tend to be much more modest than they are in the US, both in terms of the amount of earth shifted and the supporting "infrastructure" such as clubhouses etc.
Rich - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the knock on effect of this proposed development.
Niall
-
Rich - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the knock on effect of this proposed development.
Niall
Niall--I think I expressed my thoughts well enough above. I've been to Bandon and been to Mullen, and there has been little sustainable knock on "development" I can see at either place. Same with Castle Stuart. Same with Ballyliffin. Same with etc. etc. etc.
Dornoch has had some development recently, due primarily to it's climb in the rankings but also from the effect of Skibo and it's gazillionaire clientele, and the fact that the place used to "be a contender" 100 years ago. It also still has charm--which most of the other seaside towns in Sutherland do not have, any more than Mullen and Bandon and Inverness.
Cultural terraforming just doesn't work in the golf business these days.
Rich
-
At a slight tangent perhaps, but I'd be interested to hear what effect cruise ship golf is having on golf in the area. That is cruise ships berthing at Invergorden and passengers disembarking to play golf at the surrounding area clubs.
atb
-
Thomas D. -
The emergence/development of Invergordon as a cruise ship port over the last 5-10 years has been a real boost to tourism (golf and otherwise) in the Highlands. I remember reading about the impressive number of ships that docked there in 2016, but I can't remember exactly what that number was. The promotion of the North Coast 500 route around the Highlands is likewise having a positive impact on tourism.
As far as golf, the ongoing issue (in my mind at least) is getting visitors to think beyond the "bucket list" courses and turning them on to courses like Brora, Golspie, Tain, Muir of Ord, Fortrose, etc.
DT
P.S. Just found this article on the subject. Looks like 63 cruise ships with 96,500 passengers arrived at Invergordon last year:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/xxx-18082016.htm
-
Thanks David.
I guess that in a few years the buses from the cruise ship will be heading for Coul/Embo as well!
Nice if they also stopped at the other splendid courses you mention although I can already envisage the "Play both Royal Dornoch and Coul Links in one day" advertising on the cruise company websites.
atb
-
Other than Goodale, how many people here have been on the ground at Coul Links?
I ask because my wife and I were doing our laundry at Grannie's Hielan Hame yesterday and I took a bike ride around Embo that included a look at Coul Links from the Embo side. Later we rode from David's flat out to Embo and I took her over to have a look as well.
I know Rich said he has no doubt a great course could be built there, but looking at the routing map for the holes in the area I cannot figure out how they'll build a course that's playable while moving the small amount of sand they say they will.
I've played a fair number of the better links courses, including Royal Dornoch; Old, New, Jubilee and Eden at St. Andrews; North Berwick,; Gullane 2 and 3; Moray Old; Nairn and Nairn Dunbar; well, you get the idea.
Here's the thing none of them look remotely like Coul Links. The closest might be a couple of the most crazily undulating holes at Fraserburgh and Tain.
I don't suppose a knucklehead like me has much of a position to question Coor and Crenshaw, but just because some folks want to do something and they say they will do it without ruining what's already there doesn't mean they're right.
Bicycle riding around some of the places I've been in Scotland has taken me past several pieces of linksland that look like golf courses before being touched by the hand of man. I remember thinking that about the sandhills of Nebraska as I drove through them a decade or more before C&C got out there to "discover" the holes that ultimately became Sandhills GC.
At Coul, I just don't see it... without the application of bulldozers.
Edit -- while out on the links we ran into a guy who's been an RDC member for 30+ years and lived in Embo for 20. He, along with a bunch of other folks, was walking a dog in the links. He said some Embo residents thought the project was a good idea, but there were plenty who weren't wild about it.
K
-
Thanks David.
I guess that in a few years the buses from the cruise ship will be heading for Coul/Embo as well!
Nice if they also stopped at the other splendid courses you mention although I can already envisage the "Play both Royal Dornoch and Coul Links in one day" advertising on the cruise company websites.
atb
When I was in Nairn last week I got introduced to the CEO of Nairn GC by a member while watching the British Boys Amateur. After he walked away she told me he was "in charge" of a deal between Nairn GC, Castle Stuart and Royal Dornoch. That would be http://www.highlandgolflinks.com/package/royal-dornoch-nairn-castle-stuart-golf-package/.
Just add Coul Links and you've got your package.
-
@ Ken Moun -
I have walked Coul extensively.
It is an incredible site.
I dont want to comment on your comments as I get you are expressing an opinion.
Thankfully, those with vision do "get it".
Bandon, Cabot, Barnbougle, Sand Valley, Sand Hills.....that, to me, is a whole helluva lot of "getting it".
Starting to get dark here in Chicago at 12:37 PM CT
-
@ Ken Moun -
I have walked Coul extensively.
It is an incredible site.
I dont want to comment on your comments as I get you are expressing an opinion.
Thankfully, those with vision do "get it".
Bandon, Cabot, Barnbougle, Sand Valley, Sand Hills.....that, to me, is a whole helluva lot of "getting it".
Starting to get dark here in Chicago at 12:37 PM CT
I agree that it's an incredible site. My point was that I couldn't see how it ends up being a playable golf course with liberal application of bulldozer.
I have to assume that the parts of it I couldn't see have some natural corridors for fairways...
K
-
Ken -
Caveat: I am NOT an expert by ANY means.
But...;-)...I would say that "natural corridors for fairways" are usually created by Mother Nature, not bulldozers....;-)
The subtle mounds and irregularities of links golf cannot be produced by man.
Coul Links has plenty of natural interest. Let's see what happens in the coming weeks....
-
Good points, Ken and Ian
The Dornoch/Castle Stuart/Nairn winter offer has been on the go for several years. Very good value for money, but less so for members at Dornoch. Whether or not Coull Links makes the threesome into a foursome, I doubt that there will be any deals in the high season. as per now. CL will be a great golf course, but a great investment/great economic engine? Good Luck!
Rich
-
I recall Trump Aberdeen driving significant additional business for Cruden Bay and Royal Aberdeen...at least in the immediate aftermath of the Trump opening. Is business still booming for these clubs on the back of Trump Aberdeen? I suspect the same could happen for Coul Links. People forget about the draw of a name.
Ciao
-
Ken -
Caveat: I am NOT an expert by ANY means.
But...;-)...I would say that "natural corridors for fairways" are usually created by Mother Nature, not bulldozers....;-)
The subtle mounds and irregularities of links golf cannot be produced by man.
Coul Links has plenty of natural interest. Let's see what happens in the coming weeks....
Ian
If you don’t mind me saying, that is quite a romantic view that doesn’t really reflect the history of how a lot of classic links have evolved. Back in the day they might have only being using manual labour and horse drawn scoops but they still managed to shift a fair bit of soil/sand/earth. Even if they didn’t leave the land completely flat they would have for instance reduced the height of moguls and partly filled in the gaps between to make the course more walkable/playable.
Arguably it was easier to end up with a more natural looking result back then with the limited machinery compared to today but even then if you look at Martin Eberts work in creating a new fairway in the first half of the 15th at Royal Troon, I think you would find it very hard to distinguish old from new.
Getting back to Ken’s point, and indeed the question that Ally posed, how much soil are they going to shift and what will it look like afterwards. The work may extend over 50 acres but that doesn’t tell you the volume.
Niall
-
Back in yee olde days men and horses and the like cost money just like men and machines do now.
I can't imagine that back in yee olde days the folk paying the bills, back then groups of members not developers, were not as tight with the cash as they are nowadays.
Hence whenever the terrain permitted mow it out and move as little sand/soil as possible, which I imagine is why some yee olde courses have a good deal of eccentricity and uniqueness about them.
atb
-
I recall Trump Aberdeen driving significant additional business for Cruden Bay and Royal Aberdeen...at least in the immediate aftermath of the Trump opening. Is business still booming for these clubs on the back of Trump Aberdeen? I suspect the same could happen for Coul Links. People forget about the draw of a name.
Ciao
I can see the probability of delivering someone to Aberdeenshire for Trump's course and getting them to play the Royal Aberdeen, which is world famous, and Cruden Bay which has been on a lot of Americans check list ever since Dan King wrote about it on the Web 25 years ago. (His words were the sole reason it was in my itinerary for my first trip in 2006.)
I wonder (doubt?) if Tain, Golspie and Brora will get added to the checklist. Trump Aberdeen and Cruden bay certainly haven't done squat for Fraserburgh.
And I doubt if Nairn GC's stream of coaches full of golfers has done much for the course on the other side of town.
-
Tie-ins between clubs in events are becoming more common - http://www.golfempire.co.uk/features/aberdeen-coast-links-championship.htm
atb
-
@ Ken Moum -
I have walked Coul extensively.
It is an incredible site.
I dont want to comment on your comments as I get you are expressing an opinion.
Thankfully, those with vision do "get it".
Bandon, Cabot, Barnbougle, Sand Valley, Sand Hills.....that, to me, is a whole helluva lot of "getting it".
Okay, I am actually surprised my naive comments haven't actually drawn any more ire than they have. I suppose it's because almost no one has actually seen the place from the ground and a most of those who have drove by on the closest road, which doesn't offer much of a view, especially since it's singletrack where you best be paying attention.
Whatever, we went out there on bicycle again today from Dornoch, and this time we pressed on down the abandoned railway line that runs from just north of Dornoch well past Embo. We didn't quite make it to Loch Fleet, but I climbed one of the bigger dunes on the west side to get a much better view.
I have to admit that the northern portion of the property most definitely looks like a site that any golf course architect would love to get his hands on.
But to to refer to my earlier comments, does it look like a golf course?
Ummm, no. It looks like a place where you could build a HELL of a golf course. Build, not "find."
The great links courses I've seen and played are actually mostly flat... Their undulations often are hard to see even from a couple of hundred yards away. Places like TOC only show their real contours for photographers in the raking like of sunrise or sunset.
Coul doesn't appear to be like that. If they've found enough flattish ground for fairways good on 'em.
FWIW, I just went back and re-read the first 3 or 4 pages of posts in this thread, and now I can't decide if I think building a course here is a good idea or not.
-
@ Ken Moum -
I have walked Coul extensively.
It is an incredible site.
I dont want to comment on your comments as I get you are expressing an opinion.
Thankfully, those with vision do "get it".
Bandon, Cabot, Barnbougle, Sand Valley, Sand Hills.....that, to me, is a whole helluva lot of "getting it".
Okay, I am actually surprised my naive comments haven't actually drawn any more ire than they have. I suppose it's because almost no one has actually seen the place from the ground and a most of those who have drove by on the closest road, which doesn't offer much of a view, especially since it's singletrack where you best be paying attention.
Whatever, we went out there on bicycle again today from Dornoch, and this time we pressed on down the abandoned railway line that runs from just north of Dornoch well past Embo. We didn't quite make it to Loch Fleet, but I climbed one of the bigger dunes on the west side to get a much better view.
I have to admit that the northern portion of the property most definitely looks like a site that any golf course architect would love to get his hands on.
But to to refer to my earlier comments, does it look like a golf course?
Ummm, no. It looks like a place where you could build a HELL of a golf course. Build, not "find."
The great links courses I've seen and played are actually mostly flat... Their undulations often are hard to see even from a couple of hundred yards away. Places like TOC only show their real contours for photographers in the raking like of sunrise or sunset.
Coul doesn't appear to be like that. If they've found enough flattish ground for fairways good on 'em.
FWIW, I just went back and re-read the first 3 or 4 pages of posts in this thread, and now I can't decide if I think building a course here is a good idea or not.
I know someone that thinks this is a really great site for a golf course. I really hope it happens.
-
@ Ken Moum -
I have walked Coul extensively.
It is an incredible site.
I dont want to comment on your comments as I get you are expressing an opinion.
Thankfully, those with vision do "get it".
Bandon, Cabot, Barnbougle, Sand Valley, Sand Hills.....that, to me, is a whole helluva lot of "getting it".
Okay, I am actually surprised my naive comments haven't actually drawn any more ire than they have. I suppose it's because almost no one has actually seen the place from the ground and a most of those who have drove by on the closest road, which doesn't offer much of a view, especially since it's singletrack where you best be paying attention.
Whatever, we went out there on bicycle again today from Dornoch, and this time we pressed on down the abandoned railway line that runs from just north of Dornoch well past Embo. We didn't quite make it to Loch Fleet, but I climbed one of the bigger dunes on the west side to get a much better view.
I have to admit that the northern portion of the property most definitely looks like a site that any golf course architect would love to get his hands on.
But to to refer to my earlier comments, does it look like a golf course?
Ummm, no. It looks like a place where you could build a HELL of a golf course. Build, not "find."
The great links courses I've seen and played are actually mostly flat... Their undulations often are hard to see even from a couple of hundred yards away. Places like TOC only show their real contours for photographers in the raking like of sunrise or sunset.
Coul doesn't appear to be like that. If they've found enough flattish ground for fairways good on 'em.
FWIW, I just went back and re-read the first 3 or 4 pages of posts in this thread, and now I can't decide if I think building a course here is a good idea or not.
I walked parts of the property in September last year, spending most time in the area closest to the ocean where the back 9 is proposed. Parts reminded me of Fraserburgh (holes 10-17) and it certainly has potential to produce great golf. I have no doubt that C&C will produce a course of very high quality - and frankly, anything less would probably be disappointing (note: assuming the environmental restrictions are not unduly restrictive).
As for how much shaping is needed (or allowed), a look into Mach Dunes could provide some answers. They were allowed to move whatever they wanted within greens area as the authorities had counted this area as being 'lost' anyway. Fairways were a different story as they incorporated many of the existing grasses on site and shaping was mostly not permitted. Parts of this site are in a similar category of environmental protection (SSSI).
I hope they find a way to reach an Approval - it's an exciting project and would further boost that region's golf offerings (not that you need any other reason to already visit!).
(http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w502/scottchampion/Embo1_low_zpshuuuti9i.jpg)
(http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w502/scottchampion/Embo3_low_zps9bez2dzw.jpg)
(http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w502/scottchampion/Embo4_low_zpsqrlcxqgx.jpg)
-
Scott,
I was discussing this project with Ken this morning whilst playing Tain. I am of the opinion that the dunes within 50 yards of the beach will not be useable but the rest is very mowable without much if any work. Outside the greens and tees there is no reason to do any else other than mow the current sward, overseed and put in drainage where needed. Many on here will not agree or understand this point of view but then many on here confuse faux natural look with being minimalist.
It is a great site and it will be a positive for the area but if another great course is needed in that area why not do something about Struie?
Jon
-
....I am of the opinion that the dunes within 50 yards of the beach will not be useable but the rest is very mowable without much if any work. Outside the greens and tees there is no reason to do any else other than mow the current sward, overseed and put in drainage where needed....
Thanks for this Jon. Nice to hear.
Atb
-
Scott,
I was discussing this project with Ken this morning whilst playing Tain. I am of the opinion that the dunes within 50 yards of the beach will not be useable but the rest is very mowable without much if any work. Outside the greens and tees there is no reason to do any else other than mow the current sward, overseed and put in drainage where needed. Many on here will not agree or understand this point of view but then many on here confuse faux natural look with being minimalist.
It is a great site and it will be a positive for the area but if another great course is needed in that area why not do something about Struie?
Jon
Jon,
Funny that you say that about the Struie for that was, in fact, the original intent. The GCA who walked the Struie in the spring of 2015 concluded that you simply could not make the requisite changes to transform the course into a "world class venue". There just isnt enough land there.
Almost as an afterthought he was asked to drive north to Embo and look at Coul Links.
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian,
firstly, it depends what is meant by so called world class. Also, there is a vast area out there in the area where the Struie course is. Thirdly, if you were to confine the area to the present footprint of the Struie then you might struggle to build a 7000+ yard course but does golf really need yet another one of these. Finally, if I were in charge of such a project and the GCA came back to me saying they could not build a great course on the land where the Struie is my conclusion would be either the remit is terribly flawed or the GCA was the wrong person for the job.
I will repeat that I think that Coul Links, if it is built will be a very positive addition to the area but I just hope that Mr. Coore builds something that uses the natural feature of the land. It would be good if one of the planning restrictions was that there could be no alteration of the through the green areas and no use of earth moving machinery in these areas.
Jon
-
Ian,
firstly, it depends what is meant by so called world class. Also, there is a vast area out there in the area where the Struie course is. Thirdly, if you were to confine the area to the present footprint of the Struie then you might struggle to build a 7000+ yard course but does golf really need yet another one of these. Finally, if I were in charge of such a project and the GCA came back to me saying they could not build a great course on the land where the Struie is my conclusion would be either the remit is terribly flawed or the GCA was the wrong person for the job.
I will repeat that I think that Coul Links, if it is built will be a very positive addition to the area but I just hope that Mr. Coore builds something that uses the natural feature of the land. It would be good if one of the planning restrictions was that there could be no alteration of the through the green areas and no use of earth moving machinery in these areas.
Jon
Jon
I'm generally in agreement with you that the upgrading of the Struie should be the primary strategic objective of RDGC, but the powers that be disagree, and have so for the past 15 years that I have posited this. Sigh....
As for Coull Links, I don't think that a "great" course could be built there without the assistance of some heavy equipment. A very quirky one could maybe be created with hand mowers, maybe--Old Ballyliffin 25 years ago comes to mind--but that's not what the posh punters would want to pay and play.
IMHO
Rich
-
Ian,
firstly, it depends what is meant by so called world class. Also, there is a vast area out there in the area where the Struie course is. Thirdly, if you were to confine the area to the present footprint of the Struie then you might struggle to build a 7000+ yard course but does golf really need yet another one of these. Finally, if I were in charge of such a project and the GCA came back to me saying they could not build a great course on the land where the Struie is my conclusion would be either the remit is terribly flawed or the GCA was the wrong person for the job.
I will repeat that I think that Coul Links, if it is built will be a very positive addition to the area but I just hope that Mr. Coore builds something that uses the natural feature of the land. It would be good if one of the planning restrictions was that there could be no alteration of the through the green areas and no use of earth moving machinery in these areas.
Jon
Jon
I'm generally in agreement with you that the upgrading of the Struie should be the primary strategic objective of RDGC, but the powers that be disagree, and have so for the past 15 years that I have posited this. Sigh....
As for Coull Links, I don't think that a "great" course could be built there without the assistance of some heavy equipment. A very quirky one could maybe be created with hand mowers, maybe--Old Ballyliffin 25 years ago comes to mind--but that's not what the posh punters would want to pay and play.
IMHO
Rich
Jon and Rich are getting to the basis of the questions I was asking. Building on links land in GB&I is a true test of minimalism.... I'm not saying that true minimalism is always the best answer, just that there is a world of difference between most of Eddie Hackett's projects versus most of Gil Hanse's projects.
I'd like to see the expertise a Gil Hanse (in this case C&C) using some of the methodologies of an Eddie Hackett. In other words, do the work as if the budget is miniscule.
-
Man and mower at Ballyliffin Old, as mentioned by Rich, and separately Eddie Hackett's approach, as mentioned by Ally, were thoughts that entered my mind as well.
Or alternatively......how about.......
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/rma.jpg)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/WP_20160407_11_51_55_Pro.jpg)
Go on Bill and Ben. It's only sand. I dare you!
atb
-
Rich,
what I suspect we might end up with at Coul Links is the design being imposed onto the landscape rather than the other way round. I disagree with you on a golf course that uses the natural landform as not being able to attract the posh punter as it is image that attracts the punter. Image is something you can create out of thin air through marketing and convince punters they really want it.
I would hope that in this case the developer will be innovative and create something new and not another corporate golf facility.
Ally,
I agree 100%. but does Mr. Coore have the ability or vision to do this or will we end up with another frilly bunker course?
Jon
-
Thank you, gentlemen. The last few posts, especially Rich's are getting to the point of what I was trying to say.
Although I didn't get down into the middle on foot, I did get a decent look at a lot of the area from the disused railway and I stand by what I said initially. It doesn't look like the great links courses I've been on. I said what Rich said, a fairly liberal use of heavy equipment would (could?) produce a great course.
But here's what's funny. I was prepared to come on here this morning and mostly retract my comments... because I played Brora yesterday. I've long said it's my favorite course in Scotland and standing on the first tee I remembered why.
To be honest, Coul does look a little bit like the links at Brora. It hasn't got the large flat-ish areas for fairways that Dornoch, St. Andrews, the Ayrshire coast, East Lothian, etc. have. The second of Scott's photos is what I was talking about.
Even Prestwick isn't one hump or bump after another.
Jon W. HAS walked the links and says he sees a golf course in the mold of Machrihanish Dunes (IIRC) but is that the "world class" course that everyone is talking about? And would that be what the guys in Tour buses coming from Castle Stuart, RDC, Nairn, Royal Troon, Turnberry, Muirfield and TOC be looking for"
I LOVE, LOVE, Brora. But it's got a lot of blind shots, despite what they've done to it to make it a lar 71, it's still a really good par 69. And you know they felt the "had" to do that to attract more tourist money.
Proof of it was the couple that played behind us yesterday who are Canadian members of Troon Golf Club in Arizona. They've played Royal Troon, Prestwick (which she didn't like), Western Gailes and Royal Dornoch. Played Brora on someone's (a caddy maybe) recommendation. Playing Castle Stuart today.
To be fair, though, they like "real" links golf and are headed south to play Crail and Lundin.
K
-
So, if give permission to do so, why should it matter if heavy machinery is used to create what the archie believes to be a better course? It seems to me that if the land shown in pix is to be used, it must be shaped for the intended purpose.
Ciao
-
So, if give permission to do so, why should it matter if heavy machinery is used to create what the archie believes to be a better course? It seems to me that if the land shown in pix is to be used, it must be shaped for the intended purpose.
Ciao
Because it's been suggested that this team won't do that....
-
Ken,
Brora has two problems. One is it is too far north for easy access and secondly it does not have enough publicity exposure.
I have a question for you. Do you really believe that they should create another 'same old same old' course at Coul Links?
I would like to see the developer have the courage to do something innovative like at Bandon which was pilloried at the beginning for been the wrong concept in the wrong location.
Jon
-
Ken,
Brora has two problems. One is it is too far north for easy access and secondly it does not have enough publicity exposure.
Well, they can't move it, but it's only 17 miles from Royal Dornoch, so that seems like a pretty small obstacle. Exposure is another matter, unless someone writes "A Season in Brora," and then it would take time for the people who aren't currently going there to find out about the book. (Hopefully I'll be done traveling before it does.)
I have a question for you. Do you really believe that they should create another 'same old same old' course at Coul Links?
I suppose the fact that I was one of the first posters on this thread and I selfishly said I hoped it never got built answers that question. But if I had an actual voice I'd be less concerned about that happening than I would be about the possibility of building another Kingsbarns or Castle Course.
I my mind the most special thing about playing golf here is how utterly un-American the experience is. (FWIW, I'm currently in a B&B across A9 from Skelbo Forest)
On your urging, we played Wick today, and it is the epitome of what I'm talking about. Despite there being staff in the bar, and collection of members around, we ended up putting our cash in an envelope that we stuffed in the honesty box. The trolleys they had were a ridiculous collection of what appeared to be cast-offs from the members. And tee times? Well, who needs them?
And as I expected when we finished a little after 5 p.m. the clubhouse was dark.
The other end of "Scottish" golf is at the courses with tee sheets full of visitors. Where there's someone to greet you, a goody bag of stuff, etc., etc. And as some here have said, that's all fine. But I just can't see the need, and I sure as hell don't want to have to pay for it.
I would like to see the developer have the courage to do something innovative like at Bandon which was pilloried at the beginning for been the wrong concept in the wrong location.
Jon
I don't recall the negative reaction, probably because I wasn't paying attention. But I do recall what it cost to play there in the early years. And I'm not going begrudge them for charging what the traffic will bear but it makes me a little sad that using price as a way to limit demand also means most of my friends will never be able to afford places like that.
-
Ken,
There is no question that a project of this magnitude will attract criticism and skepticism. It's only natural.
But there are two factors here that can perhaps be objectively debated: the GCA for Coul and the developer.
C/C's body of work speaks for itself globally. The most recent (public access) courses to look at: Sand Valley, Cabot Cliffs, Streamsong, Barnbougle/Lost Farm, Pinehurst #2 restoration.
Fair to say that Coul may follow similar styles but I would guess that Bill Coore knows that it will be judged closely given its location. I would also guess that, unlike some of these other new links courses, Coul may offer: local and overseas memberships, discounted rates for locals, very low off-season rates, and a laid back understated feel that is a hallmark (no pun intended) of all Keiser projects.
Cheers,
Ian
-
So, if give permission to do so, why should it matter if heavy machinery is used to create what the archie believes to be a better course? It seems to me that if the land shown in pix is to be used, it must be shaped for the intended purpose.
Ciao
Because it's been suggested that this team won't do that....
Sorry, I didn't realize that C&C don't intend to push some sand about.
Ciao
-
Coore optimistic for building approval in Scotland
http://www.golfchannel.com/video/coore-optimistic-building-approval-scotland/
And accompanying article
http://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/scotland-coul-links-keiser-coore-crenshaw-16561.htm
(fixed links...)
-
Update on Coul Links with phone interview of Bill Coore by Matt Ginella.
http://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/scotland-coul-links-keiser-coore-crenshaw-16561.htm#slide-article-67965 (http://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/scotland-coul-links-keiser-coore-crenshaw-16561.htm#slide-article-67965)
Bill Coore is cautiously optimistic and calls the Coul Links site, in context of all of C&C's 31 year history, "None more special than this one."
Oops....just saw Howard's post above. But I think his links may be broken.
-
The development team of the Coul Links project today has issued a 4-page press release (in PDF format) describing the project and their plans in some detail. Perhaps the best news it contains is the announcement that Chris Haspell has joined the team as the project manager. Chris has been the head greenskeeper at Castle Stuart since it opened and was a key figure in the building & development of the course.
-
Coul/Embo, somewhere for a look-see Buda 2018 time.....right to roam?
atb
-
"Coul/Embo, somewhere for a look-see Buda 2018 time.....right to roam?"
Thomas D. -
If you read Ken Moum's recent posts on this thread, you will see that many of the locals do indeed roam across portions of the Coul Farm property. If you drive into "downtown Embo" and park at Grannie's Heilan Hame, you should be able to walk north on the beach on to the property.
http://www.parkdeanholidays.co.uk/scotland-holidays/grannies-heilan-hame/grannies-heilan-hame-holiday-park.htm
DT
-
David,
With respect to the caravan park, where would the south end of the golf course be located?
Steve
-
Steve -
There is a link to a map of the proposed routing of the course (and the whole property) back a couple of pages. To save you the trouble of finding it, here it is again. ;)
http://www.coullinks.com/traffic.html
DT
-
Thank you, David
-
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1332364/but-not-all-are-in-favour-of-the-development/
Coul Links: Why not all are in favour of the development
by JAMIE MCKENZIESeptember 29, 2017
(https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/Todd-Warnock-e1506622195820-492x372.jpg)
In the past two years, many have protested against the idea of building of a new golf course at Coul Links.
Four conservation charities – Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Buglife and Plantlife – held public meetings in Dornoch earlier this year to highlight the ecological importance of the coastal habitat for wildlife at the Coul Links SSSI.
And not all local residents are in favour of the development, which has drawn petitions both for and against.
Not Coul campaign group member, John Duhigg, lives in Skelbo and overlooks the proposed site for the golf course.
In a letter yesterday to The Press and Journal, he stressed the area does not need another golf course as there are six existing on the 20 miles of coast from Brora to Tain, adding that economic activity in the area is beginning to increase due to other contributors such as the NC 500, hiking and cycling.
And Mr Duhigg said the site is one one of the – if not thee – most protected pieces of dune environment in the whole of Scotland, if not Europe and the world.
He added: “Why should this change just because a development group presents a plan and development money?”
He also queried the economic benefits the development would bring and whether a “part-time, high end American style links development” would draw more people to the area when Royal Dornoch is there already.
-
Mmmmm,
I am all for protecting SSSIs and I would hope that SNH & SEPA will ensure that the project does not damage or degrade the status of this site. However the statement from Mr. John Duhigg claiming that the Coul Links is 'most protected pieces of dune environment in the whole of Scotland, if not Europe and the world' smacks of over egging the case and does little to further the argument against.
Jon
-
Mmmmm,
I am all for protecting SSSIs and I would hope that SNH & SEPA will ensure that the project does not damage or degrade the status of this site. However the statement from Mr. John Duhigg claiming that the Coul Links is 'most protected pieces of dune environment in the whole of Scotland, if not Europe and the world' smacks of over egging the case and does little to further the argument against.
Jon
Spot on. I'd have thought if you were against this development the best thing to do would be to highlight some of the laughable claims made by the developer and in doing so avoid entering into any hyperbole of your own.
From the developers perspective I'd have thought leading on the ecological benefits, if any, might be a better tack than playing simply to your potential customer base ie. US travelling golfers, unless of course you think that you already have planning in the bag. Unfortunately this current government have form for ignoring any planning issues and simply going with the famous name/money as the granting of planning to Trump at Balmedie or Judy Murray near Stirling shows.
Niall
-
Article in today's Northern Times:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Developers-put-in-for-planning-permission-for-Coul-Links-Golf-Course-28092017.htm (http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Developers-put-in-for-planning-permission-for-Coul-Links-Golf-Course-28092017.htm)
Here is the official press release:
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AAYYKdDBZ%5FJOrOo&cid=5856C87CE4A4DADF&id=5856C87CE4A4DADF%21758&parId=5856C87CE4A4DADF%21150&o=OneUp
-
Move from Joe Passov:
http://www.golf.com/courses-travel/2017/10/03/next-great-scottish-golf-course-coul-links-inching-closer-reality?xid=nl_news&utm_source=golf.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=forecast&utm_content=2017100302PM
-
Move from Joe Passov:
http://www.golf.com/courses-travel/2017/10/03/next-great-scottish-golf-course-coul-links-inching-closer-reality?xid=nl_news&utm_source=golf.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=forecast&utm_content=2017100302PM (http://www.golf.com/courses-travel/2017/10/03/next-great-scottish-golf-course-coul-links-inching-closer-reality?xid=nl_news&utm_source=golf.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=forecast&utm_content=2017100302PM)
Wow...nice photo credit "courtesy"...;-)
-
Wow...nice photo credit "courtesy"...;-)
Did you give them the picture?
-
Ken,
Brora has two problems. One is it is too far north for easy access .....
Jon
I'm not sure I understand. On my last trip I spent several days in Inverness and Brora made for an easy day trip.
Or were you meaning the Inverness area being far north from Glasgow/Edinburgh?
-
Ken,
Brora has two problems. One is it is too far north for easy access .....
Jon
I'm not sure I understand. On my last trip I spent several days in Inverness and Brora made for an easy day trip.
Or were you meaning the Inverness area being far north from Glasgow/Edinburgh?
For the guys that are playing the "checklist," Dornoch seems like the end of the earth.
I have talked to groups of Americans about going to Brora when they are in Dornoch,a couple of times. The reaction I got one time sums it up, I think. The guy said, "North of Dornoch" I didn't think there was anything north of Dornoch."
-
Ken,
Brora has two problems. One is it is too far north for easy access .....
Jon
I'm not sure I understand. On my last trip I spent several days in Inverness and Brora made for an easy day trip.
Or were you meaning the Inverness area being far north from Glasgow/Edinburgh?
Bob,
you might say both. I am always amazed that people on golfing holidays (mainly US visitors) are quite happy to do insane distances in a car dashing from one side of the land to the other notching up a long list of big names, paying stupidly high greenfees and yet will not go an extra 20 minutes to play a great course such as Brora (or Golspie, or Tain, or Fortrose, or Moray, or ........). Most are not like you or Ken who are interested in experiencing Scottish golf.
Jon
-
Jon--your last comment reminded me of a chat I had with a member in the Machrihanish clubhouse. He asked me where I played. I told him and said that I had put 1500 miles on my rental in the previous week. He looked at me like I was completely mad. I am still pleased with courses I chose and, yes, Brora was one. The only Open rota course was TOC. I live in the western US and we think it's normal to jump in a car and drive 500 miles.
-
Should anyone be in the Dornoch area in the coming weeks, note that there will be a public meeting regarding the Coul Links project at the Dornoch Social Club on Sunday, October 22 and another one at the Embo Community Centre on Monday. October 23.
My understanding is Bill Coore will be speaking at both meetings.
From the Aberdeen Press & Journal of October 12:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1339576/new-highland-golf-course-would-be-in-worlds-top-50-and-attract-thousands/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1339576/new-highland-golf-course-would-be-in-worlds-top-50-and-attract-thousands/)
From The Herald of October 12:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15592298.Charities_step_up_campaign_against_golf_course_development/
-
Was at the info evening last night at Dornoch where the developer's made a very good presentation. Having seen the information and talked to several of the experts present I am more convinced than ever this project will be positive for the area.
There is another info evening tonight in Embo for those interested.
Jon
-
Latest press release from the development group:
Strong Local Support for Coul Links
Public Meetings held in Dornoch and Embo
Developers Present Net Environmental Enhancement of SSSI
88% of Surveys Expressed Support, 8% Neutral and 4% Opposed
Coul Links developers held their 5th and 6th public meetings this week in Dornoch and Embo
and received exceptionally strong public support and feedback. Specifically, business entrepreneur
Todd Warnock, land owner Edward Abel Smith and Embo Trust, (Urras Euraboil) sponsored public
meetings to profile their recently filed Planning Application. Presentations were delivered by Mr.
Warnock outlining the economic benefits of the development as well as several important strategic
environmental initiatives which will improve the SSSI site. Dr. Peter Cosgrove summarized his
ecological assessment including a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) report provided in the Planning
Application. The conclusion of the BNG report is the project would deliver “clear and substantive
biodiversity net gain across a number of habitats”.
The developers presented strong and compelling evidence the SSSI at Coul Links will be environmentally enhanced not degraded by the golf development. Mr. Warnock said “We believe the attendees were quite impressed with the scientific
assessment that the migrating and breeding bird populations would be strengthened by our
strategies. I think this data as well our commitment to a comprehensive Site Management Plan for
Coul Links in conjunction with SNH, gave the public confidence we take the subject of environmental
stewardship seriously”. World-renown golf architect Bill Coore spoke emotionally of his belief he and
partner Ben Crenshaw had never worked on a site as special as Coul Links. Coore said “the
opportunity for great golf at Coul Links is extreme and we are excited and frankly humbled by the
prospect of building a course in the home of golf.”
The response of the local communities was exceptionally positive. The developers asked
students from the Highlands & Islands Golf Management Program to welcome attendees of the
meetings and asked them to complete a short survey. On Sunday night October 22nd, an estimated
120 people attended the meet held at the Dornoch Social Club. Of the 87 attendees who completed
the survey, 74 were in favor of the golf development (85%), 6 were neutral and 7 were against (8%).
On Monday evening, October 23rd an estimated 100 people attended the meet held at the Embo
Community Centre. Of the 86 attendees who completed the survey, 79 were in favor of the golf
development (92%), 7 were neutral and 0 were against (0%). Todd Warnock, the co-developer said
“we were exceptionally honored our positive message resulted in such overwhelming support. Mike
Keiser and I have always said we only want to build a golf course at Coul Links with community
support and these results clearly demonstrate the community’s excitement for the project”.
The developers highlighted several environmental initiatives regarding invasive species
management, remediation of a felled tree plantation, expansion of the habitat adjacent to the SSSI
toward Embo as well as public access and education/information plans all of which will improve the
environmental integrity of the site. The developers noted the golf course will include 22.7 ha of
tees, fairways and greens of which 14.0 ha are within the SSSI, 8.7 are outside the SSSI. Further, the
developers have committed to remediate a 5.7 ha felled tree plantation inside the SSSI which is
environmentally compromised. They have also committed to expand the habitat adjacent to the
SSSI via the purchase, remediation and management of 14.3 ha near Embo which is currently the
source of significant invasive species migration onto the SSSI. The net result of these efforts is to
offset the 14.0 ha of golf course within the SSSI with 20.0 ha of environmentally improved habitat all
under the proposed Site Management Plan.
You can't blame the developers for putting a positive spin on things (or can you?). ;)
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1346852/coulnotcoul/
-
Link to Planning Portal with all the drawings and associated documents
http://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OX1OGYIHH0I00
The masterplan was drawn by STRI
Cheers
Ben
-
You can't blame the developers for putting a positive spin on things (or can you?). ;)
Now there's a challenge !!!
DT
When you're issuing a press release about creating local jobs it might be an idea to use a local PR company or at least one that doesn't use American spellings and phrases ;)
That aside, very pleased to see that they have majored on the argument about the environmental benefits of golf courses in terms of more varied habitats although I note the comment in the papers suggests that the developers expert got a hard time.
Incidentally, I note Todd Warnock suggesting that 33 courses have been built on SSSI land in this country (presumably he means Scotland ?). I'm very surprised at that number and can think of maybe a handful.
Perhaps what he means is that there are 33 courses situated on SSSI land which is an altogether different matter. It is one thing having a course on land that subsequently becomes designated as a SSSI and quite another to get permission and build a course on land that is already designated. Perhaps it's another claim to go along side the one about there being nowhere else in the country having 2 such quality links courses so close together :o
Niall
-
http://golfweek.com/2017/10/25/coul-links-could-add-some-sizzle-to-northern-scotlands-golf-landscape/ (http://golfweek.com/2017/10/25/coul-links-could-add-some-sizzle-to-northern-scotlands-golf-landscape/)
-
Niall,
My home course Rutland Water is on a SSSI and was built 10-15 years ago
Cheers
Ben
You can't blame the developers for putting a positive spin on things (or can you?). ;)
Now there's a challenge !!!
DT
When you're issuing a press release about creating local jobs it might be an idea to use a local PR company or at least one that doesn't use American spellings and phrases ;)
That aside, very pleased to see that they have majored on the argument about the environmental benefits of golf courses in terms of more varied habitats although I note the comment in the papers suggests that the developers expert got a hard time.
Incidentally, I note Todd Warnock suggesting that 33 courses have been built on SSSI land in this country (presumably he means Scotland ?). I'm very surprised at that number and can think of maybe a handful.
Perhaps what he means is that there are 33 courses situated on SSSI land which is an altogether different matter. It is one thing having a course on land that subsequently becomes designated as a SSSI and quite another to get permission and build a course on land that is already designated. Perhaps it's another claim to go along side the one about there being nowhere else in the country having 2 such quality links courses so close together :o
Niall
-
Ben
Interesting. Which part of Scotland is Rutland Water in ? ;D
Off-hand I can think of the following;
Balmedie
St Andrews Bay
Mach Dunes
and then possiby
Askernish ?
Durness ?
Where then new holes at Renaissance SSSI ?
Quite a short list. I suppose you could add in courses on SSSI that had alterations perhaps ? I'm struggling to see how you'd get up to 30 plus but you never know. I'd be interested to see a list if anyone has one.
Niall
-
Were the new holes at Renaissance SSSI ?
Partly. The 9th hole and 10th tee were in the SSSI ground. I believe the 10th fairway was out of it. The 11th hole was definitely not in the SSSI.
There did not seem to be a fundamental objection to work in the SSSI, as long as we avoided the critical areas flagged by Scottish Natural Heritage, which in our case were large communities of moss that prevented any fairways from being built in the dunes area. Except for the 10th tee, everything we built on had been covered by buckthorn, an invasive which SNH insisted we remove ... so they couldn't really object to planting that area with fescue and using it for the golf.
Those mossy patches we were asked to avoid are quite common on links sites in the UK and Europe ... I have noticed them in the roughs of several famous courses since then, and you can bet some used to be in the fairways, too. Avoiding them on a full 18-hole project would be very difficult, if everyone is being held to the same standard. They're the primary reason the routing at Machrihanish Dunes is disjointed, I presume.
Interestingly, we discovered during the permitting process that a bit of the original 18 holes were built on SSSI land -- the boundary of the SSSI was not quite the same as the property line, but no one had noticed.
-
Niall,
I don't know if it was a miss quote because at the Dornoch presentation Todd Warnock clearly said 30 plus Scottish courses in SSSI's not new builds. This I would imagine to be the case.
Jon
-
A tiny aside re removal of Sea Buckthorn.
Playing North Berwick a few weeks ago, I/we was/we’re amazed/delighted/surprised to see the massive amounts removed along the dune ridge at the tenth and eleventh holes. It’s really going to look phenomenal when it’s covered with only marram grass.
Well done, NB!
F.
-
As I recall (but am far too lazy to go back and look) that this thread started with some rather pious environmental arguments based upon some assessments by regulatory authorities. I’m quite pleased the discussion has advanced to more what the locals want. I personally don’t believe that golf courses mess up local wildlife as long as habitat is provided. Our course seems to have much more diverse populations than the surrounding native areas. I also believe it’s pretty rare that folks want to screw up their own back yards. Farmers and ranchers want to make money, but they also want pass their land down to their children in good shape and that also means environmental sustainability.
-
Hi Niall,
33 courses in a SSSI is quite a lot for a country if you mean Scotland
Rutland is outside Scotland and an independent county ;D and Rutland Water itself is only 40 years old having been a man made lake and a 'young' SSSI there were no issues achieving planning
Cheers
Ben
Ben
Interesting. Which part of Scotland is Rutland Water in ? ;D
Off-hand I can think of the following;
Balmedie
St Andrews Bay
Mach Dunes
and then possiby
Askernish ?
Durness ?
Where then new holes at Renaissance SSSI ?
Quite a short list. I suppose you could add in courses on SSSI that had alterations perhaps ? I'm struggling to see how you'd get up to 30 plus but you never know. I'd be interested to see a list if anyone has one.
Niall
-
A tiny aside re removal of Sea Buckthorn.
Playing North Berwick a few weeks ago, I/we was/we’re amazed/delighted/surprised to see the massive amounts removed along the dune ridge at the tenth and eleventh holes. It’s really going to look phenomenal when it’s covered with only marram grass.
Well done, NB!
F.
I believe SNH were instrumental in demanding this happen as part of a wider conservation effort the clubs are undertaking to protect the dunes. There was also a lot of sea buckthorn removed behind the 13th green (Pit). As 'F." said, I think it will be a big improvement once the marram takes.
-
Tom
Thanks for the comment on Renaissance and dealings with SNH.
Dave
"Pious environmental arguments". Really !!
Scotland has a fantastic natural environment however it is a very small country compared to the US and we don't have limitless expanses of SSSI sites to treat them without due regard. And while the locals appear to have got behind the scheme, have you considered that might be because the developers have acknowledged the "pious environmental arguments" as you call them and dealt with the concerns raised ?
Niall
-
Niall,
I would suggest the developers have addressed the environmental issues more than satisfactorily. The main objections seem to come from those who are objecting just because they are against any change. I think the development will be a win-win for the local community in terms of increased economical trade and jobs with better local facilities to boot. For the ecology with increased and managed SSSIs plus better research into what is actually there.
Jon
-
The latest news:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1354163/conservation-groups-lodge-joint-objection-to-coul-links-golf-course-plans/
-
David,
the conservationist were always going to object. However, having talked to some of them none of them were really able to put any facts behind the 'it will be bad for the site'. I would be surprised if the plans are not approved first time.
Jon
-
The world is going mad. Fortunately, when Coull Links becomes a juniper forest, we'll have local G&T's to drown our sorrows.
-
Short piece on BBC Scotland tonight about the proposal.
-
Nial, I confess to have a biased view of environmental regulatory agencies, having once been fined over $400K for what essentially was a paperwork typo. My negotiated settlement was much less, but still 5 figures. My advice is to view the positions of these agencies with the same skepticism as one would the developers. My view is that they don't make positive contributions to the environment. They make and enforce rules, essentially a bureaucratic or political function. Of course my experience is the USA, however its not hard to imagine the same is true across the pond.
-
Dave
I’m not involved in the environmental industry and have only come across SNH in development situations such as this although none involving a golf course. While it can be frustrating, time consuming, and ultimately expensive to deal with depending on what they require you to do, there is no doubt that there is a need for an environmental authority in the planning process. I also believe they have the general public support beyond the usual tree-hugger activists.
Yes, you can come across arrogance and the occasional intransigent zealot within these organisations but generally they are OK to engage with. It certainly pays to work with them rather than ignoring or fighting against them. Getting them onside can pay dividends in getting public support. That said, the banging the table and the “do you know who I am ?” approach seems to work well with the current Scottish government if you are prepared to take your application all the way in appeal to the Scottish ministers (ref. Trump at Balmedie and Judy Murray at Dunblane).
I tend to think though in the long run it would be better for the image of the game and the environment if golf developers embraced the need to protect and enhance the environment which is what they seem to have done at Embo.
Niall
-
Seems reasonable to me. My beef with the EPA is that I have to have the same permit for my fish ponds that Dow Chemical would have for a plant. Same fine structure as well: up to $19K a day. The only EPA guys I've dealt with were all enforcement types. Same with everyone I know.
-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/15653122.Support_for_out_local_hero/
Support for out local hero
Letters
TO counter a one-sided view presented by some environmental agencies this week, here is the local view (“Conservation groups oppose new luxury golf project in Highlands”, The Herald, November 7). Todd Warnock has already demonstrated his commitment to Dornoch by saving our courthouse when it was abandoned by Scottish Court Services. He lives here and works with the community. There is no comparison with Donald Trump other than they are American.
If your readers care to study the substantial documentation submitted with planning application for Coul Links they will see that the environment will be better off if the development goes ahead. This is because a managed and funded scheme would be in place to protect the Site of Special Interest which there has not been to date. Where have the agencies been while birds have been shot for sport and invasive species have taken over the site?
The main endangered species in the Highlands is our young people, who for generations have had to move south in search of jobs. This project has the potential to reverse rural depopulation and transform the economic landscape to provide meaningful and well paid jobs for our children and grandchildren. The local community trust is so committed to this vision that it will financially invest in Coul Links and have a seat on the board if this project is given the go-ahead.
If the environmental agencies’ misinformed attacks on Coul Links result in the loss of the largest single investment in Sutherland ever, I hope they will come and explain to our young people why they wrecked their future.
Joan Bishop,
Whinhill, Dornoch.
-
The debate continues:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1356246/locals-attack-green-msps-golf-course-protests/
-
The debate continues:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1356246/locals-attack-green-msps-golf-course-protests/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1356246/locals-attack-green-msps-golf-course-protests/)
Indeed....from both sides:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1357336/coul-links-objectors-exaggerating-impact-on-bird-life/
http://dpsmconsultants.com/coul-links-announces-planning-submission/ (http://dpsmconsultants.com/coul-links-announces-planning-submission/)
-
It is nice that John Finnie comes up here to spend some of his free time. It is just a shame he and his party show so little interest in the lives of the residents that he/they couldn't even be bothered to put up a candidate for in the general election this year. Seems to me he is more interested in protecting his holiday play ground than caring for the region and how it fares.
-
Has anyone actually spent time on the planning portal reading the planning application submissions ? Well worth a read, especially the Economic Case. Mind you it will be better once they have finished it !! It seems from comment from the wildlife and environmental interests that the environmental submissions made by the developer were also in something like draft form.
Incomplete and unfinished submissions, the hiring of Chris Haspell now rather than after planning, all suggests the developer is confident they have the planning in the bag perhaps ?
Niall
-
Discouraging news here:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15683255.Golf_course_plan_suffers_new_blow/?ref=twtrec
-
The world continues to go mad.....
-
Yet another voice is heard from:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Confidence-in-Coul-Links-golf-project-prompts-Royal-Golf-expansion-plans-23112017.htm
-
Worth noting that they said they couldn't "fully support" the project. That's not exactly the same as being completely opposed. I'm guessing this is the start of a negotiation.
-
David -
with your link re the Royal Golf Hotel, it occurred to me that folks like you and Rich Goodale deserve a tip of the hat. If I've been reading your posts correctly, you both support the Coul Links project. And you support it for the benefits you believe it'll bring to the broader community/economy -- even though I assume it comes at a personal cost to both of you.
It seems like only yesterday that I read Lorne Rubenstein's A Season in Dornoch; and the picture he paints of his experiences aligns well with Rich's posts over the years about Dornoch in his earlier days, and even with your more (relatively) recent experiences.
And yet that's the very experience that seems to be slipping away by the day; one that, if Mr. Sutherland is right about Coul Links bringing significantly more golfers to the area and to your beloved golf course, will soon be mostly a pleasant memory of times past.
But despite knowing this -- as both of you surely do, obviously much better than I -- you support the cause of change & growth, because you believe the area/the people need it.
I deeply appreciate the game of golf, and I value wonderful golf courses (even if I can enjoy them only vicariously, or only from afar); and yet I'm also unsettled by the large-scale-elite-destination model of current golf course development -- no matter how good those courses are deemed to be/how highly they rank. Nonetheless, I do think your positions admirable; and so, for what it's worth coming from an outsider, a tip of the hat to you both.
Peter
-
Worth noting that they said they couldn't "fully support" the project. That's not exactly the same as being completely opposed. I'm guessing this is the start of a negotiation.
The main issue will be the officer recommendation for the Council. To me it is very odd that a full application has been submitted prior to outline approval. How has the principle of the proposed plan been agreed in principle? Usually, when it gets to the full application stage is when the nitty gritty is worked out...or not., but at least the principle that a development of some sort can take place is agreed.
Ciao
-
Sean,
the planners will often advise not to bother with OPP as it is just another process in an already clogged up system. Full planning permission (FPP) is the part where you might have to do some more detailed work on mitigation but often if you have done your homework correctly you will get FPP with conditions attached to address this.
OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.
Jon
-
Sean,
OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.
Jon
Cha-ching...which begs the question...do the developers think this is a shoe-in project to warrant not dipping the toe? Very strange imo to submit the application, follow up on the decision and then not resubmit. In my experience, for anything potentially conroversial developers like to slip in the outline app to help guide the full app. I can only guess the developers feel they received enough info from the Council and consultees to think there aren't any major obstacles. My guess is the application in some form will be approved should Keiser want to carry on. As always, I am keen to read the officer recommendation. I am often amazed at how much of a dark art that is the UK planning system.
As an aside...I am surprised by the 805 acres...is that a starting point whose number will be cut through negotiation?
Ciao
-
This article presents an interesting perspective that also challenges the "Not Coul" movement with stepping up and doing something about the mismanaged SSSI in the event the project is not approved. It also draws attention to the damage that has happened recently by allowing hunting and "quad bikes and SUVs" on the sensitive areas.
Plus, it seems that some of the "Not Coul" proponents were actually part of the team that saw Trump's project get approved.
"The poacher turned gamekeeper" as the article says...;-)
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Opinion/Letters/Can-we-not-have-a-sensible-debate-about-Coul-Links-golf-23112017.htm
-
Wonderful stuff. Who are those "independent experts" referred to ? The ones being paid by the developer perhaps ? ::)
Niall
-
Sean
You will likely be able to read online the planners recommendations in their report to Committee in due course, assuming the report doesn’t go up as a Confidential report. Different Councils have different attitudes with regards that with most going with the “open and transparent” approach so I suspect you will be able to read it online.
With regards the 805 acres, that presumably includes the land they propose to remediate or would be affected by the development and not just the land for the golf course itself. That would have been agreed between the planners in the local authority and the planning consultants acting for the developer.
As for the actual application, this would be treated as a major application and therefore I’m not sure there is such a thing as outline planning any more (could be wrong). With a major application, applicants are “encouraged” to undertake pre-application discussions with the Council that will involve input from the likes of SNH, SEPA etc. They will also have to undertake a public consultation which the developer has done, before actually submitting the application.
The Council may or may not give them a steer as to whether the application is likely to be successful but the idea is that the applicant is made aware of all the relevant policy, views of the statutory consultees such as SNH etc.
Whether or not they have been given the thumbs up by the Council I don’t know but I can guess. If I was betting man I’d put money on them getting their consent with conditions. I can’t imagine they would be hiring staff, and that those staff would agree to join, unless there was a pretty clear indication that it was going to happen. In any case, as I’ve said before, given how the Scottish Ministers bent over to allow the Trump and Judy Murray applications you’ve got to think they would be a shoe in at appeal.
Niall
-
Sean,
OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.
Jon
Cha-ching...which begs the question...do the developers think this is a shoe-in project to warrant not dipping the toe? Very strange imo to submit the application, follow up on the decision and then not resubmit. In my experience, for anything potentially conroversial developers like to slip in the outline app to help guide the full app. I can only guess the developers feel they received enough info from the Council and consultees to think there aren't any major obstacles. My guess is the application in some form will be approved should Keiser want to carry on. As always, I am keen to read the officer recommendation. I am often amazed at how much of a dark art that is the UK planning system.
As an aside...I am surprised by the 805 acres...is that a starting point whose number will be cut through negotiation?
Ciao
OPP is usually used for a speculative application which Coul Links certainly isn't hence FPP which is the most sensible option. I also do not believe there is any attempt being made to slip anything controversial past the planners. Generally if you are straight with the planners then they are straight with you up here in the Highlands. Also, up here we deal with the Scottish Planning System which is a bit different to south of the border (No UK planning system).
-
Pedro
.......Rich's posts over the years about Dornoch in his earlier days, and even with your more (relatively) recent experiences......
Fake News, Pedro!
I've physically and emotionally been connected to Dornoch for 40+ years, and know more than any other poster here regarding it's past, present and future. You might be advised to read my book, "Experience Royal Dornoch", or at the very least my free IMO on this site.
All the best
Ricardo
-
Hi Rich -
I read your essay and knew of your (continuous) connection to Dornoch from back in the late 70s/early 80s; so I was referencing the "earlier days" at the course, when it was less universally well-known and revered and less a destination for overseas golfers. It is those days/those experiences that I mean are becoming a thing of the past.
Peter
-
Nae problemo, Pedro
I just wanted to check my pulse to see if I was still alive!
BTW, Josie and I will be up in Dornoch with family and friends over Hogmanay.
Slainte
Ricardo
-
A couple of brief points regarding the planning system (though the Scottish system is slightly different to down here in England) that may be relevant...
Firstly, developers will often be discouraged or indeed not able, to apply for Outline Planning Permission on sensitive sites. This is because the detail of how the development will impact on the sensitive and significant site (with my experience its historic buildings, but in this case its the SSSI etc) are such a key and material consideration.
Also, many of the reports produced to accompany an application such as this (in this case mainly the various ecological surveys and the impact on the SSSI) may be paid for by the developer, but the professional consultancy producing them does have their own professional integrity that means they will tell it how it is, not how the person paying the bills wants it to be. If I had a pound for every developer that complained about a report they had paid for not supporting their application I'd be a very wealthy man! 8)
Cheers,
James
-
James
You are quite right to stick up for professional integrity but I think we both know that rarely are things black and white and that different professionals can take a different view on certain issues. In that respect the clients who were disappointed in the advice perhaps should have been more astute in who they appointed or perhaps a bit more circumspect in what they asked them to do.
Either way, you couldn’t call them independent since their advice would have been framed by the instruction given to them by the client.
Niall
-
Hot off the presses:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-developers-welcome-SNH-objection-27112017.htm
-
Hot off the presses:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-developers-welcome-SNH-objection-27112017.htm (http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-developers-welcome-SNH-objection-27112017.htm)
And even hotter....;-)...:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42143171
Have been amazed to read that supposed "nature groups" are all up in arms over the possible harm the course could inflict on native bird species. Yet these "concerned entities" somehow turn their backs every year as hunters descend on the property to legally blow the birds out of the sky.
I may have interpreted it incorrectly, but have also read that ALL of the environmentally concerned groups have been invited to walk the property and engage in a productive dialogue but have all declined.
-
Ian
I appreciate you’re a stooge for the developer but perhaps you could give some thought before you spout such shite.
Unlike the US we don’t have a gun culture over here. Anyone wandering about discharging a loaded firearm in an area open and relatively accessible to the public is likely to get their collar felt fairly quickly, particularly if they don’t have the consent of the landowner.
Niall
-
Ian
I appreciate you’re a stooge for the developer but perhaps you could give some thought before you spout such shite.
Unlike the US we don’t have a gun culture over here. Anyone wandering about discharging a loaded firearm in an area open and relatively accessible to the public is likely to get their collar felt fairly quickly, particularly if they don’t have the consent of the landowner.
Niall
Hey, Niall C.,
We Americans will let you know when we need you to further characterize an entire nation of people. What a stupid thing to spout off about - you sound like a stooge for ignoramuses everywhere.
-
.
-
Ian
I appreciate you’re a stooge for the developer but perhaps you could give some thought before you spout such shite.
Unlike the US we don’t have a gun culture over here. Anyone wandering about discharging a loaded firearm in an area open and relatively accessible to the public is likely to get their collar felt fairly quickly, particularly if they don’t have the consent of the landowner.
Niall
Niall -
So, what say you....is Embo resident Catrionna Grigg also a stooge for the developers?
With almost 90% local approval, she makes a case for why it matters to the LOCALs:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15684904.Letters__A_new_links_course_will_benefit_the_local_community_in_Embo/
-
Ian, John,
I am not sure how it can be denied that the US has a gun culture or why you both have gotten so upset by it been mentioned.
Ian,
I do not think you are a stooge for the developer or that you have any connection professionally with the project. However, there are no hunters descending on the site but rather it is the landowner who has the right to shoot ducks through the winter which he does. What is so galling about the attitude some of the eco groups (though not NSH) is the fact that they have never shown any interest in the SSSI site here nor objected to it being slowly ruined by mismanagement nor have they ever offered any maintenance plan or money. The RSPB is basically a rich, political lobbying group who object to almost anything.
Jon
-
Niall, old friend.
Ian is generally right and I am not a stooge for anybody, particularly Todd Warnock.
Rich
-
Ian, John,
I am not sure how it can be denied that the US has a gun culture or why you both have gotten so upset by it been mentioned.
Ian,
I do not think you are a stooge for the developer or that you have any connection professionally with the project. However, there are no hunters descending on the site but rather it is the landowner who has the right to shoot ducks through the winter which he does. What is so galling about the attitude some of the eco groups (though not NSH) is the fact that they have never shown any interest in the SSSI site here nor objected to it being slowly ruined by mismanagement nor have they ever offered any maintenance plan or money. The RSPB is basically a rich, political lobbying group who object to almost anything.
Jon
Jon,
This specific cultural characterization is not even the point. That anyone would cast such a generalization about the nature of a nation's people is at best dim-witted and at worst imbecilic. That's a fairly narrow window to work within.
-
Ian, John,
I am not sure how it can be denied that the US has a gun culture or why you both have gotten so upset by it been mentioned.
Jon
Jon, "we" are not upset for when facts and context are presented accurately, they stand on their own.
Shooting birds in Embo and gun culture in the US are two asynchronous, disconnected pieces of info that were very poorly correlated by Niall - thus the analogy lacked any relevant context whatsoever. Do you see the difference?
Citing cultural cliches in a discussion is a piss-poor lazy substitute for real discourse and original thought.
It's like "us" saying that of course Niall does not want the golf course because all Scots are stubborn and cheap....;-)
Dr. John C. and I are thoroughly horrified by the gun culture in the US. But, then again, we are "Northern elites"....;-)
The US is a nation founded on insurrection and violence and....guess what....it started with Europeans.... ;D
-
Ian, John,
maybe it is one of the problems of the written word in that unlike spoken communications there is no tone to give context to comments. I certainly did not read Niall's post comment about 'gun culture' as been a general slur on all Americans nor a cliches. That you both seem to be so touchy on the point shows that you are anti guns and a credit to you both. I suspect that Ian's ill informed 'hunters descending' comment might be in the same vain.
Jon.
-
Ian, John,
maybe it is one of the problems of the written word in that unlike spoken communications there is no tone to give context to comments. I certainly did not read Niall's post comment about 'gun culture' as been a general slur on all Americans nor a cliches. That you both seem to be so touchy on the point shows that you are anti guns and a credit to you both. I suspect that Ian's ill informed 'hunters descending' comment might be in the same vain.
Jon.
Jon, it's my understanding that, once a year, hunters may venture on property at Coul Links and "trim the flock" with firearms. I read that (yesterday, in fact) and hence cited it. My use of context was also poor as I was using that as an analogy to show how environmentalists, who "cut and paste" their outrage to fit their own narratives without any active involvement in a solution, can reek of hypocrisy.
If "you" were so concerned about the birds, why aren't "you" showing up to protect them? Oh, that's right, "you" dont live there....;-)....you live in Glasgow or London....or Chicago...;-)
-
"There is shooting of wild fowl in the key winter breeding period – why have RSPB and others allowed this to carry on for years?"
This is where I read it:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Opinion/Letters/Can-we-not-have-a-sensible-debate-about-Coul-Links-golf-23112017.htm (http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Opinion/Letters/Can-we-not-have-a-sensible-debate-about-Coul-Links-golf-23112017.htm)
It was in an article already posted for everyone to read.
-
Ian, John,
maybe it is one of the problems of the written word in that unlike spoken communications there is no tone to give context to comments. I certainly did not read Niall's post comment about 'gun culture' as been a general slur on all Americans nor a cliches. That you both seem to be so touchy on the point shows that you are anti guns and a credit to you both. I suspect that Ian's ill informed 'hunters descending' comment might be in the same vain.
Jon.
Jon,
You not reading Niall's comment as a "general slur" speaks not to me being "touchy" but to your willingness to characterize it as you see fit. You have no clue whatsoever as to my position on guns and for you to bring it up again only reinforces that you've misrepresented my objection in the first place.
-
Ian,
I as far I am aware from reading the various reports, planning permission documents and talking with a few of the locals there are no hunters 'venturing' on the property but rather it is the landowner himself using his right to hunt. The reason the RSPB and others are doing nothing about it is because they have no right to do so.
'If "you" were so concerned about the birds, why aren't "you" showing up to protect them? Oh, that's right, "you" dont live there....;-)....you live in Glasgow or London....or Chicago...;-)'
Not sure what you mean by the above quote. Probably to dim :P
Jon
-
Ian, John,
maybe it is one of the problems of the written word in that unlike spoken communications there is no tone to give context to comments. I certainly did not read Niall's post comment about 'gun culture' as been a general slur on all Americans nor a cliches. That you both seem to be so touchy on the point shows that you are anti guns and a credit to you both. I suspect that Ian's ill informed 'hunters descending' comment might be in the same vain.
Jon.
Jon,
You not reading Niall's comment as a "general slur" speaks not to me being "touchy" but to your willingness to characterize it as you see fit. You have no clue whatsoever as to my position on guns and for you to bring it up again only reinforces that you've misrepresented my objection in the first place.
John,
firstly, I was neither representing or MISrepresenting your objections but just saying how I saw what Niall had read. I based my comment of your position on guns on Ian's comment 'Dr. John C. and I are thoroughly horrified by the gun culture in the US' but maybe I misunderstood that too?
I hope you find comfort in your certainty.
-
Just to help clarify for everybody. That letter in the NT contains at least some "fake news".
For example, Winter is most assuredly NOT "the key breeding season" for Scottish waterfowl.
That is either a typo, a lie or a mistake.
In fact, wildfowling takes place all over this country throughout the winter (roughly September to January). The close season to allow breeding covers those months when birds are able to rear young - i.e., mostly the spring and summer.
Cheers,
F.
-
John C.
No attempt to characterize an entire nation of people on my part. What I said was that the US had a gun culture which seems to me to be a pretty self-evident fact judging from your constitutional right to bear arms, the routine arming of your law enforcement, the general level of gun crime, as well as that of gun ownership and of course the prevalence of gun use in US popular culture as evidenced by your TV and films. Admittedly my viewpoint might be coloured by the fact that on one of my few visits to the States I was held up at gunpoint.
However the fact that you and Ian are against gun use in some shape or form, which is what you both seem to be saying, while commendable (IMO) is neither here nor there in terms of whether there is a gun culture in the US. That appears pretty self-evident as I said.
However I suspect the real reason my post has caused such a reaction from most and in particular Ian is my reference to him being a stooge for the developer. While my language could have been more temperate there are times when you are just as well calling a spade a spade.
Niall
-
Niall, old friend.
Ian is generally right and I am not a stooge for anybody, particularly Todd Warnock.
Rich
Rich
I never thought you were. I greatly value your opinion and insights even if at times I don't agree with you. They are always well reasoned and worth listening to.
All the best
Niall
-
Fellow GCAers - yes, I do know the developers personally yet I have ZERO involvement in the project. In a private email exchange with Niall, I told him that several weeks ago after he publicly asked me. He continued to ask me questions over private emails and I politely indulged him.
I asked for his confidence and discretion which he gave readily. For that courtesy, in Niall's mind, I am now a "stooge".
Others, please use your own caution. A "PM" with Niall should be accompanied by a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Ian
I can't recall asking you on this forum whether you had a personal interest in the development but happy to accept I did. I strongly suspect however it was you who contacted me off-line and continued to do so. Certainly it was you who initiated the recent emails and I merely responded to some of them. I recall you wanted to keep the content of the exchange private and I believe that is what I've done unless you can show me otherwise ? I'm not sure I've even referenced our offline exchanges but perhaps again you could advise.
In my time on GCA there has been a number of personal feuds between others which have been unseemly and I suspect most could readily do without them. I really am not interested in ending up in one of those situations. However in expressing my opinion you have taken offence and while I can see why I really don't feel I want to or need to withdraw or apologise for that remark. What I will undertake to do is not add to it.
Niall
-
Lastly:
I called you a piece of shite it is true and I am sorry for it.
Punctuate it yourself....;-)
-
Its good to have your inside scoop, much as it is Niall's knowledge on the planning governance in Scotland given his background. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who wants the he said/she said to stay offline.
-
.
-
While my language could have been more temperate there are times when you are just as well calling a spade a spade.
Couldn't agree with you more.
-
The battle rages on. I was half expecting this gca.com thread to be cited when I read the headline for this article. ;)
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Battle-to-prevent-Coul-Links-golf-course-development-going-ahead-goes-viral-30112017.htm
-
An interesting scenario was put forward during a recent general golf discussion which involved amongst other things talking about this project. I don’t know the answer. Anyone posting herein care to put forward their thoughts? Scottish regulations remember.
What would happen, indeed would anything happen at all, if the current owner just went around his/her land with a club hitting a few balls? Nothing? Something....if so what?
And then after a while he invites a couple of mates to join him...it’s his land.
And a while later a few more mates join in.
And after a while, maybe quite a while, a precedent is established....
And then.......
I’m sure you get the drift :)
Just curious.
Atb
-
Dai
I think basically what you are asking relates to the planning situation. At some point they would need to get panning permission for development or change of use depending on how intensively they played golf, or more to the point sought to change the landscape. I'm no expert but there is a limit to the amount of much shifted when you need to get planning permission. Likewise doing anything that effects the SSSI.
Niall
-
At some point they would need to get panning permission for development
Niall
If you are concerned about "panning" permission, you need to visit Helmsdale and their golden burns I think Chuckie Windsor has financial interests there. There is also a 9-hole golf course that spawned one of the greatest amateur players in the north of Scotlandi in the past 40+ years, Stuart Shaw,
Rich
Rich
-
Dai
I think basically what you are asking relates to the planning situation. At some point they would need to get panning permission for development or change of use depending on how intensively they played golf, or more to the point sought to change the landscape. I'm no expert but there is a limit to the amount of much shifted when you need to get planning permission. Likewise doing anything that effects the SSSI.
Niall
In general, an SSSI (British designation) is easier to get round than an SAC (European designation).
The British never did follow the European guidelines on this. Another amazing reason why The UK is leaving Europe. They've always ignored the things they didn't like anyway.
-
The British never did follow the European guidelines on this. Another amazing reason why The UK is leaving Europe. They've always ignored the things they didn't like anyway.
Like every other country in the EU and the EU itself or there would be no Eurozone Ally not even the Germans met all the prerequisites ::)
-
At some point they would need to get panning permission for development
Niall
If you are concerned about "panning" permission, you need to visit Helmsdale and their golden burns I think Chuckie Windsor has financial interests there. There is also a 9-hole golf course that spawned one of the greatest amateur players in the north of Scotlandi in the past 40+ years, Stuart Shaw,
Rich
Rich
Me and my fat fingers !
Re Helmsdale - I did a drive by a couple of years ago but didn't play as it looked a bit of a field to be honest. Did I miss much ?
Niall
-
Niall,
Helmsdale is what it says on the tin namely a small nine holer in small coastal village. It is not going to set the golf world on fire but then again the greenfee reflects this and I would recommend playing it if you have the time to spare. Courses like Helmsdale will be far more grateful for your greenfee money and almost certainly spend it more wisely than many of the bigger clubs.
James Boon did a short course tour on the linked thread though it appears the photos are no longer showing. Just scroll up a few posts and maybe they will be showing for you.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58483.msg1375768.html#msg1375768 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58483.msg1375768.html#msg1375768)
Jon
-
Coul Links was covered on Golf Channel's 'Morning Drive' today...
http://www.golfchannel.com/video/design-week-news-royal-dornoch-and-coul-links/ (http://www.golfchannel.com/video/design-week-news-royal-dornoch-and-coul-links/)
-
Pedro
.......Rich's posts over the years about Dornoch in his earlier days, and even with your more (relatively) recent experiences......
Fake News, Pedro!
I've physically and emotionally been connected to Dornoch for 40+ years, and know more than any other poster here regarding it's past, present and future. You might be advised to read my book, "Experience Royal Dornoch", or at the very least my free IMO on this site.
All the best
Ricardo
Will that be the opinion from within the Dornoch cocoon about RD and not it's standing within the rest of the North East golf community.
I don't think that's changed a lot in the last 40 years either :-)
-
My observation, Andrew is that RD is not well looked upon by the rest of the NE golfing fraternity, for various reasons. When I started spending serious time in the area in the early 1980's, the best golfers of Brora, Golspie and Tain played the in the big competitions (Carnegie Shield, Sinclair Cup, etc.) and vice versa. In the last 10-20 years this camaraderie seems to have disappeared. Alas. Any theories why?
Rich
-
Rich
As a matter of interest, how easy is it to get into the Carnegie Shield, Sinclair Cup etc ? The reason I ask that is I now that when I was at Moray, getting into Moray Open week took a bit of doing. Not making excuses for there non-participation but I know at Moray it was almost like dead mans shoes.
Niall
-
Yo Niall
The Carnegie Shield is a lottery, unless you are a 3HCP or less. The higher handicap group is 8-9HCP and above and more foregiving. The Sinclar Cup used to be open to all, but it is now an elite event with SGU points for the leaders. 7-8 is possibly the cut off. One of the best opens is the Burghfield Cup/ Teams of 3, best two of the three (net) wins the cup. Each team needs at least one 12HCP and below and one 13HCP and above.. Cheap as chips with another Open (for the Hangover Trophy) on Sunday. Only cup in the Clubhouse that has my name on it. Do you know any 13+ bandits who are also good company?
In all cases, check into the RDGC website ASAP and be ready to put in an entry as soon as the gates open.
Slainte
Rich
-
Played in an Open at Dornoch about a zillion years ago....£10....persimmon and blades and balata. A Sunday and very quiet as I recall, mind that was perhaps because of the rain on the day.
atb
-
I was just watching a replay of the Golf Channel on gca and apparently Arnold Palmer Design is starting on a second course at Castle Stuart in 2018 - does that affect anyone's opinion on the construction of Coul Links?
-
Jerry,
I have not heard of that having any effect on the Coul Links project. Different planning areas for a start and different land type I would imagine.
Jon
-
Is a Coul development likely to have any effect, either directly or indirectly, on Skibo/Carnegie or vice versa? Just wondering.
Atb
-
Is a Coul development likely to have any effect, either directly or indirectly, on Skibo/Carnegie or vice versa? Just wondering.
Atb
I'm sure there will be some sort of financial linkage between Coull and Skibo in terms of reciprocal access, but not much more.
Slaingte
-
One of the best opens is the Burghfield Cup/ Teams of 3, best two of the three (net) wins the cup. Each team needs at least one 12HCP and below and one 13HCP and above.. Cheap as chips with another Open (for the Hangover Trophy) on Sunday. Only cup in the Clubhouse that has my name on it. Do you know any 13+ bandits who are also good company?
I can get there. How much time do I need?
-
Lou: You definitely are a bandit. ;)
-
Lou
Don't try to play your next 20 rounds left handed to get you up from 3 to 13 by May. There are other strategies available.
Rich
-
If I turn up to Buda in May and Lou is claiming a 13 handicap, I'll quit golf ;D
Cheers,
James
-
[size=78%]https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-casework/casework/cases/coul-links/[/size]
-
http://www.golfpunkhq.com/news/article/coul-links-responds-to-rspb-statement (http://www.golfpunkhq.com/news/article/coul-links-responds-to-rspb-statement)
Here's the response from Coul to the RSPB
-
I am afraid the RSPB is more a political lobby group only interested in preventing any sort of development. I am unsurprised by the inaccuracies in their report. There is a reason they are disliked by most highland landowners.
-
Fine Golf (Lorne Smith) is for it:
http://www.finegolf.co.uk/2017/12/15/coul-links-welcomed/
-
I am afraid the RSPB is more a political lobby group only interested in preventing any sort of development. I am unsurprised by the inaccuracies in their report. There is a reason they are disliked by most highland landowners.
It would help if Trump hadn't bastardized the land and landowners around his course when he developed it.
Scotland certainly would be better off without that monstrosity/conduct and its understandable how those looking at Coul could be gun shy-especially if they haven't done their homework on Keiser and lump him into a bad American developer basket.
-
Jeff W. -
Todd Warnock wrote a column published yesterday in The Scotsman that discusses exactly what you are talking about.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/todd-warnock-how-i-discovered-trump-is-fueling-anti-us-feeling-1-4642586 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/todd-warnock-how-i-discovered-trump-is-fueling-anti-us-feeling-1-4642586)
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/12/19/coul-links-co-developer-how-i-discovered-trump-is-fueling-an.html
DT
-
I’m afraid I didn’t find Mr Warnock’s explication any more compelling than any previous material.
Scotland still has more than enough golf courses as it is.
Regards,
Mr M Bonnar.
-
Jeff,
What is ironic is that one of the main opponents to the development at Coul Links was Trump's environmental expert at Aberdeen which he backed.
Marty,
Whether Scotland has enough golf courses or not is personal opinion and certainly no way to decide if the project should be given the green light or not. Coul Links is going to do a lot more for the area around Embo than just bring another golf course.
-
Jeff,
What is ironic is that one of the main opponents to the development at Coul Links was Trump's environmental expert at Aberdeen which he backed.
I'm guessing he's been paid by Trump on both counts
-
The battle lines are drawn:
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-row-hots-up-22122017.htm (http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-row-hots-up-22122017.htm)
The funny thing is, a whole new dunesland/links ecosystem is building up on the north side of the Dornoch Firth (south of the Dornoch caravan park) with sand that I think is being washed down from the coastline up by Golspie. Who knows, maybe someone will want to build a course there in another 20 or 30 years (or maybe that land will be designated an SSSI). ;)
-
A question for David and others in the know. If Vegas had a line, what would be the odds for getting this project done?
-
I’m afraid I didn’t find Mr Warnock’s explication any more compelling than any previous material.
Scotland still has more than enough golf courses as it is.
Regards,
Mr M Bonnar.
Hey, Marty, could please also tell us what the best color is? Thanks.
-
I’m afraid I didn’t find Mr Warnock’s explication any more compelling than any previous material.
Scotland still has more than enough golf courses as it is.
Regards,
Mr M Bonnar.
Hey, Marty, could please also tell us what the best color is? Thanks.
No, but the correct spelling is coloUr. You’re welcome.
-
The Verge has their own piece on the potential environmental impact of Coul Links. And how that weighs against potential economic benefit.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation
-
Joe S. -
Thanks for the link.
DT
-
I've been lately curious to know what exactly a "fonseca fly" actually is...
Is it a gnat, a pest....is it a valuable part of the ecosystem?
This article is better than most in that it does actually raise the issue of protecting a fly as a priority over economic development.
So, I Googled "Fonseca" and, I must admit, I was surprised by what I found:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fonseca (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fonseca)
Sounds like that is exactly what is going on here.... ;D ;)
-
The Verge has their own piece on the potential environmental impact of Coul Links. And how that weighs against potential economic benefit.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation (https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation)
Just for clarity Tom Dargie as a paid environmental expert actually backed the Trump course. He is also the main man behind the 'notcoul' group. Also, have they not also found said rare fly up the coastline going north (Helmsdale, Wick, etc.)? An interesting piece but obvious where the bias lies.
Jon
-
The Verge has their own piece on the potential environmental impact of Coul Links. And how that weighs against potential economic benefit.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation (https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation)
Just for clarity Tom Dargie as a paid environmental expert actually backed the Trump course. He is also the main man behind the 'notcoul' group. Also, have they not also found said rare fly up the coastline going north (Helmsdale, Wick, etc.)? An interesting piece but obvious where the bias lies.
Jon
For those interested in seeing the two viewpoints expressed online:
The detractors: www.notcoul.com
The proponents/rebuttal: https://www.coullinks.co.uk/not-coul-not-correct
And, for those who want to check for updates on the project in general, this site is helpful as it aggregates all publications and provides dates and links:
https://www.coullinksgolf.com/
-
The Verge has their own piece on the potential environmental impact of Coul Links. And how that weighs against potential economic benefit.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation (https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16892904/not-coul-links-scotland-golf-course-mike-keiser-conservation)
Just for clarity Tom Dargie as a paid environmental expert actually backed the Trump course. He is also the main man behind the 'notcoul' group. Also, have they not also found said rare fly up the coastline going north (Helmsdale, Wick, etc.)? An interesting piece but obvious where the bias lies.
Jon
For those interested in seeing the two viewpoints expressed online:
The detractors: www.notcoul.com (http://www.notcoul.com)
The proponents/rebuttal: https://www.coullinks.co.uk/not-coul-not-correct (https://www.coullinks.co.uk/not-coul-not-correct)
And, for those who want to check for updates on the project in general, this site is helpful as it aggregates all publications and provides dates and links:
https://www.coullinksgolf.com/ (https://www.coullinksgolf.com/)
Ian,
it would be nice to read an article by a journalist who was not obviously pushing one side or the other. Whilst it is to be expected that developers will present things in a way that is favourable to their plans it is extremely sad that the opponents made up of supposed expert bodies and individuals put forward arguments that are so void of facts as to not stand up to even the most cursory of examination.
Jon
-
Jon-
Amen...we are in agreement!!
Fair and balanced journalism is rare these days, especially here in the US.
My take from afar is that the coverage of this hot issue is extremely partisan.
It’s yet another “carpet-bagging” American (or other) ruining the environment vs. economic development and supposed progress. This has been playing out globally for years.
My view now is the same as it was when this thread started:
Let the locals decide. It’s their town, the land is owned locally, and the jobs will impact them the most.
If the locals value the fly over the potential jobs and revenues, then so be it.
Cheers,
Ian
-
To be fair to Mr. Dargie, he does claim in the most recent article that he advised against the Trump Aberdeen project, even though he was a paid consultant on the project.
"Dargie is no stranger to Scottish golf courses planned by American billionaires. He was employed by Trump to produce an ecology report on the dune-straddling course at Menie. He concluded that Trump’s course would adversely impact biodiversity in the area, but he thought that a portion of the habitat would also see a small net benefit. At a public inquiry, Trump announced that Dargie was “a big fan” (http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/212607/0067709.pdf) of the project — a claim Dargie says he found “jaw-dropping.” “They knew from the outset, I told them, ‘I am against this development (https://www.scotsman.com/news/trump-ignored-own-expert-on-golf-plan-1-1173063), please do not develop in the dunes,’” he tells me."
-
Ian,
wouldn't it be nice :)
Just to be clear the vast majority of locals are in favour of the project going ahead and the vast majority of objectors are not local even to the Highlands many coming from outside of Scotland.
David,
that's exactly my point. Yes, Mr. Dargie was an environmental expert for Trump at Menie and yes he did object to the project once he was no longer part of it but his report was very much in favour of the Menie project going ahead so on paper he was more 'big fan' than 'against'. Balanced journalism would have picked up on this in my opinion. If Mr. Dargie was always against developing the dunes at Menie why did he produce a report backing their development?
Jon
-
Planning regulation largely over-rides opinion polls 8) I am assuming the presumtion in this case is against development, but not necessarily. This application will come down to a heated planning committee meeting. Much will depend on how well member supporters and detractors "network" and the mood of the room. Of course...the officer reco will be important as well....assuming there is one. I have seen applications which should never have earned approval get the OK based on the mood of the room and how well the officer (usually very matter of fact as it is no skin off their nose either way) and other public speakers present their case. This is when the direct member can be hugely important. Our Council, on occassion, has spoon fed the local member on his public presentation.... :o There is also something to be said for appeal....there are many councils that do not wish to be caught in appeals because it costs money and man-hours. All these cases are complicated, but often come down to the same ingredients....sometimes unseen and unwritten.
Do they have officer recommendation for this kind of stuff in Scotland?
Ciao
-
Sean,
though there is the planning officer's recommendation here in Scotland the planning process is different to that in England. Opinion polls do not affect the vote but LOCAL opinion does which is overwhelmingly in favour of the project. I would be surprised if it does not get permission.
Jon
-
[quote author=Jon Wiggett link=topic=62771.msg1561307#msg1561307 date=1516177989
David,
that's exactly my point. Yes, Mr. Dargie was an environmental expert for Trump at Menie and yes he did object to the project once he was no longer part of it but his report was very much in favour of the Menie project going ahead so on paper he was more 'big fan' than 'against'. Balanced journalism would have picked up on this in my opinion. If Mr. Dargie was always against developing the dunes at Menie why did he produce a report backing their development?
Jon
Jon,
This is complete conjecture and nothing but a guess, but I would be not at all surprised if:
1. Mr. Dargie made a proposal to the Trump Org for...let’s say...25,000 pounds to produce an enviornmental report.
2. The report was used as ammunition to seek project approval.
3. The project was approved.
4. Mr. Dargie submitted an invoice.
5. Oh my God, he was ignored by Trump sons.
6. He resubmits invoice.
7. He is sent 5,000 pounds and told to piss off or he will be sued and that he should be thankful that he was allowed the opportunity to be associated with the project.
Either that or he is a shameless opportunist who now has such a guilty conscious over getting used by the Trumps that he is now seeing Coul through some new corrective lens....;-)...and he seeks to soothe his own bruised reputation.
How can someone really call themselves an environmentalist after putting his name behind Trump Aberdeen? Everyone who comes in contact with Trump is permanently stained. Mr. Dargie is trying desperately to wash that away at Coul.
-
Oops
-
Sean
For smaller applications planning officers have delegated powers to decide them. Where it is technically a major application, and this is for several reasons, then it needs to be decided at Committee. I’m not sure whether the planning officer is required to give a recommendation in his report to Committee but then I’ve never heard of one who hasn’t.
That said you are right to say that this is more likely to be a political decision reflecting local councillors own interests rather than one based on policy. I would imagine the local Councillors, and they generally are the only ones that matter given their colleagues tend to defer to them on local matters, would have had their ears bent by the developers and various supporters and possibly some groups against the development and will have a view one way or the other going into the meeting.
My interpretation of the “facts” from afar are that the local Councillors are on board to approve the scheme, and while Scottish Ministers could then call it in, it’s probably a good bet that they are unlikely to do that given their track record at Balmedie and at Dunblane.
Niall
-
Sean,
though there is the planning officer's recommendation here in Scotland the planning process is different to that in England. Opinion polls do not affect the vote but LOCAL opinion does which is overwhelmingly in favour of the project. I would be surprised if it does not get permission.
Jon
That's interesting that local opinion counts in Scotland in England it is purely about ticking boxes, if you tick them local opinion means absolutely zero. People that make comments normally go 'off the point and quote hearsay or nonfact', you really have to raise an objection that is going to conflict with a policy. I would say getting the parish council onside is worth it's weight in gold but that's England.
-
Adrian
The vast majority of planning applications will be decided in line with policy. It is only the contentious and emotive applications that tend to go against policy. By that I mean applications like Trump at Balmedie and Judy Murray at Dunblane that I referenced earlier. And while I wouldn’t compare Donald Trump to Mike Keiser (or indeed Judy Murray) directly, they all basically are playing the same game in how they are going about getting planning permission which is give us consent or we’ll take our ball away.
Niall
-
Adrian
The vast majority of planning applications will be decided in line with policy. It is only the contentious and emotive applications that tend to go against policy. By that I mean applications like Trump at Balmedie and Judy Murray at Dunblane that I referenced earlier. And while I wouldn’t compare Donald Trump to Mike Keiser (or indeed Judy Murray) directly, they all basically are playing the same game in how they are going about getting planning permission which is give us consent or we’ll take our ball away.
Niall
In fairness to those three, that approach is probably the only way to get things through if you are low on box ticking.
-
Sean,
though there is the planning officer's recommendation here in Scotland the planning process is different to that in England. Opinion polls do not affect the vote but LOCAL opinion does which is overwhelmingly in favour of the project. I would be surprised if it does not get permission.
Jon
That's interesting that local opinion counts in Scotland in England it is purely about ticking boxes, if you tick them local opinion means absolutely zero. People that make comments normally go 'off the point and quote hearsay or nonfact', you really have to raise an objection that is going to conflict with a policy. I would say getting the parish council onside is worth it's weight in gold but that's England.
Adrian,
I am confused in that you say in England it is purely a box ticking exercise meaning local opinion is not important but then say getting the Parish Council onside is worth it's weight in gold ??? As Niall says most projects are decided by the planning officer's discretion including some golf ones but big projects are usually decided by committee where the planning officer gives an opinion. In the latter case any local councillor would be foolish not to take local opinion into account especially when it is overwhelming which it is in this case.
Jon
-
Jon - Local opinion I thought your were meaning the locals could have their say. In England you have the right for any person to comment on a planning application. You can do that regardless of what country you live in, so our law is, if you live in New Zealand you can object to someone extending their house. Usually people mess it up and say things irrelevant, occasionally someone can highlight a breach of planning policy or find some genuine case law from appeals, which is exactly what a good planning consultant will do.
The steps in English planning law are that once an application is received it is made public and it goes out for consultation, perhaps to as many as 20 different bodies, one of whom is the parish council. The consultants are asked to give their opinion on the proposal and note the affect and a possible way of mitigation if any. The Parish council is important because they understand to some degree planning law and maybe case law and won't often object even if they don't like something if they think their objection cannot be sustained under a minister, sometimes they might just say 'No comment' often this means they are uneasy but know they are going to lose. Getting support from a Parish council for something more problematic and perhaps with 'unticked boxes' is what is worth it's weight in gold. 200 local people having a whine and moan is not worth much if the box is ticked.
Primarily though the most important aspect is to tick the box then they can't refuse and that is why so many more applications are dealt with by delegated powers and even some very big ones now.
I am quoting how it is in England though so, if you say it is different in Scotland I will believe you.
-
The two planning systems are VERY similar. Here is the thing...it is not as if "local opinion" is accurately polled or measured. So far as I am concerned, when folks talk about strong local opinion it is hearsay. Local opinion is "expressed" in local councils and during the Planning Meetings...hence my mood of the room comment. It is unwise to assume the loudest folks represent the most people. Usually, it will take something very emotive to go against officer recommendation...or if it is a grey area (a case such as this one) where officer recommendation is (will be) weighted by interpretation (which again...this is when a local authority member can really change the game). Still, members normally want to support their officers...as many members are clueless and/or don't give a shit either way.
It has come to the point now where a lot of Councils request their local authority member to call in applications, even if it is one house! This process essentially takes some power out of officer hands where decision-making becomes less predictable because members can be influenced by emotive issues. It is incredibly important how assertive parish councils and local authority members are and how well they work together.
I think this application will pass just because of what has already happened, but you never know 8)
Adrian
As the Clerk for our parish, it is very, very rare for the Council to back a planning application because I very, very rarely recommend the Council to do so. Most of the time it is a no objections jobbie (try to stay neutral if possible) with a few issues hopefully considered for conditions of approval. Because you are right, it can be very difficult for a parish council to come up reasons to object based on planning regulation. Most of the time cllrs go off on emotive reasons or try to look for technical reasons...which rarely works because the local authority takes care of technical aspects. My advice to them is represent themselves in replying to the consultation because that is not really where the Council should be coming from. Of course, cllrs need to be careful because they are meant to attend meetings with an open mind to their decision-making. So making public declarations prior to a council meeting is unwise to say the least ;D
Once in a while our council digs in if it feels something is amiss and we will spend serious money to engage barristers because barrister opinion can stop local authorities in their tracks and get them to re-examine the issues at hand. BUT...this approach takes a lot of work on the part of the Clerk and cllrs so it is fairly rare. Nearly 20% of our precept is budgeted for legal fees (read money to fight planning applications)! Things will change once the Neighbourhood Plan is approved...the parish council will have more power in planning and seek further power with plan reviews. It will take time, but localism will become much more of a force.
Ciao
-
Sean - No Objection is what we are looking for when we submit a planning application.
I have had applications with Parish support and one with a mitigation proposal to support which actually contradicted planning law. The officer took no opinion of the Parish council on that occasion.
-
Adrian,
generally you will have talks with all the required bodies and get where possible their approval prior to putting in for planning. If you get this then the planning officer in the vast majority of cases will pass it without going to committee. Sean is correct about there being no official polls taken of local opinion but it is a stupid councillor who does not check out local opinion on big cases and most will not go against it if they want to be re-elected. Local groups and organisations are canvased for their input but this is not part of the official decision making. SEPA, SNH, Highland Council's diverse departments and neighbouring landowners.
Jon
-
Sounds as if the Scottish system is either very different or your talking total shite.
The English system is pretty much about ticking the boxes. Comply you get planning permission if you don't it is a real problem.
The English system does not do polls of local opinion that I am aware of, if there are any I think they are bootleg. There is a portal to comment and it is available to all. A consultation period is allowed for local bodies to make their comments on the application, if they have problems that can't be mitigated they can object and their opinion if strong, in the overall decision process, they can easily reflect into a refusual and it can be ONE SINGLE THING. If it can be mitigated then suggestions can be conditioned into the decision notice.
A parish council is really just a consulting body. It's recommendation must still be sustainable against planning law or it is worthless though they are likely to influence the planning committee to call it in which results in a planning committee decision. The applicant is weak against strong planning law and vice versa. It is almost always Applicant versus the PPGs in England.
-
Adrian,
Of course the Scottish planning system is quite a bit different to the English one. Scotland has always had its own laws and this affects the planning system too. Different building regs and standards, different controlling bodies and different application processes. Less of a case of talking 's#~*e' and more a case of pig ignorance perhaps ;) .
-
Apologies if this has been covered before, but does anyone know when the decision is likely to come? I have heard middle of January / End of January. Any specific dates?
-
The latest news:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/controversial-highland-dunes-golf-course-moves-a-step-closer-1-4665258 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/controversial-highland-dunes-golf-course-moves-a-step-closer-1-4665258)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Developers-claim-progress-on-Coul-LInks-plan-19012018.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Developers-claim-progress-on-Coul-LInks-plan-19012018.htm)
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1395422/snh-could-remove-one-of-its-objections-to-controversial-coul-links/
-
The latest, latest news:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15918692.American_tycoon__getting_cosy_with_Scottish_Government_over_golf_course_plans___can_this_be_happening_again_/?ref=mr&lp=6
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-holds-secret-talks-over-controversial-golf-course-1-4681976 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-holds-secret-talks-over-controversial-golf-course-1-4681976)
-
Newest news:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/SEPA-withdraw-objections-to-Coul-Golf-Course-development-25032018.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/SEPA-withdraw-objections-to-Coul-Golf-Course-development-25032018.htm)
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1441251/sepa-withdraws-coul-links-objections/
-
Another important hurdle taken. SNH should also soon follow.
-
"Stringent Conditions" are attached to that green light:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/SEPA-confirm-stringent-conditions-on-withdrawing-their-objection-to-Coul-Links-golf-course-plans-29032018.htm
-
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16254669.Coul_Links_golf_development_close_to_being_given_green_light/
Coul links gold development edges closer to approval from SEPA
National Newsdesk
29th May
SCOTTISH Natural Heritage (SNH) has removed all but one of its objections to a controversial golf course plan, according to the developers behind the project.
They say the move, coupled with the removal of all objections by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), means there is now virtually no statutory opposition to the proposed Coul Links Golf Development at Embo, near Dornoch.
The finalising of SNH’s response concludes a three-year consultation and the plans will go before councillors mext week.
Coul Links co-developer Todd Warnock said: “We are thankful for the extraordinary support and co-operation from almost everyone in the Highlands, especially the local community, as well as the diligence and professionalism of Highland Council, Sepa and SNH.
“After three years of effort we eagerly look forward to the June 5 planning committee.”
The aim is to make Coul Links one of the world’s premier courses, combining economic opportunity and ecological integrity
The developers will not build a hotel on the site, in part so economic benefits can flow to local businesses. They say the project is estimated to deliver 250 jobs and add £60 million gross value to the local economy over the first 10 years.
-
And then again...:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/trump-rival-s-plan-for-golf-course-on-rare-scottish-dunes-at-risk-1-4747421 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/trump-rival-s-plan-for-golf-course-on-rare-scottish-dunes-at-risk-1-4747421)
-
Hilarious.
Trump is a "rival" to Mike and Co? ;D ;D
-
And then again...:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/trump-rival-s-plan-for-golf-course-on-rare-scottish-dunes-at-risk-1-4747421 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/trump-rival-s-plan-for-golf-course-on-rare-scottish-dunes-at-risk-1-4747421)
This cute little "newsy video" had approximately ZERO to do with Coul Links yet was 100% dedicated to Donald Trump.
Finally read the "article" which has no real news, research or - for that matter - journalism associated with it whatsoever.
It is more of a last-ditch puff-piece written by a novice who did nothing more than a Google search on the topic from her kitchen table... ;D
For a small contrast, please see the list of organizations, companies, tour groups and LOCAL businesses that are FOR Coul Links:
https://www.coullinks.co.uk/single-post/2018/05/30/SUPPORTING-COUL-LINKS
For "real journalism" on the topic, please let me refer you to Adam Lawrence:
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/coul-links-preparing-for-planning-hearing-set-for-5-june
-
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1487017/councillors-face-huge-decision-over-controversial-highland-golf-course-plans/
Councillors face huge decision over controversial Highland golf course plans
by Jamie McKenzie May 31, 2018
(https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/421574257278_23567801-Read-Only-496x372.jpg)
Councillors face a huge decision next week after their officials recommended refusing the controversial Coul Links golf course in east Sutherland.
Proposals for the 18-hole championship course by Embo have drawn more than 1,600 objections, with conservationists arguing it will damage dune habitat and wildlife in a designated site of special scientific interest (SSSI).
The plans are being spearheaded by US businessman Todd Warnock and renowned golf course developer Mike Keiser, who say the local environment can be enhanced.
Yesterday, the chairman of local opposition group Not Coul, Tom Dargie, welcomed the council planner’s recommendation and described it as one of “the most unpopular applications” in the history of Highland Council.
But Sutherland Independent Group councillor Jim McGillivray, who lives in Embo, fears his area could lose out on a “once in a century economic opportunity” in a village which, like many others in the north, have “endured generations of poverty, neglect and emigration”.
The planner’s report, unveiled yesterday ahead of next Tuesday’s North Planning Committee, said the Coul proposals go against Highland-wide development plan policies on “sustainable design” and “natural, built and cultural heritage” by causing a “significantly detrimental impact” on the SSSI and an internationally protected wetland site.
The report, written by Gillian Webster, said: “In particular, the Coul Links support some of the best quality SSSI dune slack habitats in Scotland and the proposal, in its current format, will result in significant and permanent loss of sand dune habitat, particularly dune heath and dune slacks and impacts to other species which depend on it.”
The official report, referencing Scottish Natural Heritage’s objection, says although mitigation has been proposed by the developers, the “residual losses are extensive and likely to be permanent” and that natural dune processes will be disrupted, fragmenting habitat.
It also says that “translocation” of dune habitat is “unlikely to be successful” and not an appropriate technique to safeguard an area of such environmental complexity.
But Ms Webster acknowledged that the application represents a “significant development proposal” for Sutherland and that there is clear support for the project locally.
Dornoch Area Community Council say the 34 acres of SSSI directly affected would be better managed and that this, together with the economic benefits, outweighs the environmental concerns.
The developers have repeatedly argued that creating another “world class” golf course close to Royal Dornoch would encourage golfers to stay longer in the east Sutherland area, generating more local jobs and significantly boosting the economy.
Last night Mr Warnock said: “As is customary, Highland Council is required to recommend refusal when a statutory body objects. In this case the single objection from a statutory body is narrow and Highland Council is clear in the absence of that they would be supportive. They also acknowledge the broad local support and significant economic benefit of the project.”
Mr Warnock also thanked the local authority for their “professionalism and dilligence” and said he looks forward to next week’s meeting.
But Mr Dargie said next week’s decision will “set a precedent” as to whether or not Scotland’s designated conservation areas are “for sale at any price,” and urged the developer to put forward an “environmentally responsible” course design instead of making councillors choose between jobs, which he argues would be low paid and seasonal, and a sensitive dune habitat.
Scottish Natural Heritage chief executive Jonny Hughes said the SNH objection demonstrates that the effect on the SSSI goes beyond the area that would be directly damaged, and that the true scale of the impact is still unknown.
Mr Hughes stressed that coastal sand dunes are one of the world’s fastest disappearing habitats and that it would be “extraordinary” if councillors approved the development.
RSPB Scotland also described the council planner’s recommendation as a “major blow” to the Coul Links plans, while Buglife Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland also welcomed the planner’s official report recommending refusal.
-
The recommendation for refusal should come as no surprise. However, it isn't all that uncommon for members to go against recommendation especially if there isn't much concern about an expensive appeal.
Ciao
-
But Mr Dargie said next week’s decision will “set a precedent” as to whether or not Scotland’s designated conservation areas are “for sale at any price,” and urged the developer to put forward an “environmentally responsible” course design instead of making councillors choose between jobs, which he argues would be low paid and seasonal, and a sensitive dune habitat.
The precedent has already been set at Balmedie, furthermore Trump was urged to use less sensitive land there and refused. The Scottish Government then stepped in to ensure the development got planning. I can't see this being any different even if the local authority planning committee vote against it.
Niall
-
Although interestingly Niall, I was wondering if the abject failure to deliver on everything (except the golf course development) at Balmedie will play into the minds of those in power over this proposal.
Time will tell.
F.
-
FBD
The proposed Embo development is far more modest than was proposed/promised at Balmedie. Balmedie was to be a two course development (second course hasn’t happened), was to include a 500 bed hotel (hasn’t happened) and a large housing development (hasn’t happened). I’m not sure whether the proposed clubhouse has now been built, it may well have.
In contrast, at Embo the proposal doesn’t include a hotel or any housing. The developers are also claiming a far smaller economic benefit (£60m from memory compared to the £0.5 billion dollars/£0.5 billion pounds/£1 billion dollars/£1 billion pounds depending on which Trump quote you went by).
One of my gripes on the Balmedie development was how little scrutiny appeared to go into the economic claims. Hopefully that’s not the case at Embo but I do wonder if the supposed economic benefit is a best case scenario. Judging by comment from some of our US friends at BUDA over the weekend, they were a bit sceptical whether it would make much difference in encouraging people to stay in the area for longer and whether there would be a spin off for the likes of Brora and Golspie. I have the same doubts.
Niall
-
I would be surprised if the project did not get approval despite the recommended refusal from the planners as this is standard procedure for when one of the statutory bodies has an objection (slight in this case).
I think that what will go against the likes of RSPB and SNH is the fact that they have spent absolutely zero pounds on this SSSI site in the years since it was declared such despite both admitting the scale of degradation it has suffered since then. Both organisations have more than enough finance to do something about this decline and the fact that they haven't to date nor that they have proposed to in the future speaks volumes.
Lets be honest. The RSPB is objecting because it objects to everything that happens in the Scottish countryside unless it is one of their projects. SNH has raised a minor objections about something that is going to happen anyway if the project does not go ahead and Mr. Dargie is the man behind the ecology at Balmedie but who did not get the job at Coul Links but I am sure that has nothing to do with it.
Niall,
the key thing to begin with will be to get some to stay overnight in the Dornoch area even if they do not visit Golspie, Tain, etc.... At the moment most stay in Inverness and make a day trip up. I suspect the other courses will benefit from European and UK golfers who might stay for a longer time on a multi greenfee ticket such as offered in St.Andrews for those wanting access to Dornoch & Coul Links at a reasonable price.
Jon
-
I think it will _probably_ get approved, because there is no doubt that local opinion is very strongly in favour, and it is the local council that will take the decision. Not Coul is all outsiders; check out some of the addresses on their petitions and objectors. But it is not cut and dried; such are the ways of democracy :)
I don't see the project getting called in by the Scottish Executive. Partly because they got badly burned over Balmedie, and partly because Messrs Warnock and Keiser have made it clear throughout that they are not interested in a drawn-out planning battle. If the council votes no, they walk away.
-
FBD
In contrast, at Embo the proposal doesn’t include a hotel or any housing. The developers are also claiming a far smaller economic benefit (£60m from memory compared to the £0.5 billion dollars/£0.5 billion pounds/£1 billion dollars/£1 billion pounds depending on which Trump quote you went by).
One of my gripes on the Balmedie development was how little scrutiny appeared to go into the economic claims. Hopefully that’s not the case at Embo but I do wonder if the supposed economic benefit is a best case scenario. Judging by comment from some of our US friends at BUDA over the weekend, they were a bit sceptical whether it would make much difference in encouraging people to stay in the area for longer and whether there would be a spin off for the likes of Brora and Golspie. I have the same doubts.
Niall
This is one of the central points at the genesis of the project and it is not often discussed.
In 2008, after Castle Stuart opened, the town of Dornoch experienced a measurable drop in tourist revenue and hotel night stays.
Financial crisis was first blamed but the trend continued. Tour operators openly admitted that RDGC was now a day trip for their clients who stayed in Inverness as a "hub" and ventured out from there.
Skepticism is always a healthy part of any debate. But, in this one, the TOWNs of Dornoch and Embo see Coul Links as a way to 1) get back to where they WERE pre-2008 and 2) incrementally add to local revenue (hotels, restaurants, retail, adjacent courses) by positioning Dornoch as a "golf and tourist hub" and gateway to the Highlands.
A tangible result has already materialized as a London-based real estate investor purchased the 105 room Dornoch Bay Hotel last year from Shearrings. If Coul is approved, I believe they intend to refurbish the hotel which sits on a fantastic piece of property bordering RDGC's first hole. It is precisely the kind of intended investment touted by the developers - especially as, in contrast to "His Orangeness", Coul will NOT have any housing associated with it.
However, if Coul is not approved, the LOCAL construction/hospitality/golf tourism (incremental) revenue and jobs potentially derived from this one project will vaporize into the North Sea.
For additional "proof points" to the economic skepticsm rightly expressed at BUDA, it may be helpful to look at not one, but three examples and results of the economic impact of a Mike Keiser development at locations arguably more difficult to get to than Dornoch:
1. Bandon Dunes in Bandon, OR
https://theworldlink.com/news/south-coast-strong/bandon-dunes-boosts-entire-south-coast-economy/article_b3a1c52c-cc3b-5df5-864a-543ab5a69448.html (https://theworldlink.com/news/south-coast-strong/bandon-dunes-boosts-entire-south-coast-economy/article_b3a1c52c-cc3b-5df5-864a-543ab5a69448.html)
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1472397/coul-links-would-be-good-for-the-economy-and-environment-says-us-mayor/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1472397/coul-links-would-be-good-for-the-economy-and-environment-says-us-mayor/)
2. Cabot Links in Inverness, NS
http://www.thecasket.ca/archives/24454 (http://www.thecasket.ca/archives/24454)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/sports/golf/golf-course-transforms-mining-town-in-nova-scotia.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/sports/golf/golf-course-transforms-mining-town-in-nova-scotia.html)
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=887994 (https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=887994)
3. Sand Valley in Natossa, WI
http://wrcitytimes.com/sand-valley-to-bring-jobs-and-five-star-golf-to-the-area/ (http://wrcitytimes.com/sand-valley-to-bring-jobs-and-five-star-golf-to-the-area/)
http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/2017/09/11/wisconsin-approves-4-million-airport-near-sand-valley-after-architects-donation (http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/2017/09/11/wisconsin-approves-4-million-airport-near-sand-valley-after-architects-donation)
http://www.sandvalleygolfresort.com/news/2018/2/13/the-wisconsin-wonder-1 (http://www.sandvalleygolfresort.com/news/2018/2/13/the-wisconsin-wonder-1)
And then there's this:
https://www.golfchannel.com/video/keisers-golf-course-saves-nova-scotia-town/ (https://www.golfchannel.com/video/keisers-golf-course-saves-nova-scotia-town/)
-
Ian -- we know on here what impact Bandon and Cabot have had on their localities, and Sand Valley is starting to have. But there is a fundamental difference between those and Coul -- they are resorts, not standalone golf courses.
Now fwiw I think that Coul will probably do much of what its proponents are hoping. But it's hard to assert proof from the examples you give, because of the difference in the operations.
-
Ian -- we know on here what impact Bandon and Cabot have had on their localities, and Sand Valley is starting to have. But there is a fundamental difference between those and Coul -- they are resorts, not standalone golf courses.
Now fwiw I think that Coul will probably do much of what its proponents are hoping. But it's hard to assert proof from the examples you give, because of the difference in the operations.
Adam - Fair point...I think..
The differences lie in what, in fact, you correctly point out.
The success of the three prior Keiser properties bring tangible economic benefits to the are (of course) but also to Keiser (and sons/associates) who run the resorts.
In the case of Coul, the incremental hospitality revenue will (theortically) go the existing (or future) independent infrastructure stakeholders in the surrounding area - exactly as intended further underscoring the potential benefit to locals not just outside investors.
But, you are right...time will tell.
From what I have read (and heard when there), there is very strong local support and Coul is seen as a "once in a century" opportunity.
Given that there has been the complete absence of funds, oversight and stewardship of the existing SSSI, and that Keiser has pledged 50K pounds/yr. for environmental assistance, I often wonder about the possible local backlash if the project is scuttled successfully by those who will never be impacted one way or another.
Adam, was there an equal (local, national or group) resistance to this new course: [size=78%]http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/New-Dumbarnie-Links-course-on-Scottish-coast-gets-green-light (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/New-Dumbarnie-Links-course-on-Scottish-coast-gets-green-light)[/size] ?
-
Dumbarnie has flown below the radar throughout. They started construction last week, but you'd never know it... (it's also not on an SSSI, so far as I am aware).
-
Jon
More often than not the planners will recommend refusal if the statutory consultees make strong enough objections but that’s not a given. Sometimes they won’t because there might be mitigating factors. Effectively they look at in the round.
With regards to the notion that the planning committee will vote it through simply because RSPB and SNH haven’t spent money, I think that very, very, fanciful to say the least. Firstly those bodies aren’t that well financed that they can throw money about willy-nilly, and secondly I think it fundamentally mis-understands the role of SNH at least. SNH is an advisory body that has in its remit the stated aim to: “secure the conservation and enhancement of, and to foster understanding and facilitate the enjoyment of, the natural heritage of Scotland.” That doesn’t mean they throw money at private landowners.
Whatever lease agreement that the RSPB had with the landowner is over, and you can’t expect them to spend money on land they have no agreement on. And while we’re being honest, your issue with RSPB didn’t originate with their objections over Embo ;)
Niall
-
Niall,
I am well aware of SNH's role and that they can be instrumental in securing funding for the upkeep of an area if it is of significance which might otherwise be lost were nothing to be done. As for the RSPB, you are sadly misinformed if you do not know that they are a very well financed lobby group. I understand what you are saying about not spending money on a property after the lease they had was over but that does not change the fact that they didn't spend a penny even when they had said agreement.
I have yet to meet a landowner with a good thing to say about the RSPB which speaks volumes.
-
My wife and I walked the Coul Links again last month, and IMHO the land is good for golf but not great. The shoreline dunes are not fit for golf and the internal land is boggy and needing significant improvement. That being said, a link of links courses from Portmahamock to Tain to Skibo to Struie to Dornoch to Coul to Golspie to Brora to Helmsdale would be unique.
But would this links of links be adequate to rejuvenate southeast Sutherland? I very much doubt it. Dornoch as a destination died when the Burghfield House Hotel died in the early 90's. The Royal Golf Hotel has been in intensive care for 10+ years and the Golf Hotel can be renovated only with mega bucks. Mr. W's places are OK but small and expensive. Long term visitors, such as my extended family, rent out houses when need be.
Sic transit gloria mundi......
Rich
-
"Dornoch as a destination died when the Burghfield House Hotel died in the early 90's."
Rich -
I know you have a sentimental attachment to the Burghfield. But, sitting here in Dornoch today, it sure looks like the town is booming.
The closed courthouse is now a commercial emporium featuring 3 new businesses plus the tourist office. The Cocoa Mountain cafe/chocolate shop has opened on Castle Street. There is a new restaurant opening next week on the High Street. There is a beauty spa opening in the business park. The University has built a sizable dormitory building. There are two new upscale B&B's (albeit small ones) in addition to the Links House complex. The dreary Spar grocery on Castle Street has become a "foodie" deli. Luigi turns away multiple would-be customers at dinner nightly.
My guess is at least 100 new homes have been built here in the last 5 years. There is a new residential development taking shape on the road towards Embo (which has been widened to 2 lanes for most of the way). Construction of the 24 two-bedroom apartments in front of the Royal Golf Hotel is nearing completion and about half the apartments have already been sold (at rather stiff prices ;) ).
I am often surprised by how many non-golf visitors pass thru Dornoch on any given day.
No doubt the town needs more accommodations and more capable people to work in these places. The challenge will be to make a large enough profit over "the season" to ride out the dark and dreary winter months.
DT
-
I've read all 20 pages of this thread, and most of the various articles that were linked including the lengthy environmental impact ones. I know there is rarely a consensus in this biz, but I can't recall another proposed site where the opinions are all over the map than this one.
Between its special designation status, some who think it'd be a crime to build a course here, and others who think the land is just OK. Contrasted with all the comments from the other side of it being an epic location, terrific addition to the area, being a potential top 100 in the world, (and I know Mike K has a great track record with picking his sites and all.)
Just hard to make heads or tails of this one from where I sit...
-
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole project, but my blood really boils when I see some arsehole on FB say, and I quote: "let's turn this wilderness into something worthwhile".
Ignorance of the highest order.
F.
-
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole project, but my blood really boils when I see some arsehole on FB say, and I quote: "let's turn this wilderness into something worthwhile".
Ignorance of the highest order.
F.
Well, that's Facebook for you!
-
"Dornoch as a destination died when the Burghfield House Hotel died in the early 90's."
Rich -
I know you have a sentimental attachment to the Burghfield.
David
You are right about the first sentence in your reply. As to the rest of your reply, you do not know what Dornoch was like in the 70s and early 90s. It was Nirvana. Yes it is "booming" now, but for all the wrong reasons.
C'est la vie...
rfg
-
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole project, but my blood really boils when I see some arsehole on FB say, and I quote: "let's turn this wilderness into something worthwhile".
Ignorance of the highest order.
F.
Well, that's Facebook for you!
Yes,
If it's not some eedjit making stupid comments about golf course development, it's some other eedjit asking about leftover chicken!
;D ;)
F.
-
"Dornoch as a destination died when the Burghfield House Hotel died in the early 90's."
Rich -
I know you have a sentimental attachment to the Burghfield.
David
You are right about the first sentence in your reply. As to the rest of your reply, you do not know what Dornoch was like in the 70s and early 90s. It was Nirvana. Yes it is "booming" now, but for all the wrong reasons.
C'est la vie...
rfg
Indeed.
I feel your pain there, Rich.
Lots of places were nirvana in the 70's. Too many to list like: Nantucket, MA, Naples, FL, Carmel, CA, Harbor Springs, MI.
Now, big money dominates there.
But, global population was 4B in 1975.
Today, it's damn close to 8B.
-
Despite my reservations on this project, Adam’s article did get me quite excited.
The idea of the varied vegetation, including a few holes through dune heather, could make for a lovely course if dealt with well.
-
"As to the rest of your reply, you do not know what Dornoch was like in the 70s and early 90s. It was Nirvana. Yes it is "booming" now, but for all the wrong reasons."
Rich -
As the saying goes, "nostalgia just isn't what is used to be." ;)
You are right. I don't know what it was like in Dornoch 30-40 years ago. I don't see why that matters.
My point is the town is thriving today. For reasons you may or may not care for, it is attracting new residents, new businesses and a growing stream of visitors.
If the Coul Links site is as good as Bill Coore has said it is, I have every expectation the course to be built there will be be a success both artistically and commercially. (assuming of course it gets planning approval)
DT
-
I think one of the points Rich is trying to make, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that a lot of the visitor business is transient whereas before Dornoch was more of an end destination where people stayed for a week or so. That of course is one of the arguments put forward in favour of the development in that it will possibly encourage visiting golfers to stay longer. I'm not at all convinced that that will be the case.
I tend to think that the visits of golfers will still be somewhat transient and if they stay long enough to play a second course like Embo, it will be at the expense of somewhere like Brora or Golspie, and then having had their second round they will swiftly move on.
Niall
-
I think one of the points Rich is trying to make, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that a lot of the visitor business is transient whereas before Dornoch was more of an end destination where people stayed for a week or so. That of course is one of the arguments put forward in favour of the development in that it will possibly encourage visiting golfers to stay longer. I'm not at all convinced that that will be the case.
I tend to think that the visits of golfers will still be somewhat transient and if they stay long enough to play a second course like Embo, it will be at the expense of somewhere like Brora or Golspie, and then having had their second round they will swiftly move on.
Niall
Do you think folks will move on if they have more choice of lodgings? To me, this has always been a problem with Dornoch. Its a decent enough town, but eating, drinking and lodging are a bit limited. Many folks can forgive the eating and drinking issues, but not the lodgings...especially if they are booked through a tour company.
Ciao
-
Sean
That's a good question. When I think back to family holidays when I was kid and we stayed in the Burghfield House Hotel, the holiday largely revolved around golf with mainly games at Dornoch (championship course for my dad and eldest brother, and Struie for myself mum and other brother) with the odd day trips to Golspie or Rosemarkie. Obviously I've no way of saying now what the relative costs were back then but I'd imagine the cost of the golf would have been quite modest compared to now, with the cost of the accommodation probably being the major consideration.
These days, it's generally the other way about especially with greenfees well over £100 a round. Dornoch does have cheaper accommodation (Eagle Hotel I think it's called which I've stayed at and is OK) so there is a cheaper option there. I just tend to think that when on a golf trip and paying that kind of money for a round of golf, you tend to have an over-riding urge to try another course with the law of diminishing returns and all that.
That seemed to be borne out by many at BUDA who didn't seem to be playing a lot of courses on repeat (BUDA of course excepted) while on their travels.
Niall
-
Niall -
At the risk of being rude, do you seriously think the circumstances of how you & your family visited Dornoch 30+ years ago is really relevant to how people visit Dornoch for golf today? Was the bridge across the Dornoch Firth even built back then? ;) Were the courses open for play on Sundays? ;)
Things have changed appreciably in the 15 years I have been coming here. There are now direct flights to Inverness from London (at least 3-4 a day), Dublin, Amsterdam and Bergen, Norway. Most of these flights did not exist even 10 years ago.
DT
-
David
That's not rude at all, a fair question. However that was my point, the difference between then and now and why things are different (IMO). I've no idea about bridges and sunday golf but I can tell you things were a lot more informal. There were no starters at RD for a start, no tee sheet, and if the pro (singular) wasn't around when you teed off you squared him up when you finished the round. And you didn't need to bust the bank to do it either.
I also totally appreciate the difference a good air connection makes, or indeed the lack of it. For example the Ayrshire clubs lost an awful lot of visitor greenfees when Prestwick and Glasgow lost a lot of the Scandinavian routes. My question to you though is with modern visitong golfers, do you think they are basing themselves elsewhere or are they more or less moving about as they go from course to course ?
Niall
-
Niall,
Nothing really stays the same, it all evolves into something else for better or worse. I understand the nostalgia for old times and all, but even then we usually have a selective memory for how things actually were.
I think the only context this potential new project should be considered in is the present and future.
P.S. I will admit my own bias in that when I hear stuff like the "good old days" it often feels too close to "Make America Great Again"
-
Niall -
Clearly the golf course is now a major commercial engine for the town and even for the county of Sutherland. During the summer season, anywhere from 50 to 100+ local people could be working in some capacity at the course on any given day. The course now needs 30-50 caddies almost every day!
Assuming Coul Links does get built (and assuming it ascends to a top 25-50 in GB&I rankings), there may or may not be a "spillover" effect for the other local courses (Tain, Brora & Golspie). My guess is the tour bus crowd and the "belt-notchers" will come play RD/CL on day 1, have dinner and stay the night in town and play the other course the next day. Maybe some of them will be so taken with the courses and the area they will come back again to spend a week and play some of the other nearby courses.
But there are plenty of flats, apartments, houses, etc. that are rented on a weekly basis to visiting golfers and are heavily booked. As I mentioned earlier, there are 24 two-bedroom flats overlooking the 1st tee at RD now under construction that will be available for rent in the coming months.
Given RD's large non-resident membership, no doubt many of the weekly rentals are made by visiting RD members. But many of those visiting members bring their friends along to play at RD and elsewhere.
Just this past week there were 8 guys here from Minnesota. I think 3 of them are RD members. They come in May almost every year to spend a week playing at RD and the other local courses. They almost always bring along enough guys to round out two 4-balls.
DT
P.S. Even if the tour groups and belt-notchers stay in Dornoch for just one night (and don't play any of the other local courses), another 30-50 people having dinner there and staying in a hotel or B&B nightly is bound to have a positive impact on the financial well-being of the town. Whether that is enough to justify the building of Coul Links on that site from an environmental perspective is not for me to say.
-
Kalen
It was no mere exercise in nostalgia for me, although it is nice to remember happy times. My point was the change in what visitors did then and what they generally do now, notwithstanding DT's comments above. If you like the short version;
Then - maw, paw and weans stay for a week playing some golf while availing themselves of all the other attractions Dornoch has to offer, spending money in bars, restaurants, shops etc.
Now - golfers arrive, play golf, and then tend to move on. Will another course change that ?
David
The golf course has always been a big attraction for the town so no change there. I'm also not doubting that RD has an almost unique place in the affections of many north American visitors and many like you join the club and take advantage of longer stays. The question however is whether this is going to make any difference to the transient golfer ? And as a supplementary question what knock on effect will it have on the other courses, good or bad ?
Time will tell.
Niall
-
I think it will _probably_ get approved, because there is no doubt that local opinion is very strongly in favour, and it is the local council that will take the decision. Not Coul is all outsiders; check out some of the addresses on their petitions and objectors. But it is not cut and dried; such are the ways of democracy :)
I don't see the project getting called in by the Scottish Executive. Partly because they got badly burned over Balmedie, and partly because Messrs Warnock and Keiser have made it clear throughout that they are not interested in a drawn-out planning battle. If the council votes no, they walk away.
Adam,
Like you I think it will get approved. I'm less convinced of the Scottish Ministers actions if it doesn't, or indeed if it does ! In theory they could call it in if the Council give approval which would be a fairly bold step. In my experience when Scottish Ministers "call in" an application it is usually because the council have granted consent for an application that goes against policy. Balmedie is the only exception to that that I know of (the Council turned down the application) although I dare say there have been other examples.
In the unlikely (IMO) event the council refuses consent then I don't think Mr Keiser and Mr Warnock will be that quick to pack their bags and head home. While they say they wouldn't be interested in getting into a long drawn out planning appeal (Trump said the same thing if I remember correctly, just saying :D) I've got to think that's a negotiating stance. To get to this stage they will have spent a fair amount of money, and I suspect they have received some generally supportive noises from Edinburgh.
Niall
-
Sean
That's a good question. When I think back to family holidays when I was kid and we stayed in the Burghfield House Hotel, the holiday largely revolved around golf with mainly games at Dornoch (championship course for my dad and eldest brother, and Struie for myself mum and other brother) with the odd day trips to Golspie or Rosemarkie. Obviously I've no way of saying now what the relative costs were back then but I'd imagine the cost of the golf would have been quite modest compared to now, with the cost of the accommodation probably being the major consideration.
These days, it's generally the other way about especially with greenfees well over £100 a round. Dornoch does have cheaper accommodation (Eagle Hotel I think it's called which I've stayed at and is OK) so there is a cheaper option there. I just tend to think that when on a golf trip and paying that kind of money for a round of golf, you tend to have an over-riding urge to try another course with the law of diminishing returns and all that.
That seemed to be borne out by many at BUDA who didn't seem to be playing a lot of courses on repeat (BUDA of course excepted) while on their travels.
Niall
Niall
I guess my belief is that if another course is built there will be more spill-over play for the smaller clubs in the area....IF Dornoch can provide the amenities to keep the tourists in town. The Trump Aberdeen deal didn't have anywhere near the lodging issue of Dornoch because of Aberdeen down the road, but the other nearby clubs did very well with more visitor bookings. Of course, imo, this should have nothing to do with the actual building of the proposed course because in the big scheme of things we are talking tourism peanuts compared to the (imo) very high risk of permanently damaging a special site. Plus, the developer has little if any control over the increase of amenities in the area. I think approval is a much closer call than some do...50-50 because a paid professional the Council engages made a recommendation for refusal. It will really come down to a few cllrs pushing things along with powers of persuasion and to some degree that depends upon how much localized groups are getting in their ears. Many cllrs will be open-minded enough to be persuaded to go against recommendation, but it depends on the persuasive powers.
Ciao
-
I think for Coul Links to succeed in its stated goal of getting people to stay longer in the area and play some of the other courses is dependent on getting a multi-play ticket that gives UK based golfers the chance to access RD and CL at a reasonable price not the £100 plus rack rate. For this to be a reality it needs the locals in Dornoch, Golspie, Brora and Tain to really step up their game to offer enough, decent quality, value for money accommodation and attractions. Dornoch is leading the way and Tain is on the way but Golspie has a long way to go and Brora is simply dismal.
Jon
-
Sean
We've spoken off line about Councillors and the respective local political systems either side of the border so you know my views. You will also appreciate I can't say too much on here in that respect but lets just say I don't quite share your thoughts on Councillors.
I do however 100% share your sentiment about whether it is worth sacrificing a special environment for the projected returns, especially when less sensitive land is available adjacent.
Niall
-
Jon
I fully agree with your comments on cost of greenfees etc but then I'm speaking selfishly although I am also probably typical of a fairly sizeable demographic in terms of golfers. Budget/low rent accommodation will be important in this regard as you rightly point out.
It does occur to me though that the advent of the North Coast 500 will potentially bring in a lot more visitors than the golf will, although whether they would hang around for more than a day is also debateable.
Niall
-
I think it will _probably_ get approved, because there is no doubt that local opinion is very strongly in favour, and it is the local council that will take the decision. Not Coul is all outsiders; check out some of the addresses on their petitions and objectors. But it is not cut and dried; such are the ways of democracy :)
I don't see the project getting called in by the Scottish Executive. Partly because they got badly burned over Balmedie, and partly because Messrs Warnock and Keiser have made it clear throughout that they are not interested in a drawn-out planning battle. If the council votes no, they walk away.
Adam,
Like you I think it will get approved. I'm less convinced of the Scottish Ministers actions if it doesn't, or indeed if it does ! In theory they could call it in if the Council give approval which would be a fairly bold step. In my experience when Scottish Ministers "call in" an application it is usually because the council have granted consent for an application that goes against policy. Balmedie is the only exception to that that I know of (the Council turned down the application) although I dare say there have been other examples.
In the unlikely (IMO) event the council refuses consent then I don't think Mr Keiser and Mr Warnock will be that quick to pack their bags and head home. While they say they wouldn't be interested in getting into a long drawn out planning appeal (Trump said the same thing if I remember correctly, just saying :D ) I've got to think that's a negotiating stance. To get to this stage they will have spent a fair amount of money, and I suspect they have received some generally supportive noises from Edinburgh.
Niall
You could of course be right, and only time will tell, but I honestly don't think so. Obviously they have spent money, but it's a drop in the ocean for Mr Keiser, and he's got plenty on his plate with Sand Valley and his other new project. Mr Warnock may have a different view, I don't know -- and he has certainly been the front man so far, inevitably I guess given that he lives here -- but whether he'd be prepared to go on alone if his partner pulled out must surely be open to question.
-
In the unlikely event that planning gets refused next week then it's very possible that the Scottish Government could call it in without prompting from Mr Keiser or Mr Warnock. If so, if you were them you would be as well at least just sitting on your hands and seeing where it goes. Although I agree that that speculation is likely to be academic.
Niall
-
There is no doubt in my mind that approval of Coul Links would be good for the local economy, but I doubt that it will be significant, due to the lack of high end accommodation. Much more time and money has been spent, over 35+ years, developing Skibo into a destination resort for the gliterati and wannabes and even it doesn't get filled up for most of the year. Coul will be good for the Links Hotel (Mr. Warnock's place) and the Royal Golf Hotel, both of which need more paying customers. I suspect that if CL goes through, the belt-notchers will be relegated to Grannie's Heilan Hame in Embo (the obligatory caravan site for great links courses). It ain't bad. I've spent a couple of nights there and many more evenings in the adjacent local music venuee bar (before my marriage!). They used to have regular night time bus service between Dornoch and Embo, particularly in the summer and on the weekends. Does it still exist?
Rich
-
"They used to have regular night time bus service between Dornoch and Embo, particularly in the summer and on the weekends."
Rich -
The last I heard the Coul Links team's plan is to encourage their golfers to park in Dornoch. They intend to run a shuttle bus between the square in Dornoch and the Coul Links course.
Somehow I can't quite see the Coul Links golfers staying at Grannies. ;)
DT
-
Rich,
the lack of accommodation is one of the things that the 'locals' need to address. Having said that I do not see the growth coming from the US golfer but rather the UK golfer so it needs decent B&B as well as self catering. Actually, good quality statics would fit the bill pretty well. On top of this the other towns need to improve dramatically. I always wonder what the good folk of Brora are thinking when I drive through as the place is not enticing which is a shame as it could be very attractive.
Have you not thought the reason why Skibo is not full might be because that is the business model ::)
Jon
-
jon
The gazillionaire who owns Skibo now needn't care about chump change (i.e. a few million here or there)but he sold Sunderland FC recently, which tells me that he doesn't like losers. His current strategy reminds me of what a local worthy said to me in Dornoch in the mid 80's when itwas mostly barren "I'm happy that we have so many overseas members now, but I'm very glad too that they pay their dues and cross the pond rarely."
Rich
-
jon
The gazillionaire who owns Skibo now needn't care about chump change (i.e. a few million here or there)but he sold Sunderland FC recently, which tells me that he doesn't like losers. His current strategy reminds me of what a local worthy said to me in Dornoch in the mid 80's when itwas mostly barren "I'm happy that we have so many overseas members now, but I'm very glad too that they pay their dues and cross the pond rarely."
Rich
Mr Short sold Sunderland after writing off £126 million of debt that the club owed him (because no purchaser would take on the club with the debt). Which tells me he's not as much of a gazillionaire as he was a few months ago :)
-
Interesting, Adam
Short made his gazillions by shorting (no pun intended) South Korean bonds in the Asian collapse in the late 90's and early naughties. Hope for his sake he is no longer short (Short?) given what might happen (or not) in Singapore on June 12.
Rich
-
Rich,
the lack of accommodation is one of the things that the 'locals' need to address. Having said that I do not see the growth coming from the US golfer but rather the UK golfer so it needs decent B&B as well as self catering. Actually, good quality statics would fit the bill pretty well. On top of this the other towns need to improve dramatically. I always wonder what the good folk of Brora are thinking when I drive through as the place is not enticing which is a shame as it could be very attractive.
Have you not thought the reason why Skibo is not full might be because that is the business model ::)
Jon
Have mentioned this twice before, but - from what I heard, a London-based real estate firm purchased the Dornoch Bay Hotel for a song speculating that Coul was going to happen.
http://old.christie.com/en/property/bay_dornoch_hotel_dornoch_highlands_for_sale_49009[/font]
Great bones in this place and a near perfect location.[/font]
-
Hope you are right, Ian. There are great bones and great history at the Dornoch Hotel. In the 50's (even before Niall C. and I visited!) I am well informed that there were many Lords and Ladies who visited Dornoch via the spur railway and Dunrobin and then quick rides up to the Dornoch, the Royal Golf and the Burghfield from Rolls Royces waiting for them at the local station. Now that there was the day!
-
jon
The gazillionaire who owns Skibo now needn't care about chump change (i.e. a few million here or there)but he sold Sunderland FC recently, which tells me that he doesn't like losers. His current strategy reminds me of what a local worthy said to me in Dornoch in the mid 80's when itwas mostly barren "I'm happy that we have so many overseas members now, but I'm very glad too that they pay their dues and cross the pond rarely."
Rich
Rich,
possibly true but not very relevant.
-
Planning committee meeting starts at 10.30 this morning.
-
For those that are interested I suspect you will be able to watch it online through the Council website.
Niall
-
For those that are interested I suspect you will be able to watch it online through the Council website.
Niall
Yep.
There you go:
https://highland.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/354088 (https://highland.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/354088)
-
Mr Warnock certainly seems to enjoy Dornoch. Saw him out dining at adjacent table on Sat evening and playing on Sunday.
I’ll post a few up to date pics of the new 7th soon.
F.
-
Deferred for another two weeks approx pending the SEPA reply to the Not Coul objection.
The joys of our system!
F.
-
Sounds like they bottled making a decision ?
Niall
-
Not Coul have fired in a last-minute wobbly.
-
Last minute objection from Not Coul and the need to wait for SEPA response to it has required the council to defer a decision by about two weeks. However 7 members of the 15 member committee indicated in debate they would vote in favour. Story on http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net) in a few minutes
-
FBD
I've just been on the planning website and read the Not Coul email of 21st May. They basically charge Dornoch Area CC of not following the proper procedures. Whatever the truth of that, given the email arrived over two weeks ago, you'd have thought that they would have dealt with the matter before taking it to committee.
As an aside, I note they also refute the claim of overwhelming local support which is interesting.
Niall
-
Adam
Were you there or did you watch the webcast ?
Niall
-
Webcast and subsequent conversation with Chris Haspell
-
Story: http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/decision-on-coul-links-deferred-for-two-weeks (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/decision-on-coul-links-deferred-for-two-weeks)
-
Aha, not the 21st May email as I'd thought. Is the last minute communication available anywhere to see ?
Niall
-
I don't think so, unless Not Coul have published it. It ought to be on the Highland Council planning portal in principle, but I suspect they haven't got round to uploading it yet. Here's the page: https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OX1OGYIHH0I00&activeTab=summary (https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OX1OGYIHH0I00&activeTab=summary)
-
I doubt it can be anything of substance as if it were 'not coul' would have splashed it up all over the place. Suspect it is a last gasp attempt to frustrate but time will tell.
-
Just a quick post to say that the Coul Links' application was approved by the Highland Council today.
-
Just a quick post to say that the Coul Links' application was approved by the Highland Council today.
Great news...
https://www.coullinks.co.uk/single-post/2018/06/20/COUL-LINKS-PLANS-PASSED-BY-COUNCILLORS (https://www.coullinks.co.uk/single-post/2018/06/20/COUL-LINKS-PLANS-PASSED-BY-COUNCILLORS)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876)
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/controversial-highland-dunes-golf-course-gets-green-light-1-4757394
-
There is now a 28 day review period where government can get involved.
I would imagine that there will be appeals and protests filed.
Keep in mind that Trump's project was shot down initially but then went to parliament (I think) where it was overturned and approved during this 28 day period.
-
Admittedly, I would like to see this go ahead, but that Scotsman article is the most biased piece of writing I have seen in a very long time. It talks so little about the overwhelming support by the locals and the councillors, and instead, makes it sound as if the opposition is indeed larger than it actually is.
Further, they clearly have an agenda when they start a sentence 'Wealthy American golf moguls...'. How does the developers being wealthy have anything to do with the controversy?! Would it be less controversial if they were poor? I imagine they add this in to try to strengthen the nonexistent link between Coul Links and Trump Aberdeen.
Very sad from a paper I respect so little in the first place.
-
Tim
In fairness every environmental group I can think of was against it in principle and there was a petition with 90,000 signatures against the development. Furthermore the Council’s own planners recommended refusal so however you look at it that is a fair degree of opposition.
As for the wealthy American golf moguls comment, well they are wealthy American golf moguls are they not ? It’s just unfortunate for them that in this country Donald Trump has given wealthy American golf moguls a bad name.
The only difference I can see in the tone of the coverage is that it is slanted a bit more towards the opposition whereas before it was more slanted towards the developer. That’s just how the press works, build them up and then knock them down. I don’t think that’s peculiar to the Scotsman.
Niall
-
Having admittedly been sitting on the fence about whether this project would go ahead or not.... I can now say that I will be planning a 2020 trip to the area.
Was due to return anyway but very keen to see what a C&C course on genuine links land will look like...
So now excited on the go.
-
Tim
In fairness every environmental group I can think of was against it in principle and there was a petition with 90,000 signatures against the development. Furthermore the Council’s own planners recommended refusal so however you look at it that is a fair degree of opposition.
As for the wealthy American golf moguls comment, well they are wealthy American golf moguls are they not ? It’s just unfortunate for them that in this country Donald Trump has given wealthy American golf moguls a bad name.
The only difference I can see in the tone of the coverage is that it is slanted a bit more towards the opposition whereas before it was more slanted towards the developer. That’s just how the press works, build them up and then knock them down. I don’t think that’s peculiar to the Scotsman.
Niall
Niall,
I get your point, and normally I would agree. But read the BBC report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876)
They lay out the facts, and there is no opinion. I see coverage both for and against the course in the article, and am able to judge the facts objectively. That is not the case with the Scotsman article, and as far as I am aware, the Scotsman isn't an OpEd piece, but feels like it is with a clear agenda against the course.
With the 'Wealthy American golf moguls...' comment, it's not that it isn't factually correct, because it is. Rather, it is about its importance to the article. The subject of the article is about a golf course that was approved to be built, and is now facing backlash from those opposed, hoping the ruling will get overturned by the Ministers. Why does the fact that the project is being led by wealthy people have to do anything with the rest of the article? It doesn't. It is just a tactic from the writer to sway readers into thinking that the developers threw money around to get their way. From all the articles and reports I have read, and the councillors meeting that I watched, this appears to not have been the case. Mr. Warnock appears to have been genuine in his want to engage with agencies and voters opposed. But that doesn't come through in the article.
My question is: would The New York Times or BBC write the article the way the Scotsman did?
-
Tim
I've reread the Scotsman and read the BBC report and the difference seems to me that the Scotsman story is about the reaction to the decision to grant planning rather than about the decision itself. In other words they are endeavoring to move the story on. As I said, build it up and then knock it down.
As an aside I also read the Times this morning and from memory it similarly had a number of comments from opponents of the scheme. I think they also made the Trump comparison. As another aside, I don't think this decision was unexpected and I'd hazard a guess that the quotes you read in the Scotsman piece were probably pre-prepared PR's sent out when the decision was made. Same tactics from both sides.
Ally
I'd wait a few weeks before you book your plane tickets just in case. I've always thought that the Scottish Govt gave the developer the nod of approval a while back but I note that the only Councillor on the planning committee to object was SNP and that the local Greens MSP is making a big noise about it. I doubt the Scottish Govt will change their mind but it wouldn't be the first time that politicians changed their minds out of expediency.
Niall
-
Tim
I've reread the Scotsman and read the BBC report and the difference seems to me that the Scotsman story is about the reaction to the decision to grant planning rather than about the decision itself. In other words they are endeavoring to move the story on. As I said, build it up and then knock it down.
As an aside I also read the Times this morning and from memory it similarly had a number of comments from opponents of the scheme. I think they also made the Trump comparison. As another aside, I don't think this decision was unexpected and I'd hazard a guess that the quotes you read in the Scotsman piece were probably pre-prepared PR's sent out when the decision was made. Same tactics from both sides.
Ally
I'd wait a few weeks before you book your plane tickets just in case. I've always thought that the Scottish Govt gave the developer the nod of approval a while back but I note that the only Councillor on the planning committee to object was SNP and that the local Greens MSP is making a big noise about it. I doubt the Scottish Govt will change their mind but it wouldn't be the first time that politicians changed their minds out of expediency.
Niall
Fair enough if the article is covering the reaction, but it can still be presented in an unbiased way. 9 quotes for the opposition, 4 for the course, and those for the course are all at the very bottom of the article. Not exactly objective. I don't mind if this is the writer's opinion, but make it clear that it is an opinion piece, not a news story.
-
Tim
They are merely reflecting the depth of the opposition. Really Tim, you'd think your paperboy had hit you over the head with the Scotsman judging by the way you are going on ;)
Niall
-
Tim
They are merely reflecting the depth of the opposition. Really Tim, you'd think your paperboy had hit you over the head with the Scotsman judging by the way you are going on ;)
Niall
;D ;D Hehehe! True.
-
Tim
They are merely reflecting the depth of the opposition. Really Tim, you'd think your paperboy had hit you over the head with the Scotsman judging by the way you are going on ;)
Niall
What depth of opposition Niall? If you mean getting lots of people to sign a petition against something they have no proper grasp of being built in a place they have probably not heard of let alone visited then I will give you that. But then again if from a world population of 7 billion they found less than 100k to sign maybe the opposition was very small.
On the other side of the scales the pro side did not go down the route of whipping up a lot of noise concentrating on the local opinion which was well informed and knew what the local effects would be. Local opinion was almost exclusively behind the project.
Finally, the Green MSP was not elected by the local population but rather was a list MSP which is fair enough as far as it goes but I do not think he attended any of the information events to talk to locals or offer a counterpoint though I maybe incorrect in this.
Jon
-
Tim
They are merely reflecting the depth of the opposition. Really Tim, you'd think your paperboy had hit you over the head with the Scotsman judging by the way you are going on ;)
Niall
What depth of opposition Niall? If you mean getting lots of people to sign a petition against something they have no proper grasp of being built in a place they have probably not heard of let alone visited then I will give you that. But then again if from a world population of 7 billion they found less than 100k to sign maybe the opposition was very small.
Jon
LOL
-
I dealt with courts and prosecutions for many years and I always wondered why people would try arguments with respect to the law which really had no bearing on the issue at hand. Often the judge would become very skeptical of all of their arguments, even those which had significant merit. To me, the issue here is whether building the golf course will have such a negative impact on the environment that it should not be built. It seems that environmental considerations have become far greater now than they have ever been and to argue the positive economic impact of a project is almost irrelevant. How many courses in the US are being built in environmentally sensitive areas and how many courses that were built not that long ago would be permitted today, i.e. Ocean Course at Kiawah for one. So while we all would like to see this course built because of the track records of the architects and developers, economic impact should not really be part of the determination.
-
I dealt with courts and prosecutions for many years and I always wondered why people would try arguments with respect to the law which really had no bearing on the issue at hand. Often the judge would become very skeptical of all of their arguments, even those which had significant merit. To me, the issue here is whether building the golf course will have such a negative impact on the environment that it should not be built. It seems that environmental considerations have become far greater now than they have ever been and to argue the positive economic impact of a project is almost irrelevant. How many courses in the US are being built in environmentally sensitive areas and how many courses that were built not that long ago would be permitted today, i.e. Ocean Course at Kiawah for one. So while we all would like to see this course built because of the track records of the architects and developers, economic impact should not really be part of the determination.
Jerry,
but you have to have some context to the argument. If the site really is so important to the environment as the RSPB would have us believe then why has this very well funded organisation not only never spent a single penny on it and not even bothered to put a maintenance plan together for it? If you look at the situation as it has been till today and what would happen to the site if it carries on. Then look at what is promised in the new project then it really is not a difficult decision to reach.
-
Jerry does have a point.
If that entire community withers and dies on the vine and goes ghost town, those dunes and habitat will almost assuredly not have to worry about mankind tromping on it....
-
Kalen,
The communities of the Highlands have had a lot worse done to them than someone building a golf course there.
There's a big statue on a hill overlooking the site which is rather sad testament to that. How it's still standing is quite the mystery.
F.
-
Kalen,
The communities of the Highlands have had a lot worse done to them than someone building a golf course there.
There's a big statue on a hill overlooking the site which is rather sad testament to that. How it's still standing is quite the mystery.
F.
Marty,
I was being flippant, but to bring it back... I would think a golf course could be a good middle ground. I admit I don't have any context to that area's history, but is going from one extreme to another the answer?
-
K,
Yes, I generally agree. A golf course on that site, PROPERLY AND SENSITIVELY MANAGED, could certainly be beneficial to nature, to the local economy and to the local populace.
I'd go as far as to say that a golf course development there might even be a better outcome than the present state of management, which might be best described as benign neglect. Not that I'm saying benign neglect isn't a perfectly good management strategy - it certainly is in many instances. Nature will look after itself given the right circumstances.
Some people fear change.
Machrihanish Dunes, for example, is an outstanding example of what can be achieved when agencies, owners and operators work together.
Sic transit, Gloria Swanson.
F.
-
The fact is that the site has existed for a very long time and there is a proposal to modify it - the issue of whether the golf course will harm the existing environment or not has nothing to do with the economics of what the golf course may provide. After the construction it may provide a few jobs but it certainly will not cause an economic boom in the area. Do the locals really care if they can play the course at a 25% discount in the off season?
-
.
There's a big statue on a hill overlooking the site which is rather sad testament to that. How it's still standing is quite the mystery.
F.
I actually asked a Scot one night in a pub why it hadn't been dynamited off the side of hill, and he said. "Well, we're not the the Irish you know."
Of course you know the other reason, it's a reminder of how things can go.
K
-
What depth of opposition Niall? If you mean getting lots of people to sign a petition against something they have no proper grasp of being built in a place they have probably not heard of let alone visited then I will give you that. But then again if from a world population of 7 billion they found less than 100k to sign maybe the opposition was very small.
I like that argument. Never mind the 90,000 signatures and all the environmental groups and agencies, they are but a drop in the ocean of the world population. Still a much bigger drop in the ocean than those supporting mind you, but let’s not spoil a good argument. And of course none of those that signed the petition are locals. We know that because………eh, someone said so ?
On the other side of the scales the pro side did not go down the route of whipping up a lot of noise concentrating on the local opinion which was well informed and knew what the local effects would be. Local opinion was almost exclusively behind the project.
Jon, my good friend, I had two competing pictures of you in my head as I read that. The first one was a picture of your nose getting longer and the other was you with tongue firmly in cheek. I think I prefer the second. As I said to Tim, both sides have been fairly energetic and adept at promoting their case and as to who’s points are more valid, well you pay your money you take your pick.
Finally, the Green MSP was not elected by the local population but rather was a list MSP which is fair enough as far as it goes but I do not think he attended any of the information events to talk to locals or offer a counterpoint though I maybe incorrect in this.
I too share your “love” of the democratic process as practised in this country. Nevertheless, it is what it is. The MSP is not compelled to attend any roadshow and you could argue that a more objective view is obtained by not attending but instead considering the written submissions only. Of course he is a member of the Green party which kind of suggests him taking an objective view is unlikely anyway, but still, it doesn’t mean his views are any less valid.
Jon
-
I dealt with courts and prosecutions for many years and I always wondered why people would try arguments with respect to the law which really had no bearing on the issue at hand. Often the judge would become very skeptical of all of their arguments, even those which had significant merit. To me, the issue here is whether building the golf course will have such a negative impact on the environment that it should not be built. It seems that environmental considerations have become far greater now than they have ever been and to argue the positive economic impact of a project is almost irrelevant. How many courses in the US are being built in environmentally sensitive areas and how many courses that were built not that long ago would be permitted today, i.e. Ocean Course at Kiawah for one. So while we all would like to see this course built because of the track records of the architects and developers, economic impact should not really be part of the determination.
The issue is/was a bit more multi-faceted than this on both the environmental and economic fronts.
Environmental: The existing site has been mismanaged for decades. I believe this is what did in the opposing groups. Where has their concern for the SSSI been for the past 50 years? Where was the management plan to preserve, protect and nurture the location?
The course developers are pledging 50,000 pounds.yr. to remediate, manage and maintain the site including parts of the SSSI.
Economic: I think what Jerry says above leaves out some key points about the possible economic impact that a golf course can have on a more remote location. As an example, in 2008 - when Castle Stuart opened an hour away (and this has been discussed 4-5 times here already...;-) Dornoch saw a NET LOSS of room nights and tourist revenue in the town. Golfers would base their stay in the Inverness area and come up to Dornoch for the day, recieve their box lunch on their coach and return to play Nairn in the afternoon. RDGC wins, but the town itself does not benefit.
The economic argument goes WAY past the jobs created by operating a new golf course. When Coul opens (2020?) it is envisioned that golfers will stay in Dornoch for 1-3 nights to play RDGC, Coul and (hopefully) Brora and Golspie. THAT is where the economic benefits will be derived. (Hotel nights, restaurants, bars, shops, etc.)
Again, just look at Bandon, OR and Inverness, NS for examples.
If the economic case was not strong, I do not believe that the project would have been so well-received by the residents of Embo and Dornoch. In this case, environmental AND economic rationales were considered by the ruling bodies (not legislative ones, mind you). The developers addressed both thoroughly and were acknowledged accordingly.
And while a vigorous "Not another Trump scenario" defense was put forth by those opposed to the project, they acted much like the US' "Resist" and "Never Trump" movements: Everyone understands what they are against, yet they can never seem to quite articulate what they are FOR and what they intend to actually DO about it.
(Disclosure: I am not a Trump fan....;-)
-
Agreed. I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made. I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative. Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area. As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.
-
Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL. Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon. The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.
-
Intriguing evidence that what we're discussing and debating around here on gca.com isn't actually great golf courses, and even less the art & craft of great golf course architecture, but instead a range of issues related to personal narratives and egos and value & belief systems. We're now on the 23rd page of a months-long discussion (ostensibly) about one *possible* new golf course, by one of *many* qualified architectural firms, financed by one of a *dozen* American billionaires with an interest in golf, located in one *small* region within one of a *hundred* sub-national jurisdictions around the world where the game is played -- in short: a blip, really, but one that has engendered tens of thousands of words and heightened emotions.
23 whole pages of impassioned posts on 'Keiser's Coul Links Project' -- more posts/pages than some 50 'purely' architectural threads combined.
I wonder what that's about. I wonder what we're all actually doing around here -- what draws us in and keeps most of us coming back for more. This gca.com increasingly seems to me a vehicle and metaphor both -- but a vehicle to where and a metaphor for what?
-
Very true, Peter....
Let’s be honest, there’s nothing left to say about GCA that hasn’t been repeated on here many times over.
Only if you all overnight became actual designers rather than armchair ones would there be new angles, discussions and intriguing takes on the art of architecture itself.
So it leaves the new topics about history, the business and new golf courses... very occasionally a quality old course gets highlighted that is new to everyone. That’s about it.
Strategy, routing, bunker styles have all been debated ad nauseum in a theoretical manner that usually bears little resemblance to the decisions that need to be made on the ground... Still makes for good reading though.
-
Jerry, Lynn,
have you actually read the projects concept?
-
Some interesting comments gents. The one that struck me was this concept that somehow a SSSI should be managed (for that read cultivated and maintained) in the same way as public parks and gardens. I've never heard that before. To the best of my knowledge the "management" of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is what SSSI stands for, is about preserving the conditions that made the land a SSSI in the first place. As FBD would put it that largely involves some benign neglect ie. leaving well alone.
I'm therefore surprised anyone is seriously suggesting that building a golf course over part of the land and thereafter spending money on various measures is going to increase the environmental or ecological value of the SSSI. At best any money spent is going to be mitigation for the damage done with the building of the golf course.
There also seems to be this perception amongst some that somehow the "authorities" have failed in looking after this site. That basically misunderstands local government and central governments roll in the process. Their roll is largely about regulation, not ownership. This site is privately owned and the local authority and Scottish Government can only regulate how it is used. So if there has been a failing by the "authorities" it has not been historically but through the granting of this planning permission.
As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic.
Niall
-
Some interesting comments gents. The one that struck me was this concept that somehow a SSSI should be managed (for that read cultivated and maintained) in the same way as public parks and gardens. I've never heard that before. To the best of my knowledge the "management" of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is what SSSI stands for, is about preserving the conditions that made the land a SSSI in the first place. As FBD would put it that largely involves some benign neglect ie. leaving well alone.
I'm therefore surprised anyone is seriously suggesting that building a golf course over part of the land and thereafter spending money on various measures is going to increase the environmental or ecological value of the SSSI. At best any money spent is going to be mitigation for the damage done with the building of the golf course.
There also seems to be this perception amongst some that somehow the "authorities" have failed in looking after this site. That basically misunderstands local government and central governments roll in the process. Their roll is largely about regulation, not ownership. This site is privately owned and the local authority and Scottish Government can only regulate how it is used. So if there has been a failing by the "authorities" it has not been historically but through the granting of this planning permission.
As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic.
Niall
Niall,
I am stunned at how ill informed you are on the subject of SSSIs.
Firstly, a SSSI is usually about maintaining an area in a particular phase of its development. As nature is always evolving this means actual maintenance as if you 'benignly neglect' a site as you put it said site will evolve and alter into something else. The site at Embo for instance is being overrun by diverse invasive plant species and animals. If no work is undertaken to counter this then the site as it is will be lost in a matter of decades. Have you never wondered why the heathland courses which were open courses when built have become largely tree lined courses today? or did you think the clubs planted all those birches and pines ;)
As to the 'authorities' statement you make I would point out the following. Yes the site is privately owned but the SSSI is a governmental tag and it is up to the various bodies (RSPB, SNH, SEPA, Highland council, etc) between then to ensure the site is suitably managed. In addition, it is not the case that the 'authorities' can just turn up and inform a landowner that his land is being designated. There has to be an arrangement in which the landowners rights to use their own land as they see fit is protected. It is then up to the 'authorities' to put together a maintenance plan, then to implement and finance said plan. So you assertions on this manner are incorrect. The landowner is not responsible to finance nor maintain any programme for the SSSI.
-
Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL. Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon. The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.
PS, to Lynn.
I've been campaigning as a long time member at Dornoch for the past 20+ years to invest in the Struie before thinking about a new clubhouse and changing the Championship course and other foolish plans. Several past Captains replied with sympathetic letters but not empathetic ones. C'est la vie.
Just imagine a Struie with 27 holes--a 2800 one a 3200 on and a 3600 one. The 6800 would be a world class course, the 6000 one perfect for juniors and seniors, the 2800 a great start for beginners or just people who want to play an easy 9 holes in an hour or so. A small clubhouse out near what is now the 5th and 7th tees, ideal for juniors, seniors and all others alike. No need to demolish the current clubhouse and build a space ship out by the helicopter landing landing pad.
Sigh......
rfg
-
Jon
No need to be stunned, the number of things I don't really know about is legion !
While I take your point about succession on the heathland courses, the point I was making was that the "management" of the site was far more about prevention of certain activities rather than active and extensive intervention. That's active and extensive relative to the upkeep of say a public park. And by prevention I mean preventing things like, say, putting down 50 odd acres of manicured turf for instance.
I also take your point about the designation of SSSI sites, which as I understand is delegated to SNH, and the process that involves the owners input that can lead to a Management Plan being agreed, and that grant funding is available for that. However beyond that the role of SNH is prevention of certain detrimental uses is it not ?
As an aside, when I referred to authorities earlier I was thinking of more the local authority and Scottish Government whose role is very much regulatory one although I appreciate SNH's funding (mostly ?) comes from Scottish Government.
Niall
-
Lynn
The tourist organisation in Scotland is Visit Scotland who have a mixed rep as far as I can see. I think they tend to go for bigger picture marketing initiatives although I'm sure there are folk on here who can speak about them far more knowledgably than me.
One of their initiatives in recent years is the marketing of the North Coast Route 500 (is that what it's called ?) which is the route going round the top of Scotland and down either coasts. That has already been fairly successful such that the limited infrastructure ie. roads, accommodation, eating places, is already creaking particularly round about the north west apparently. It occurs to me that developing another caravan park on Embo might have more of a beneficial economic impact for the local area than the proposed golf course.
Niall
-
As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic.
Adam Smith must be rolling in his grave that fellow Scots would deprive an owner from using and enjoying the fruits of HIS property. If the SSI designation is so appropriate and important for Scottish society, shouldn't the private owner be compensated by the government for what is essentially the taking of his land?
To me, the issue here is whether building the golf course will have such a negative impact on the environment that it should not be built. It seems that environmental considerations have become far greater now than they have ever been and to argue the positive economic impact of a project is almost irrelevant. ...... So while we all would like to see this course built because of the track records of the architects and developers, economic impact should not really be part of the determination.
Wow, nature and the environment exist independent of people! And who has stipulated that building the golf course has "such a negative impact on the environment"? Certainly not the property owner, the development group, and, reportedly, a considerable majority of local stakeholders. "Environmental considerations" are largely a function of political philosophy and which group currently swings the sledgehammer. I would suggest that consideration of any environmental proposal must include the relevant costs and benefits.
We made a brief visit to the proposed site after the Buda and I can't say I was blown away. I have no idea what the scientific value is or how society at large benefits from prohibiting the owner to develop his land as proposed.
I do believe that a quality links could have a significant economic impact locally, though I can also understand why those who already have theirs (NIMBYs) might resist change, more visitors, congestion, etc. I suppose that the point of diminishing returns might be approached where having many more golf tourists paying £160-£200 for a round of golf to support the members' annual subscriptions of £500-£600 is no longer worth the inconveniences of a busier course. If I was an international member at RD, I may be concerned that my annual visits might get much more expensive.
-
I do wonder what the point is of paying experts to designate SSSI sites only to have other paid people say its okay to disturb the land because the economic benefit is more important. Isn't that why SSSI sites are named, at least in part so the land can be preserved from economic concerns? Like Niall, I too wonder what was so horrible about the stewardship of the land and then to reward the supposed transgressions by allowing the keeper of the land to sell. None of it makes much sense to me, but hey, there will be another golf course which will surely save the Highlands from economic ruin. Lets hope the project does better than shameful Trump's folly. But I have to wonder at the logic of the expectation that more people will stay in the immediate area when accommodation isn't part of the plan.
Yes Rihc, why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that.
Ciao
-
Agreed. I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made. I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative. Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area. As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.
Funny that you say that, Lynn, as that was the precise genesis of the project in 2013.
Bill Coore first came to Dornoch and looked at the Struie in the hopes that it showed potential as a renovation candidate. In the end, he determined that the Struie could not be suitably altered.
“Go take a look up the road, just past Embo,” someone told him. “Let me know what you think of the property by Coul farm.”
Lastly, give the developers some time to get sorted.
Let’s see what happens with the other clubs.
-
That last point is interesting, Ian.
Are you suggesting that Keiser / Warnock might invest in Golspie and Brora or is that wild conjecture?
In the case of Golspie (which I love), I think some investment could help the course. In the case of Brora (which I also love), I’m less sure.
-
Niall,
I do not follow or agree with the all or nothing position being pushed by those who are sceptical of the project. If you look at the percentage that will be intensively maintained as sports turf it is a very small number. Is it not better to loose a 3% amount to a golf course whilst not only looking after the other 97% but also adding a further piece of land thus increasing the actually area maintained as/like the SSSI. Or is it better to let all of it degrade through doing nothing. If we really want the land to be left in its natural state then most of it would be woodland. There is a misconception that SSSIs are to protect the natural state of the land which could not be further from the truth. Heathland, duneland, moorland in the UK is 99.9% a manmade environment and left to nature Coul Links would not look like it does today.
I do wonder what the point is of paying experts to designate SSSI sites only to have other paid people say its okay to disturb the land because the economic benefit is more important. Isn't that why SSSI sites are named, at least in part so the land can be preserved from economic concerns? Like Niall, I too wonder what was so horrible about the stewardship of the land and then to reward the supposed transgressions by allowing the keeper of the land to sell. None of it makes much sense to me, but hey, there will be another golf course which will surely save the Highlands from economic ruin. Lets hope the project does better than shameful Trump's folly. But I have to wonder at the logic of the expectation that more people will stay in the immediate area when accommodation isn't part of the plan.
Yes Rihc, why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that.
Ciao
Sean,
have you thought about reading up on any of the topics you touch on in your post. There is a ton of easily accessible information on all of them. I agree with you and Rich about Struie.
Jon
-
Jon
I don't think the Sean and I are in agreement, or maybe Sean just made a tyop(TM) when he he said:
"...why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that."
[/size][/color]
[/size]RD has in fact "made a meal" of the Struie (i.e. FUBAR in American.....).[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Ian[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]I respect Mr. Coore's opinions, and enjoyed his work at Sand Hills, but Robin Heisman's work on the current Struie (holes 9-13, greens on 5, 7 and 14)) tells me that there is a very good 27-hole golf course out there waiting to be built.[/color]
[/size]rfg[/color]
-
Jon
I don't think the Sean and I are in agreement, or maybe Sean just made a tyop(TM) when he he said:
"...why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that."
RD has in fact "made a meal" of the Struie (i.e. FUBAR in American.....).
Ian
I respect Mr. Coore's opinions, and enjoyed his work at Sand Hills, but Robin Heisman's work on the current Struie (holes 9-13, greens on 5, 7 and 14)) tells me that there is a very good 27-hole golf course out there waiting to be built.
rfg
Maybe
-
Jon
Your point about succession in your last two posts is well made with nature forever being in a state of flux. However I'll stick to my point about lightness of touch or benign neglect, whatever you want to call it, being a far better "solution" than wholesale development of a chunk of the site with another chunk of un-proven mitigation thrown in.
I may be cynical, in fact let me confess to being cynical, and say that what ever supposed shortcomings SNH have had in relation to this site are being used by the landowner and the developer as a pretext for making money/building a golf course.
However let me get back to the first sentence in your last response to me about the all or nothing approach of those against the development. Surely the same can be said about the developer with the this is where the course is going take it or leave it. That is one of the main concerns I have about this development and Trumps development at Balmedie. Just like Balmedie where a course could have been built on less sensitive land, the same is happening at Embo.
At Balmedie the planners wanted them to move the course to another part of the land and Trump said no. He said that knowing he had the support of the Scottish Govt. The same thing seems to have happened at Embo where politicians have undermined the system. Just my opinion.
Niall
-
Lou
I'm no Adam Smith scholar but know he talked about the hidden hand of market forces etc and how that affected the price of bread etc but not sure he talked much about planning policy. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Niall
-
Niall,
I do take your point but ask for the following clarification. Define 'benign neglect' [/size]in relation to management of a SSSI in order to maintain it in its current state.[/color][/size][/font]
[/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[/size][/color][/size]I would generally be against development within SSSI sites but given that the site has not been managed at all and will cease to retain the characteristics that made it a SSSI in a matter of decades combined with the obvious indifference to future maintenance of the site were planning permission refused I would suggest long term for the site it is better the course go ahead.[/color][/size][/font]
[/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[/size][/color][/size]Jon[/color][/size][/font]
-
Jon
No hard definition of benign neglect but generally where doing nothing rather than making wholesale changes, as in this instance, might be the better choice. Of course that depends on what timescales you are looking at. If you are looking at it over a good many decades as you suggest then you perhaps could make a case but even then, if you allow me to make an analogy, it’s like the amputation of a limb when a few stitches might be a much more sensible solution.
Niall
-
Lou
I'm no Adam Smith scholar but know he talked about the hidden hand of market forces etc and how that affected the price of bread etc but not sure he talked much about planning policy. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Niall
I haven't visited Smith for 40+ years, nor have ever been accused of being a scholar of any type. However, the concept of property, real property and the underlying bundle of rights in particular, have been of great interest to me for longer than that.
AS didn't theorize as much as observed that wealth is created through the use of private property to produce income greater than the cost of production and the owner's personal consumption. Property rights incentivized and enabled their holders to more efficiently allocate resources through the operation and discipline of markets. I can give any number of examples where stripping the rights of owners to enjoy their property resulted in the rapid decline of property, the economy, and society at large.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuETYEgY68
I don't know what AS thought about planning policy specifically, though I suspect that he was not a fan of central planning in conflict with millions of people making individual choices as to the type, price, and quantities of bread (or most any product or service for that matter) they chose to purchase. He would not, for example, be surprised that the care of the Coul Links SSSI has been neglected being that the private owner is essentially prohibited from using his property for gain.
A superior approach, IMO, would be for the government, in the interest of the community and the country, acquire the designated land from the owner AND assume the stewardship the SSSI deserves. A person with your skills and talent can assist all stakeholders in determining the fair market value of the land being taken (it is done every day in eminent domain cases; in the U.S., if the owner and government entity can't come up with a mutually agreed value, the owner can file suit in district court, I think, and sometimes prevail at a considerable higher price than paid in the taking).
As to the designation itself, my bet is that it is much more of a political than scientific process. And, as we know, that can change in a dime.
-
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/aristocrats-tycoons-and-billionaires-the-people-who-really-own-scotland-2/
Aristocrats, tycoons and billionaires … the people who really own Scotland
A major investigation by The Sunday Post has laid bare the 30 aristocrats, foreign tycoons and charities who own the largest chunks of the 19.5 million acres that make up the country.[/font][/color][/font][/size]
-
Agreed. I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made. I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative. Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area. As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.
Absolutely loved Brora. Royal Dornoch is up there with the best. Given how much of GB&I I still have to see, I honestly think I will come back and stay at Dornoch in the foreseeable future only if Coul Links is built. No marketing of Golspie and Brora will do anything remotely close to what Coul will do to the local economy.
-
Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL. Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon. The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.
Coul Links to date (and prior to any earth being moved) has created more hype and actual golfers wanting to visit, than any course in the immediate vicinity of Carnoustie has in the last 100 years.
In fact your example is perfect to support Coul Links.
-
Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL. Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon. The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.
Coul Links to date (and prior to any earth being moved) has created more hype and actual golfers wanting to visit, than any course in the immediate vicinity of Carnoustie has in the last 100 years.
In fact your example is perfect to support Coul Links.
Just look at Ayrshire, as an example.
Turnberry and Troon are the championship "anchors" that make the SW coast a destination.
My first trip was there in 1990 and we then also played Prestwick (analogous to Brora) and Western Gailes.
If there was only one cornerstone course, would it be a destination? Would we have stayed to play the (arguably) "lesser two"? (Although Western Gailes still ranks as one of all-time favorites.)
(Ok, ok, ok...I know all about Prestwick and its history....relax...;-)
Same with when we went to St. Andrews. (Also in 1990)
We also played Carnoustie, but then played Scotts Craig and Ladybank.
My point is: One championship course is a draw, but TWO make a destination.
Mike Keiser has been told he is crazy no less than 4 times. Just was at Sand Valley over the weekend. 300 people employed all-in there now including caddies. Plus, the tee sheet is full through August already.
Sure, Coul will not have lodging. But, the intent was always to let the local businesses address that.
-
Marcos, Ian,
You’re getting a little carried away with the hype around Coul though. This being based on the GCA love affair with Keiser & Coore.
99% of the golfing public will still consider Carnoustie the bigger draw.
-
Marcos, Ian,
You’re getting a little carried away with the hype around Coul though. This being based on the GCA love affair with Keiser & Coore.
99% of the golfing public will still consider Carnoustie the bigger draw.
Thanks, Ally, but I think not. Appreciate the sentiments, but they are misplaced.
I could put metrics behind my views, but...well, why bother, right?
Just look at any...and I mean ANY "Top 100" list and count the CC/Keiser courses.
If that's hype then I'm on board...;-)
Cheers.
-
They are beating the drum already:
https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/coul-links-impact-17809.htm
-
They are beating the drum already:
https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/coul-links-impact-17809.htm
David,
As a long time visitor to the area and with your knowledge of the site, what do you think are the prospects for the course if it gets built with some similarity to the plans? Will it drive demand in the area for hospitality, restaurants, and other services? How might it impact the membership and operations at RD?
Bill Coore gives the site the highest praise in the video clip from above. My untrained eye didn't pick up on the promise, at least not from where we had a limited panoramic view. Is the hype warranted?
-
Marcos, Ian,
You’re getting a little carried away with the hype around Coul though. This being based on the GCA love affair with Keiser & Coore.
99% of the golfing public will still consider Carnoustie the bigger draw.
Thanks, Ally, but I think not. Appreciate the sentiments, but they are misplaced.
I could put metrics behind my views, but...well, why bother, right?
Just look at any...and I mean ANY "Top 100" list and count the CC/Keiser courses.
If that's hype then I'm on board...;-)
Cheers.
99% may be a overstatement but there is a huge difference: Every other Keiser / Coore course isn’t placed near 15 other genuine links courses with public access, 100 years of major championship history and similar Top 100 status. Nor are they in a country where the names Keiser and Coore mean very little to all but the real GCA nuts.
I’m not questioning that it will likely end up a Top-100 course (at least for the next 20 years as all the raters will automatically love it). I’m not questioning that it will have plenty visitors or that it will be a great course.
I’m just saying that it won’t necessarily have the same pull for tourists as Bandon does (for example) for those who live in the western half of the US.
-
Ally, you may indeed be correct.
Or, for another opinion, I refer you to this article from yesterday: https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/coul-links-impact-17809.htm
Hyperbole? Perhaps a wee bit.
But, thematically, it is in-line with what I have endeavored to espouse.
CC/Keiser courses can be played over and over again and tourists make specific (and very inconvenient) return pilgrimages to play them.
Carnoustie, OTOH, for me: it was "one and done". The only thing memorable about it (aside from the opening few holes and Hogan's Alley) was getting our van stuck under one of the stone bridges because we were late driving up from St. Andrews...;-)
Trump Aberdeen is also a "one and done" course for belt-notching box-checkers.
RDGC is a course that can be played over and over and my wife loves it, too.
My guess is that Coul may be the site of CC's "Chef D'Oeuvre" making Dornoch a must-see repeat destination.
Ok, I cede to you that last line was all hype...;-)
-
"As a long time visitor to the area and with your knowledge of the site, what do you think are the prospects for the course if it gets built with some similarity to the plans? Will it drive demand in the area for hospitality, restaurants, and other services? How might it impact the membership and operations at RD?
Bill Coore gives the site the highest praise in the video clip from above. My untrained eye didn't pick up on the promise, at least not from where we had a limited panoramic view. Is the hype warranted?"
Lou -
As you can imagine, I am very interested to see how everything plays out. I am very hopeful there will be a "spillover" impact that brings more visitor play to Golspie, Brora & Tain. However, I wonder if the "belt-notchers" and tour bus crowd will simply come, play RD & CL on successive days (spending a night in Dornoch) and then head back south.
From an artistic and marketing standpoint, Castle Stuart has been as successful a venture as could be hoped for. The course has been very well received by the critics and has garnered enormous exposure/publicity worldwide by hosting the Scottish Open on TV multiple times. Yet even after being open for 7-8 years now, my understanding is the course does not see 10,000 rounds of play a year. It is hard to imagine Coul Links doing much better than that.
DT
-
Ally
All your points are valid. However to my mind it is largely going to be aimed at the North American market. And while the North American market represents a much smaller percentage of visitor rounds in Scotland than some on here imagine, numerically it is still a lot of visitors and Dornoch seems to be near the top of the list for Americans.
The other thing that will give them an edge, is like Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart, they are dedicated pay and play whereas other courses have to cater for their members every now and again. However, as David has said above, if CS is only getting 10,000 rounds a year on the back of all the exposure and favourable comment it received then how many will Embo get ? How many rounds do they need to break even for their type of operation ?
David
I understand your concerns. Total spend on golf in the area may well go up, at least in the short term, but will the money simply gravitate towards Embo and RDGC (even more) with less left over for Brora and Golspie and all the other clubs ?
That said, neither Brora or Golspie appear to be struggling and if you treat visitor numbers as jam on the cake then they should readily survive a thinner spread of jam.
Niall
-
Niall,
Really you hit on my point: The American tourist market will make up a large share of rounds and it is actually a lot smaller then people think.
Castle Stuart already has an easier location and a championship history and it is quarter full.
-
Castle Stuart is a fine golf course but there is no there-there once you admire the art deco clubhouse and the views. Nothing local between two dumps (Inverness and Nairn). It's a mini Bandon which is not non-mini enough to attract larger groups of customers.
To be honest, north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are no real culture/golf places to visit, with the possible exception of Dornoch.
But, the conundrum that Dornoch faces is a demographic (old middle-class British farts) which wants to buy houses there rather than build businesses (e.g. Hotels, Restaurants, etc.). The locals do try, but they do not have the money, and the climatological realities are that Dornoch is a profitable destination resort for heavy hitters only in the mid May-late August period. Even Skibo struggles from September to early May to make a profit (if they care).
I wish the best, but I expect the mediocre.
Rich
-
Castle Stuart is a fine golf course but there is no there-there once you admire the art deco clubhouse and the views. Nothing local between two dumps (Inverness and Nairn). It's a mini Bandon which is not non-mini enough to attract larger groups of customers.
To be honest, north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are no real culture/golf places to visit, with the possible exception of Dornoch.
But, the conundrum that Dornoch faces is a demographic (old middle-class British farts) which wants to buy houses there rather than build businesses (e.g. Hotels, Restaurants, etc.). The locals do try, but they do not have the money, and the climatological realities are that Dornoch is a profitable destination resort for heavy hitters only in the mid May-late August period. Even Skibo struggles from September to early May to make a profit (if they care).
I wish the best, but I expect the mediocre.
Rich
Rich,
What do you really think?
-
What happens if it's built and then after a couple/few years it proves to be a dud and economically unviable and closes? Will anything have been done (that can't be un-done) other than the reshaping of a sandy, scrubby area that nature won't recover pretty promptly once man has gone elsewhere?
Just asking.
atb
-
Niall,
Really you hit on my point: The American tourist market will make up a large share of rounds and it is actually a lot smaller then people think.
Castle Stuart already has an easier location and a championship history and it is quarter full.
Not quarter. Remember it closes in the winter. Half maybe.
-
Rich,
What do you really think?
Jonathan
I think what I believe based on real experiences, but am wide open to others whose real life experiences differ than mine. What bothers you in my post?
Rich
-
Castle Stuart is a fine golf course but there is no there-there once you admire the art deco clubhouse and the views. Nothing local between two dumps (Inverness and Nairn). It's a mini Bandon which is not non-mini enough to attract larger groups of customers.
To be honest, north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are no real culture/golf places to visit, with the possible exception of Dornoch.
But, the conundrum that Dornoch faces is a demographic (old middle-class British farts) which wants to buy houses there rather than build businesses (e.g. Hotels, Restaurants, etc.). The locals do try, but they do not have the money, and the climatological realities are that Dornoch is a profitable destination resort for heavy hitters only in the mid May-late August period. Even Skibo struggles from September to early May to make a profit (if they care).
I wish the best, but I expect the mediocre.
Rich
Congratulations Rihc you've finally become 'Lord Fubar Humbug' and morphed into the much lampooned British landed gentry snob ;D Is there anything you don't disdain about where you live I wonder??? ::)
-
Assuming the developers actually go relatively low budget (in the American sense, not the British one - the latter won’t happen), then the course will be safe even if it doesn’t do great business, merely good.
But is it really a business development? Surely it’s just a chance for a couple of golf course lovers to build for the first time on real links land?
-
Ally -- a brave statement to make bearing in mind the fortune Mr Keiser must have made out of Bandon and is in the process of making at Sand Valley and Cabot. Although, you might have a point bearing in mind there's only scope for one course at Coul, it won't be a resort, and the original proposal was that Keiser/Warnock would turn the course over to Royal Dornoch once they had made their money back.
-
A big marketing ploy that is used for Keiser at Bandon and won't be able to be used here, is comparing it to a Scottish links course.
Even on their homepage the very landing page advertises this, as Americans gravitate towards this this type of analogy (not that it isn't deserved).
Golf as it was meant to be...
Bandon Dunes is true to the spirit of Scotland’s ancient links.
Here, players immerse themselves in the traditions of a timeless game and the grandeur of Oregon’s rugged coast. Sweeping, untamed shores stretch for miles. Primeval grassy dunes roll to the sea.
Five distinctly different courses have been conceived in harmony with the natural environment. They combine with all the essential elements to reveal a new golf experience every time you play. The soul of the game resides here. Players walk. And at the end of the day, gracious hospitality comforts each guest like a warm, friendly embrace.
This is Bandon Dunes. This is golf as it was meant to be.
-
Congratulations Rihc you've finally become 'Lord Fubar Humbug' and morphed into the much lampooned British landed gentry snob ;D Is there anything you don't disdain about where you live I wonder??? ::)
[/quote
I'm Honoured, my fellow Lord. I like a lot about where I live (Aberdour, Fife) but outside of its stunning beauty, easy access into Edinburgh and a decent golf course, I have never loved it. Good for raising sprogs, but too small for diversity and decent amenities. Dornoch, on the other hand has been the love of my life since 1978 (location wise) and always will be, but it too is too small for cultural and personal stimulation. This is why my life is slowly shifting back to the USA.
Cheers
Rich
-
litterarum vestigia reliquisti :-\
-
litterarum vestigia reliquisti :-\
semper ubi, sub ubi :)
-
litterarum vestigia reliquisti :-\
semper ubi, sub ubi :)
apparently that is not the Scottish way. Or at least as folklore would have us believe ;)
-
Ally -- a brave statement to make bearing in mind the fortune Mr Keiser must have made out of Bandon and is in the process of making at Sand Valley and Cabot. Although, you might have a point bearing in mind there's only scope for one course at Coul, it won't be a resort, and the original proposal was that Keiser/Warnock would turn the course over to Royal Dornoch once they had made their money back.
Agreed. My bet is that the breakeven follows the conservative Keiser model: deliver great golf and the subsequent utilization will determine the scope of future investment. Looking at the original intent of Bandon, the original Keiser model was to build great golf because,... and see what happens, then perhaps turn over to a trust overseen by a "golf organization..." It is well documented that the compound profits and visits came by surprise. Same with Sand Valley. The team knew the golf community was potentially out there but projecting that my pals from Chicago and Minneapolis would travel to Sand Valley >6x/year (hi Morgan!) would have been an irresponsible business assumption. I suspect the projections for Coul are equally conservative and am guessing are built to compliment the "neighborhood" (Dornoch, Brora,Golspie) It is currently a single-course business model. There is ample opportunity for "Collateral Success" across the region, but unlike Bandon or Sand Valley, these courses are already on bucket lists. In this case, unlike Bandon and Cabot, Coul is a new kid on an old block.
-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16325672.why-not-report-on-the-coul-links-planning-application-approval/
Why not report on the Coul Links planning application approval?
I READ the excellent piece on The Highland Council North Planning Committee’s ill-considered approval of the application to build a golf course on the locally, nationally and internationally protected conservation site at Coul Links by Kevin McKenna in today’s copy of The Observer.
Then I turned with anticipation to the Sunday Herald to get an informed and hopefully unbiased Scottish perspective on this debacle. Not on the cover. Perhaps pages 5-7 where there are often articles of note? No.
I then carefully went through the paper to find total silence on this vitally important issue. So amazed was I at the missing article that I handed the paper to my wife to check, assuming that I had somehow missed a feature. Still nothing.
This is the most important Scottish environmental planning decision since the Trump/Salmond fiasco in 2007 and has ominous echoes of that development.
Why is the Sunday Herald not calling for something of this importance to be called in by the Scottish Government? Do we fear a cover-up and kowtowing to the might of another American multi-millionaire? I hope not.
David W McAllister
Tain, Ross-shire
-
Brian E. -
The Herald did run an article about the planning approval of the Coul Links course on June 20. The headline was "Anger as controversial golf course plans get go-ahead despite mass objections."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16303578.anger-as-controversial-golf-course-plans-get-go-ahead-despite-mass-objections/ (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16303578.anger-as-controversial-golf-course-plans-get-go-ahead-despite-mass-objections/)
Mr. McAllister was not paying attention. ;)
DT
-
David
Did that article appear in the Herald or Sunday Herald ? One has recently hanged its tune and started to criticise the current government while the other it very much it's mouthpiece, or at least it was the last time I read it.
Niall
-
"Did that article appear in the Herald or Sunday Herald?"
Niall -
I did not realize the Herald and the Sunday Herald were two different entities. Since the web article from the Herald website is dated June 20, I can only assume it appeared in the former, not the later.
DT
-
Almost, but not quite!
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Scottish-ministers-extend-their-review-period-on-Coul-Links-31072018.htm
-
Almost, but not quite!
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Scottish-ministers-extend-their-review-period-on-Coul-Links-31072018.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Scottish-ministers-extend-their-review-period-on-Coul-Links-31072018.htm)
Wow...this article states:
"There has been overwhelming public support to protect the internationally important wildlife site."
Then, a few paragraphs later, this “journalist” states: “However local residents are overwhelmingly in favour of the development with the possibility of jobs and the knock-on effect of increased visitors."
Huh...?
Worth mentioning as the "journalist" above overlooked some relevant info:
1. Gail Ross, the local MSP who represents the area, is entirely in favor of the project.
2. 140 local businesses have signed a "support document" in favor of the project.
No question that the concerns of those seeking to ensure the preservation of the environment should be heard and respected. In fact, I believe the project has altered its plans on several occasions to accommodate the concerns and this has been recognized by authorities.
But, what kills me is always the highly "selective outrage" with projects like Coul Links.
For example, where is "Scottish Bug Life" (and others) when Sutherland seeks to land a UK "space port" and rocket launch facility to:
“Provide the infrastructure needed for space tourism, though a regulatory framework for passenger trips has yet to be created. The space industry Bill cleared its House of Commons stages in March, paving the way for the spaceport. Transport Minister Jo Johnson said: “This puts us at the forefront of the new space race. It helps us to compete as the destination of choice for satellite companies worldwide.” SNP MP Dr Philippa Whitford said: “Launches are currently carried out from Kazakhstan."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/science-technology/sky-limit-sutherland-wins-race-12919142 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/science-technology/sky-limit-sutherland-wins-race-12919142)
So, golf courses are bad, but space ports to launch rockets for the military are good...?Yup, selective outrage on full display.
-
If "Scottish Bug Life" existed in the past 500 years, there would today be no Edinburgh Castle, no Robbie Burns, no R&A, no Forth Bridge, no Irn-Brun, no Old Course, no Whisky, no Billy Connely and no Haggis.
FREEEEEEDOM!
-
Ian M. -
The planned "spaceport" is not being well received in certain circles either. ;)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Nature-experts-set-to-give-spaceport-plan-the-bird-27072018.htm
DT
-
I've gotta think the Trump backlash in general is working against this project as well....but thats just perception from across the pond.
-
Ian M. -
The planned "spaceport" is not being well received in certain circles either. ;)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Nature-experts-set-to-give-spaceport-plan-the-bird-27072018.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Nature-experts-set-to-give-spaceport-plan-the-bird-27072018.htm)
DT
Yes and no... ;)
"A spokesman for RSPB Scotland said: “The news that Scotland could host the UK’s first space port represents a potentially exciting opportunity for the country, but it must be done in a way that respects the incredible wildlife and habitats of this area that support numerous rare and threatened species."
Quite the contrast to RSPB's posturing over Coul.
I fear Kalen is correct.
-
The inevitable has happened. ;)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Government-calls-in-Coul-Links-plan-24082018.htm
-
The inevitable has happened. ;)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Government-calls-in-Coul-Links-plan-24082018.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Government-calls-in-Coul-Links-plan-24082018.htm)
Thanks for sharing David. Any ideas on how long the process takes, or when a decision will be made?
-
Tim -
No idea. I think Niall C. and Jon W. might have some insight on that.
DT
-
http://www.parliament.scot/Research%20briefings%20and%20fact%20sheets/SB07-66.pdf
"A called-in planning application is not automatically the subject of a public inquiry. Scottish
Ministers must allow a public inquiry into any called-in application if this is requested by the
applicant or the relevant planning authority. However, if no such request is made then it is up to
Scottish Ministers to decide whether the Reporter appointed to consider the application will do
so through written submissions, an informal hearing or full public inquiry. "
The link at the top is a link to a Scottish Government guidance note that they issued in relation to the Balmedie proposal. Given my technological inability the link will likely not work therefore there is an extract above. I guess much will depend on whether it goes to public enquiry in which case it will be a longer drawn out affair. As far as I know there are no strict timescales to adhere to but could be wrong on that.
However that's all irrelevant as the developer had previously said they would walk away if the application was called in. Surely they weren't fibbing when they said that ;)
Niall
-
The Scottish Planning process is a total dog.
Whilst it’s right that most things seek approval at the local level, anything which is likely to have national implications should be scrutinised AT THE SAME TIME as the local proceedings.
It’s a bloody wonder anything ever gets built in this Country.
F.
-
To true Marty but then none of the elected local MSPs are against it.
This was the reaction from the developers
Following the Scottish Ministers’ decision to call in the application for a golf course at Coul Links, developer Todd Warnock said today (24 Aug):
“Whilst this decision delays bringing significant economic and environmental benefits to the area, we welcome the opportunity to set out again the compelling case to create a world class golf course in east Sutherland.
“Highland Council’s North Planning Applications Committee, as the competent planning authority, took an emphatic decision in June and, apart from a single narrow objection from Scottish Natural Heritage, the statutory bodies involved are not opposed to the plans after a comprehensive assessment.
“The project also has overwhelming support from local people. We thank them again for their help and encouragement and are sorry for them that there is a further delay in a process that has already taken more than three years.
“We have made our case consistently to anyone prepared to listen objectively and we look forward to doing so again with the independent Reporter."
Niall,
I think what was said was if it were turned down they would walk away and not appeal the decision.
-
Jon
I'm sure there is a quote out there in the ether if you wanted to go out and look for it. Happy to acknowledge I could be wrong but I think the comment came from Mike Keiser and referred to the time and expense of going through any appeals process. I'm not sure whether there was reference to the application being called in but with regards time and expense they will spend as much money on letting it go through the reporter process as they would have on appeal, which is to say relatively not a lot since they have already spent the bulk of the money anyway. That being the case why wouldn't you let it ride ?
I'm pretty sure I posted something like that at the time.
Niall
-
Niall,
could be.
Jon
-
The opponents of this development unfortunately hold the trump card...
;)
-
What a frustrating process. I feel for the developers. People (politicians) don´t realize how capital is ready at times, and not there at other times. Long processes just destroy wealth for the region as a whole. Incredible that all reviews do not happen simultaneously.
Politicians that have done little or nothing to protect that site while locally owned...
-
MClutterbuck
Possibly the most ridiculous post since............... god knows when.
Feeling sorry for a billionaire and his millionaire business partner because their planning application got called in, something which was almost a foregone conclusion by the way, is just bizarre. As for long processes, they also help to ensure sure that the right decisions are made. It's not all about money, or golf, which golf tourists don't always appreciate or want to appreciate as it doesn't usually suit there interests.
Niall
-
Niall -
Feeling sorry for billionaires & millionaires really isn't the question.
You know the planning process in Scotland probably better than anyone else of this board. Do you really think it should take 3+ years for a planning application like this to work its way thru the system before the ultimate/final decision gets made?
This is not a terribly complicated project. It is not a development in the center of a big city that might impact the lives of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis.
DT
-
Niall -
Feeling sorry for billionaires & millionaires really isn't the question.
You know the planning process in Scotland probably better than anyone else of this board. Do you really think it should take 3+ years for a planning application like this to work its way thru the system before the ultimate/final decision gets made?
This is not a terribly complicated project. It is not a development in the center of a big city that might impact the lives of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis.
DT
The UK has a rigorous planning system and this is a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) plus there have been objections from the environmental groups which means it is transferred to a higher level ie government to assess whether it should have been given permission or not.
Its like planning version of cricket when the TMO checking whether a batsman is out or not by TV review whether the umpire decision stays or it is overruled
-
Ben -
Since I am the guy who started this thread 2 1/2 years ago. I am very well aware of the SSSI nature of the Coul Links site and the various levels involved in the planning process. ;)
That being said, should it really take over 3 years to reach a final decision?
DT
-
Ben -
Since I am the guy who started this thread 2 1/2 years ago. I am very well aware of the SSSI nature of the Coul Links site and the various levels involved in the planning process. ;)
That being said, should it really take over 3 years to reach a final decision?
DT
David,
Which is why I said the Local and National processes should run simultaneously.
This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.
F.
-
This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.
Exactly. There's gotta be an extra round so someone can hold out for additional concessions and/or take credit for approval. But usually that works out in the developer's favor - in that the project ultimately gets approved, it just costs a few more favors / $ to get there.
An identical application from a less wealthy developer would probably either be approved or rejected in a much shorter process, because there is no budget for concessions.
-
This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.
An identical application from a less wealthy developer would probably either be approved or rejected in a much shorter process, because there is no budget for concessions.
In todays UK planning, there must always be a budget for concessions....sometimes a very large budget. There is a form of legalized blackmail in place which is now considered par for the course.
Ciao
-
A question - is the planning process uniform throughout the UK or is the process in Scotland different from England?
-
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.
-
Ben -
Since I am the guy who started this thread 2 1/2 years ago. I am very well aware of the SSSI nature of the Coul Links site and the various levels involved in the planning process. ;)
That being said, should it really take over 3 years to reach a final decision?
DT
David
Yes for SSSI's especially very sensitive sites. The UK Planning System is complex and rigorous. The process starts at local level, then regional level and then national level. Minor applications remain at local level. Major developments can be regional level or national level depending on what is proposed.
Any objection put forward is seriously considered like changing a dormer window to a velux roof light because it prevents overlooking. I think it can be rather too sensitive at times. The green crested newt often holds up small to large projects as they are a protected species.
There are Local Plan developed by each council and National Planning Policy Framework to refer to however they may not be the same so it can be at crossroads at times. NPPF is what most use in an appeal.
A case study is Heathrow Terminal 5 - this took 7 years to get through planning. Dubai Airport started design work on their new terminal just after and finished construction just before Heathrow T5 got planning.
I suspect the government is biding for extra time to assess whether all the necessary procedures have been carried out and justify whether a golf course is suitable in this area bearing in mind the argument of additional jobs in the area over possible environmental damages. Its now in the hands of politicians that have no real idea or experience of golf course construction or bird nesting areas. It is crazy IMO.
Trump Aberdeen the politicians were swayed by the promise of millions of dollars of investment. What they did to the golf course is now a very poor precedent which does not help Keiser and Coul Links. We on GCA know that Keiser is much more sympathetic to the environment than Trump who is more of a bull in a china shop. There is a huge possibility that Trump has put the spanner in the works of Coul actually happening.
Another case scenario is a compromise happening so that certain areas are not used for the golf course and that the design will have to be altered further to move away from those sensitive areas as part of a planning condition.
-
A question - is the planning process uniform throughout the UK or is the process in Scotland different from England?
[size=78%]The planning and legal system in Scotland is different to England as well as house sales![/size]
-
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.
Jon
Due to the nature of the site and the objections it was more likely to be called IMO. Environmental objectors can write to the government about their concerns plus dispute that the reasons for approval was not satisfactory enough and from a government point of view if they are thought to have a strong case or a large number of objections it will then be called in. Same for buildings etc.
Ben
-
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.
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
-
Niall -
Feeling sorry for billionaires & millionaires really isn't the question.
You know the planning process in Scotland probably better than anyone else of this board. Do you really think it should take 3+ years for a planning application like this to work its way thru the system before the ultimate/final decision gets made?
This is not a terribly complicated project. It is not a development in the center of a big city that might impact the lives of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis.
DT
David
Absolutely correct, Mike Keiser and Todd Warnocks feelings aren't the issue but on that I suspect they are OK with where things are at. They must have known that there was every prospect that the application would get called in should the Council grant approval. I suspect they are happy that it at least got to that stage.
BTW, I'm not a planner but I do work with the planning system and as part of the system on occasion. There are others on here such as Ben, James Boon and other architects who equally work with the system although mainly down south. The systems in Scotland and England are different but are similar in many respects I believe.
Niall
-
This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.
Exactly. There's gotta be an extra round so someone can hold out for additional concessions and/or take credit for approval. But usually that works out in the developer's favor - in that the project ultimately gets approved, it just costs a few more favors / $ to get there.
An identical application from a less wealthy developer would probably either be approved or rejected in a much shorter process, because there is no budget for concessions.
FBD/Tom,
I'm surprised at such nonsense and cynicism from two level headed chaps like yourselves.
Firstly the planning process in this country is a plan and policy process as outlined in the Scottish Government guidance on the attached link www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/08/11133705/1
The existing Development Plan and policy pointed to this being a clear refusal as recommended by the planners. The developers have endeavoured to make a case to get round the myriad of reasons for refusal. It is this more than anything that has taken the time to get where we are now. I'm referring to issues such as the insufficient access, environmental issues etc. A more commercial developer would have walked away a long time since but in this case I suspect it is as much a labour of love as well as a commercial development for the developers.
With regards to why the application wasn't looked at a national level from the outset, I think there are two very good reasons. Firstly there would be a presumption that the Council wouldn't grant approval for something that went so far against policy, and secondly this will be a tricky decision for the Scottish Government and one that they were probably hoping the Council would make for them by refusing the application. On another day they might have gone for the jobs/economy approach but given the timing with the environmental report about Balmedie having come out, I tend to think the odds are now against the development.
Niall
-
Niall,
I’ve been through the contents of PAN65 and the NPPG’s in more than enough detail for one lifetime, thank you very much!
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I just happen to think in cases where it’s flamin’ obvious to anyone with half a brain, that, where Cooncilurs will almost certainly disagree with their Planning Officers, things could be expedited somehow.
Why we should think that the National eedjits will be any smarter than the Local ones however, remains somewhat moot!
Cheers,
F.
-
Niall,
I’ve been through the contents of PAN65 and the NPPG’s in more than enough detail for one lifetime, thank you very much!
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I just happen to think in cases where it’s flamin’ obvious to anyone with half a brain, that, where Cooncilurs will almost certainly disagree with their Planning Officers, things could be expedited somehow.
Why we should think that the National eedjits will be any smarter than the Local ones however, remains somewhat moot!
Cheers,
F.
I echo's Martys statement re: planning system and how councillors have more power/say than planning officers who are professionals in their own regard who only make recommendations but not the final say.
The system at present goes through different levels as the application is being processed. I agree in some respects it should have gone straight to national level to speed up the process however there would be more local objections as they would argue that they don't have a say in what happens in their area. There is no perfect model and the system it what it is and its also knowing how to get around it in the right manner.
-
FBD/Tom,
I'm surprised at such nonsense and cynicism from two level headed chaps like yourselves.
Niall
Niall:
I have only one experience with the planning process in the UK; considerably more in other places. So I didn't mean to criticize the UK process directly. I just acknowledged the idea that sooner or later, the thing would get to the national political level, because regional development and jobs are things of interest to politicians.
In my observations there is often a big difference between what the planning process is supposed to be, by law, and what happens behind the scenes to get approvals. It's not supposed to be a political process at all, but it nearly always is. [As one famous U.S. politician remarked years ago, "All politics is local."] Many constituencies are involved, and each wants its own interests addressed ... sometimes by promising things completely unrelated to the site and project up for review. The developer's duty, as you say, is to make objections go away, and sometimes people object with ulterior motives.
I agree with you that it would be political suicide for the process to have gone national too early, before local interests were heard out. But are you really surprised it has done so now?
At the core of it, there are two parts of government, bureaucrats and politicians. The bureaucracy's default answer to approving a project is "no," because they have a steady job, and it would be most threatened by approving a project which proved to be a problem down the road. No one looks back ten years on and fires them for having stopped something; it's all forgotten. The politician's motives are exactly the opposite. The politician is pro-development; he/she wants to see things happen that he/she can take credit for, and get reelected on. And of course, the politician can take campaign donations from developers, while that would be illegal for the bureaucrat.
-
At the core of it, there are two parts of government, bureaucrats and politicians. The bureaucracy's default answer to approving a project is "no," because they have a steady job, and it would be most threatened by approving a project which proved to be a problem down the road. No one looks back ten years on and fires them for having stopped something; it's all forgotten. The politician's motives are exactly the opposite. The politician is pro-development; he/she wants to see things happen that he/she can take credit for, and get reelected on. And of course, the politician can take campaign donations from developers, while that would be illegal for the bureaucrat.
Nicely put. Not totally sure about the last sentence in the U.K./Scotland though.
Worth adding that politicians can often be against something for the same reasons as outlined about. And boy oh boy do they like seeing their photos in newspapers, magazines, on the web and on TV. Forget the issues, forget the policy, forget the people, forget standards, just get me on TV. And the mainstream media have column inches and screen time to fill and what better when events are quiet than a story about the evils of golf and what dastardly oversea investors wish to do with the landscape.
There’s a few messages here to other potential investors in golf in the U.K./Scotland.
Atb
-
That's why bureaucrats tend to wait until politicians order them (indirectly) to say 'yes'. That political direction never comes in plain language and certainly never on paper -- so bureaucrats have to stall until politicians commit themselves and send the message in some other way.
You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but only the successful senior bureaucrat can make a case for the wind blowing in whichever direction a politician says it is.
(A wily & successful bureaucrat I knew believed this was exactly the way it should be. He was fond of saying: "If it was the bureaucrats making all the important decisions instead of the politicians, we'd be living in the Soviet Union". )
-
I'd be curious, for anyone in the know..
How does Coul Links compare to say a project like Bandon or Sand Valley when it comes to the approval process. I totally understand that you don't want things to be too difficult, but also not without proper oversight.
-
Martin
I think we are agreed that very often councillors are ill-equipped to make a proper judgement on a lot of issues that they are asked to decide on but thankfully they usually have enough common sense to take their officers recommendation. Trying to make a judgement as to when they are going to go off-piste would be a nightmare to do.
Personally I think you should only be able to pre-empt a local decision by calling in an application that clearly is of national importance in an economic and social sense such as an application for major infrastructure and such like. Otherwise leave it to the locals to make the initial decision. Whether there is guidance on that I don't know.
Niall
-
Niall,
In general, I think that's my issue with locally elected officials. While they have good intent for the most part, if its anything like here in the states, most of them have zero background in city planning, environmental planning, land management, etc to even be able to develop an informed opinion.
-
I'd be curious, for anyone in the know..
How does Coul Links compare to say a project like Bandon or Sand Valley when it comes to the approval process. I totally understand that you don't want things to be too difficult, but also not without proper oversight.
I don't know the answer to your question, but my understanding is that the process for Bandon was a lot more complicated than for Sand Valley - as you would expect for coastal land in a "blue" state. Mr Keiser's success in Bandon also made it easier for the politicians in central Wisconsin to welcome him with open arms.
-
Tom
There's no doubt the planning process over here isn't perfect, and like all systems can be abused, but it is reasonably robust. It also has a certain amount of checks and measures to prevent naked political opportunism to gain additional material benefit outwith what's allowed for by policy. For a start the politicians aren't meant to be involved in the process other than when/if it goes to the planning committee for a decision. They can't for instance negotiate with an applicant over what goodies they might be willing to give away to gain the planning application. Indeed if they happen to be on the planning committee (not all councillors are) then they shouldn't have any dealings with the applicant at all. That's not to say they won't do a bit of posturing if it suits them mind you.
Niall
-
I wonder how much the developers have spent so far on this project?
And how much more they reckon their going to have to spend before things happen on the ground?
Also what their monthly outgoings are running at?
I wonder what proportion is borrowed money and how much is ‘in house’ amongst the developers?
Atb
-
There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley... ;D
-
There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley... ;D
The course is going to be a dump...I knew it!! 8)
-
MClutterbuck
Possibly the most ridiculous post since............... god knows when.
Feeling sorry for a billionaire and his millionaire business partner because their planning application got called in, something which was almost a foregone conclusion by the way, is just bizarre. As for long processes, they also help to ensure sure that the right decisions are made. It's not all about money, or golf, which golf tourists don't always appreciate or want to appreciate as it doesn't usually suit there interests.
Niall
Thanks for your enlightened opinion Niall. I find it odd and wrong that you disqualify a person just because he is a billionaire (if he is one) or millionaire, and do not take into consideration the amount of lives that are impacted by their dreams, enthusiasm, entrepreneurial initiative and risk taking. It seems you believe millionaires only think about money and are greedy and do not deserve any sympathy.
If this land had been owned by a Scot with little or no capital, who had put himself through architecture studies while caddying on the best courses in Scotland, had put in all of his inheritance into this dream, and process, then we could feel sorry for him?
I don´t know both principles here, so it might be only about money (I doubt it). But even if it is only about money, a quick, comprehensive, no bullshit process is better for the lives of all current and future stakeholders. And those areas/countries that have good processes will benefit more than those with bad approval processes.
Sometimes developers are driven by other factors, not just money and I know of many examples.
Efficient processes ensure that the right decisions are made. Long processes sometimes ensure the right projects are NOT made.
-
There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley... ;D
If by "current path" you mean the application being called in then I don't think so. The nature of the site and it's designation is the reason for that. However Trumps development at Balmedie, and the fall out from it, could very well have a bearing on the end decision.
Niall
-
MClutterbuck
Always happy to enlighten.
What I was incredulous at and thought ridiculous was the idea that two wealthy blokes who are currently going through a planning process that which was always likely to be lengthy and involved due to its nature, and who therefore probably anticipated it, should require or even want sympathy. I still am.
Your other comments re wealth etc are another discussion which I don't have time for at this moment but the projected wealth creation element is the nub of the issue and the only reason this application has got this far. That's where maybe there should be more discussion.
Niall
-
MClutterbuck
Possibly the most ridiculous post since............... god knows when.
Feeling sorry for a billionaire and his millionaire business partner because their planning application got called in, something which was almost a foregone conclusion by the way, is just bizarre. As for long processes, they also help to ensure sure that the right decisions are made. It's not all about money, or golf, which golf tourists don't always appreciate or want to appreciate as it doesn't usually suit there interests.
Niall
Efficient processes ensure that the right decisions are made. Long processes sometimes ensure the right projects are NOT made.
As someone who is responsible for responding to planning applications I can say consultation time is very welcome. If anything, more time would be nice...3 weeks to respond on complicated applications is asking a lot. Hence one reason we see apps called in, it can be a delay tactic to gain more time...I will try to use all day long if I am convinced there will be strong objections. Its incredible who comes out of the woodwork for certain apps.
Ciao
-
MClutterbuck
Always happy to enlighten.
What I was incredulous at and thought ridiculous was the idea that two wealthy blokes who are currently going through a planning process that which was always likely to be lengthy and involved due to its nature, and who therefore probably anticipated it, should require or even want sympathy. I still am.
Your other comments re wealth etc are another discussion which I don't have time for at this moment but the projected wealth creation element is the nub of the issue and the only reason this application has got this far. That's where maybe there should be more discussion.
Niall
Yes Mr. Niall C, but are you always so willing to be enlightened? ;)
The reality is that class warfare is most often in play. And while the rich may not deserve our sympathy, we all should demand fairness, if for no other than the selfish reason that it could involve us as well. Do we sheepishly accept government's intrusion into a bathroom remodel (reference Bob Huntley's attempt thwarted by the regulatory overreach of the California Coastal Commission though his home was over five miles from the ocean)?
The Coul Links project is on private property. The SSI designation is as much political as scientific, in effect a taking of private property by essentially prohibiting its owners from enjoying its use. The site in question has not been maintained and, reportedly, has been degraded considerably by previous uses and neglect. Further, the owners- not terribly wealthy from all appearances- as much as the developer (Mike Keiser) stand to finally reap some reward.
Whether the project will generate positive economic activity beyond its construction and stabilization phases might be of interest, but not, IMO, relevant to the base case- a fallow, not very attractive tract with extremely limited use under the present regulatory burden beyond the minds of a very small number of professional interveners. And yes, the societal value placed on the debatable survival of an insect (in my part of the world, they seem to be quite mobile as I learned when a former neighbor treated for termites without telling me and the little bastards invaded my home), is in the realm of politics much more than science.
If the SSI is so terribly important, the environmental groups include some very rich elements and could purchase the land on behalf of the people of Scotland and the critters who call it home. Knowing of Mr. Keiser's past land purchases, my bet is that the tract could be acquired for a reasonable sum- maybe within the reach of a GoFundMe scheme.
Someone asked about the cost of planning in a difficult regulatory environment. 25+ years ago C & C designed a course for a site previously used for crude oil logistics (tank depot, as I recall) in coastal SoCal. I had access to the economics and it would have been a homerun for everyone involved. A 10+ year fight ensued involving the CCC and numerous environmental groups and finally the developer tossed the towel in. I was told by an individual working with the group that north of $3 Million had been spent before pulling the plug. As far as I know, and TommyN might be able to verify this, the site remains unused, contaminated, and probably ignored by even the people who pass it on the train each day. For the public good!
-
While I can understand your frustration, I think it best to be safe than sorry. Because land isn't currently being maximized for public or private use doesn't mean it won't be in the future. That is what protection is in the main about, protection for the future. I don't know enough about this specific project to have an opinion on if it should be developed, but as part of the over-arching question of protecting a limited and dwindling resource (especially in the UK ), that is land, I am all in. There are many aspects to current living which cannot be governed by the free market.
Ciao
-
Yes Lou, always happy to be enlightened as well.
I do however think you are off track in thinking this is about class warfare or nationalistic feelings one way or another. It's a planning application that is going through the process in the prescribed manner. In other words, the process would take this route irrespective of who the applicant was, assuming they could afford the cost of pursuing it.
But if I read your post correctly your real objection has nothing to do with the wealth of the applicant or their nationality being an issue (which it isn't IMO), and more that you don't think there should be a planning system in the first place and that the landowner should be able to do whatever they want with the land, correct ?
If you follow that reasoning he could use his property for landfill, or a toxic dump, or oil refinery or some other bad neighbour use irrespective of what that would do for the surrounding area. That sort of reasoning could also see many of golf course, the Old Course included, ploughed up and redeveloped for more commercially valuable uses.
On balance I think I prefer to have a planning system.
Niall
-
Sean,
If you are responding to my post, I am not frustrated at all. I am in the sunset of my life and am extremely fortunate to have access to nearly all the courses I want to play. Likewise, my kids are well-positioned to deal with whatever political environment they will face, and I remain generally optimistic about their kids' prospects.
My concern since early adulthood is that people keep making the same mistakes based not on how things actually work, but on the ingrained class and political dogma they were reared in DESPITE the level of formal education they subsequently acquire or the seemingly instinctual desire to be different than their parents (as Seve's former father-in-law once rudely remarked, "you can take the boy out of the caddie shack but you can't take the caddie shack out of the boy").
For example, one only has to travel to a relatively few different countries and it is quite evident that those which have a market-oriented economy (laissez faire capitalism hasn't existed in the Western World for over a century) have a cleaner environment and a much better standard of living at all levels of society. Class envy- why should Tiger Woods be so much better than me and command such wealth?- is diminishing all of us.
Relative to the future, the UK and most Western developed countries won't have a problem with over-population as fertility rates have declined beyond population replacement. Unfortunately, there appears to be a correlation with more education and fewer kids, and Malthusian fears remain rampant despite all the evidence to refute them.
Immigration is the wild card and the current zeitgeist in many countries is to better mind the borders. I would not be concerned about running out of land due to too many golf courses being built- there is likely to be many more returning to other uses than being built- though the continued migration from rural areas to large population centers may be a cause of worry (as mobility and housing prices become more difficult).
Relative to the subject links, it is not that the owners wish to take property out of production of any sort. It is a matter of an insect and a mostly unusable tract of private land having higher value in its current state to Scottish society than its development as a golf course. I am merely suggesting that this is a political decision and, in a society governed by rationality and the rule of law, if the base case prevails, the owners should be equitably compensated.
-
But if I read your post correctly your real objection has nothing to do with the wealth of the applicant or their nationality being an issue (which it isn't IMO), and more that you don't think there should be a planning system in the first place and that the landowner should be able to do whatever they want with the land, correct ?
If you follow that reasoning he could use his property for landfill, or a toxic dump, or oil refinery or some other bad neighbour use irrespective of what that would do for the surrounding area. That sort of reasoning could also see many of golf course, the Old Course included, ploughed up and redeveloped for more commercially valuable uses.
On balance I think I prefer to have a planning system.
Niall
Wow, what a straw man you have built!
I am very big on orderly, relevant planning, especially at the local level. I also strongly believe in the bundle of rights inherent in ownership, especially of real property.
Accounting for externalities and the impact of a proposed use on those in the area is an important part of the process. I've always liked variations of the clause inserted in contracts to the effect that "consent shall not be unreasonably withheld". The interests of the NIMBYs- no one IMO is entitled to a pristine existence at the expense of others who may wish something that approximates it- must be weighed against the interests of other parties. I do think that the planning process must have a short clock- say up to one year in most cases- and the folks allowed to intervene via legal challenges limited to having direct skin in the game and liable if they lose for all costs incurred by the challenged party.
So no, I don't think a nuclear waste site should be built next to my home, but perhaps a plan to build low-income housing nearby might deserve due consideration. Common land (TOC) should not be ploughed under, though if the stakeholders one day make the case that it should be, open-minded people may wish to consider.
In contrast, the powers of eminent domain in the U.S. are very strong. As I recall, a few years back, a city mayor wanted to condemn privately-owned Deepdale GC to redevelop for commercial uses which would bring the government more tax revenues. Fortunately for the well-heeled members, they were able to fight it off in court, but at what expense and tribulation.
-
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.
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
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
-
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
-
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.
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
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
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
-
Sean- "racially-based planning" may not be the preferred phrase, but in the U.S. at least (and we tend to lag Europe in these social issues by a decade or two), the results of urban low-income housing initiatives amount to that. Obama's HUD rolled out to a number of cities its Section 8 program (vouchers that paid landlords the vast majority of the monthly rent directly for qualified low-income tenants) which were good only in areas of the cities or suburbs where subsidized housing did not exist. The theory was that by getting poor people out of crime-ridden, undesirable areas, they would automatically rise to the improved environments and emulate their new better-off neighbors. Only the most invested social planners would conclude that things went even directionally well.
Jon may be correct that "most" in the UK appreciate the need for a "mixed community", at least when asked for an opinion in public. It is probably another thing all together if a high-density low-income housing project was being proposed near the respondent. Conversations with many folks there in my over dozen trips suggest that in practice, birds of a feather tend to flock together, i.e. in theory, we should all learn to live, work, and socialize together; in practice, not so much. One only has to look at one of the most racially and culturally diverse parts of the U.S., SoCal, and see how segregated many communities are.
-
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
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.
-
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.
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
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
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
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 :'(
-
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.
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
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
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
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 :'(
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
-
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
-
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/
-
Jerry
If you mean will it be good for the Scots in a general golfing sense as opposed to some sort of wider financial or economic sense then I suppose the quick answer would be that it won’t do any harm assuming it doesn’t detract from other clubs or courses in the area.
If however you mean will it lead to Scotland having a much bigger representation in the world top 100, which seems to be what that article was focused on, then I suppose having some big modern course for elite players to play the odd event at, also wouldn’t do any harm.
However I’ve got to ask, does it really matter ? Is the number of players in the top 100 the best way to judge the health of the game ? Does it make any difference to the club golfer ? I recall it wasn’t that long ago when England didn’t have any players in the top 100 and then a few short years later they had one at no. 1 and several more in the top 20 or whatever. I’m not sure it meant the average club was doing any better.
Niall
-
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/ (http://www.golfwrx.com/529176/the-endangered-state-of-scottish-golf/)
Well, the article does not support the thesis of the thread or the issue at hand or the one you may want to put forth.
The article is about golf participation by younger/millennial Scots in general - an issue facing every golf market in the world including the US.
Debatable issues surrounding Coul Links focus on: 1) the environment 2) overall Scottish golf tourism 3) the economy in east Sutherland 4) capacity of golf tourism in Dornoch, etc.
Millennials arent buying homes either.
Millennial participation in our game has been covered extensively here.
Sadly, like many things - including real estate, there is a bifurcation occurring that underscores the widening wealth gap in the US and in the world. Coul Links will be targeted at higher end golf tourism and is designed to create a "hub" for golf tourism in Dornoch. If the Scottish Govt's studies support this thesis, and if the course treats the environment with respect, then the project may well be approved.
-
Balancing the pros and cons of the CL project, I can't see much of a downside- can't hurt Scottish golf participation rates, foreign capital comes in, positive impact on golf tourism, little if any cannibalization of rounds from second and third tier courses, more money in the local economy=higher employment, more income, maybe even higher participation among the locals?, likely ancillary development, etc.
And if the project fails due to insufficient demand? A site which has been marginally cared-for and deteriorating for decades is stabilized, its local owners have cash in their pockets, and perhaps the course can be re-capitalized at a much smaller basis to better serve the local and regional communities. Worse case: the site returns to nature with the indigenous flora dominating once again.
As noted in another thread, let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. It is not like the status quo is much good.
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tiny-fly-ready-to-stymie-tycoons-golf-links-plan-nr5x9nnt9 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tiny-fly-ready-to-stymie-tycoons-golf-links-plan-nr5x9nnt9)
Tiny fly ready to stymie tycoons’ golf links plan
Shingi Mararike
November 18 2018, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times
Plans for a 450-acre golf course in the Highlands bankrolled by two US tycoons could be scuppered by an endangered species of fly.
Fonseca’s seed fly (Botanophila fonsecai), which is the focus of efforts to block the Coul Links development in Sutherland, has now officially been declared a species at risk of extinction.
The fly is found only in the north of Scotland, including the sand dunes near Dornoch that Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser have earmarked for their project. Keiser, who owns several courses around the world, is often described as President Trump’s greatest rival in the golf business.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature says the species is likely to die out if threats to its survival are not removed or avoided. A petition begun by the charity Buglife to save the fly has reached more than 3,600 signatures. Craig Macadam, Buglife conservation director said: “The endangered assessment places Fonseca’s seed fly in the same category as the Asian elephant, tigers and the blue whale. We must do everything we can to ensure threats to this unique Scottish species are avoided.
“We can start by throwing out damaging plans for a golf course at Coul Links that will see this species lost from a third of its global range.”
Earlier this year Aedán Smith, head of development at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “The permanent destruction of these rare and irreplaceable dune habitats is unthinkable.”
Stuart Brooks, the National Trust for Scotland’s head of natural heritage policy, has said there are many places in Scotland where a golf course could be built without harming the environment, but “one of the last intact sand dune systems is not one of them”.
-
(sigh)
Fonseca’s seed fly (Botanophila fonsecai), which is the focus of efforts to block the Coul Links development in Sutherland, has now officially been declared a species at risk of extinction.
The fly is found only in the north of Scotland, including the sand dunes near Dornoch that Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser have earmarked for their project.
. . .
Earlier this year Aedán Smith, head of development at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “The permanent destruction of these rare and irreplaceable dune habitats is unthinkable.”
Stuart Brooks, the National Trust for Scotland’s head of natural heritage policy, has said there are many places in Scotland where a golf course could be built without harming the environment, but “one of the last intact sand dune systems is not one of them”.
I've not weighed in on this debate much, because it's generally seen as self-serving when golf course architects are pro-development, and someone would accuse me of having a beef with the developer or architect if I said anything anti-development.
However I look at this latest release and I have two thoughts:
1. The opposition must be pretty well-connected to get a certain species of fly declared endangered just as it becomes the centerpiece of opposition to this development; and
2. It would be nice if someone in the environmental movement understood what the "natural habitat" for golfers was.
It seems to me if this land were closer to a population center, and had been grazed for years, you would likely be able to play golf on it without constructing much of anything or destroying much of anything habitat-wise, just as the evolution of Prestwick and Dornoch and North Berwick. [Maybe the environmentalists would also object to opening the land up for grazing, but I doubt it.] The National Trust guy quoted above needs to brush up on his history.
It's possible if the land had been grazed, then some of the dunes would be too raw for animals without causing erosion, and perhaps that's the line at which no further development should be allowed. It would be nice if planning limitations were based more on actual environmental issues, instead of the arbitrary 100-meter setbacks we often encounter, which take extra land because they can.
Somehow I do not see the Fonseca's seed fly in the same category as the Asian elephant, tigers and the blue whale though. If one of them landed on that guy's neck you know he would swat it. :D
-
"Plans for a 450-acre golf course in the Highlands bankrolled by two US tycoons could be scuppered by an endangered species of fly."
The most obvious misstatement in this article is the notion that the golf course will occupy 450-acres of the property, which I believe is over 600-acres.
In fact, the turfed area of the golf course, as planned, will occupy well under 100-acres.
-
Environmental objections to development are always labeled as "political" and not "scientific" by those who feel the development should move forward. The lack of nuance is tiresome and almost as ridiculous as thinking that the size of a species is relative to its value in the ecosystem. Though not as ridiculous as the anti-science movement's progression ending in "I want great climate."
I don't think that denying zoning/permission applications rises to the level of a taking and also, I am curious as to who is in bed with the "save the fly" campaign and whether other, competing golf courses/resorts are a part of that. The larger corporate land owners were all for spotted owl protections that limited the non-land owning smaller timber companies ability to log on federal lands....
This thread has reminded me how much I like reading Lou's posts, hes quite thoughtful and intelligent both when I agree and disagree with what he has to say.
-
I think sensible growth and respecting the environment are great goals and should definitely apply to the golf industry..., but playing the endangered-fly-species card sure seems desperate.
PS. As for a courses' footprint aka "natural environment"... as a reference point, Wingpointe golf course here in Salt Lake has been shut for a mere 2 years now, and many parts of it are already barely recognizable, including some green complexes. Mother nature does a pretty damn fine job of taking things back. I wish I could get out there with my camera and take some "after" pics but its federally owned land with a barbwire fence and very imposing No Trespass signs.
-
"I am curious as to who is in bed with the "save the fly" campaign and whether other, competing golf courses/resorts are a part of that."
JC Jones -
To the best of my knowledge no other, competing golf courses/resorts are in bed with the save the fly campaign. All the golf clubs in the area have spoken in favor of the project.
DT
-
Is there evidence to suggest that the fly population will actually be reduced with the golf course?
In Ireland, we have actually seen the opposite with a particular snail that was the basis of development objections. Numbers were larger on the golf course than on the undeveloped dunes.
-
Is there evidence to suggest that the fly population will actually be reduced with the golf course?
In Ireland, we have actually seen the opposite with a particular snail that was the basis of development objections. Numbers were larger on the golf course than on the undeveloped dunes.
No Ally,
there is no evidence nor has any study been done of this apparently endangered fly. Though the fact that it has been found on two other sites in the last few years might point more to the fact that its rarity is because no one has bothered to look for it before.
Jon
-
(sigh)
+infinity
-
Wasn’t there once an old lady who swallowed a fly? A resident of the east coast of Sutherland perhaps?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8a13-JbxC98 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8a13-JbxC98)
:)
Atb
-
If it is "scientific", nuanced, or sophisticated to believe that a fly has the same worth and significance as a tiger, put me in the camp with the regressives (though a subsistence farmer in India near one of the wildlife preserves might strongly believe otherwise). I've paid a lot of money to sit in a Land Rover straining my neck to catch a glimpse of magnificent beasts while angrily swatting away all types of vile insects and wishing that science would once and for all come up with something to keep these nuisances away (tsetse and Canadian black flies are two that the ecosystem would be infinitely better off for their eradication). I could argue that this "special" fly has not met the exigencies of natural selection and, if it can't adapt, it should go the way of any number of other species that failed to make the grade. But I digress.
I got to see the CL site from the area behind the farm buildings during this last trip to Scotland for the Buda. We also visited Trump's course near Balmedie. From my vantage points, the dunes of the former have little resemblance to the latter. I can understand why some would object to the Trump project. Other than to reflexively say "No" to any development, I can't see the opposition to converting a rather ordinary, mostly unmanaged, and somewhat degraded site into a green, low-density open area that would be nurtured to enhance the local fauna and flora. Must most everything be opposed?
-
Lou,
Must most everything be opposed? You mean, besides the things you’re opposing?
Perhaps you should take a look at the value of flies, generally, and then maybe imagine what the impact would be were these particular flies eradicated from this particular ecosystem. Keeping in mind that your experience with the abundance of flies is likely also due to the impact of some previous “development” or environmental change.
I hate getting stuck on the side of flies here as I think the depiction of golf courses as destructive is overly broad and often unfair if not totally inaccurate.
-
In Ireland, we have actually seen the opposite with a particular snail that was the basis of development objections. Numbers were larger on the golf course than on the undeveloped dunes.
That also happened at Tara Iti, with the eponymous fairy tern. There are more of them today than before the golf course was in planning. This is either because we tore out the commercial pine forest and restored native vegetation to the site, or just because everyone is watching for them more closely now ... but we didn't lure them all to their deaths, as one woman fretted.
In the case of the fly at Embo, I have no idea of its significance, but it is quite a coincidence that it was declared endangered during the review of this planning application.
-
Perhaps the Scottish body that makes these determinations didn’t discover nor recognize the endangeredness of the fly until they were forced to examine the environmentalists of the site as a part of this process?
You don’t HAVE to be so cynical, ya know...
-
Perhaps the Scottish body that makes these determinations didn’t discover nor recognize the endangeredness of the fly until they were forced to examine the environmentalists of the site as a part of this process?
You don’t HAVE to be so cynical, ya know...
While it's true that I was born in NYC, both my parents were from the Show Me State.
The fact that a species IS present at one site does not add to the case for it being endangered; it's whether it exists a lot of other places [or not] that is the question.
-
I’ll confess when this all kicked off my initial reaction was more rich US golf developers looking to ride roughshod over our planning system by throwing a few baubles at the locals, much as Trump promised to do at Balmedie. Then when I looked into it more, and read more about it from both sides, I came to the conclusion it was very much like Trump. For sure, Mike Keiser and Todd Warnock are both nice guys who no doubt mean well and Trump is a lying sleazebag (undeniable I’d have thought irrespective of whether you approve of his policies) but the approach to gaining planning consent is out of the same textbook.
I recall when Trump got his consent at Balmedie, there was many on here who rejoiced, and I suspect many are the same people supporting this proposed development. And when he did get his consent I opined that what he had done was make it a lot harder for prospective golf developers to obtain consent in the future, and that his getting planning consent was in fact a bad thing not just in itself (I was against it) but also because of the collateral damage it would do to other proposed developments. Despite what is happening at Embo, I think I was wrong. Developments like Mach Dunes (pre-Balmedie from memory) and the more recent Dumbarnie development show what can be done by respecting planning policy and working with the planners and the environmental authorities rather than picking a fight and turning it into a popularity contest.
Niall
-
I’ll confess when this all kicked off my initial reaction was more rich US golf developers looking to ride roughshod over our planning system by throwing a few baubles at the locals, much as Trump promised to do at Balmedie. Then when I looked into it more, and read more about it from both sides, I came to the conclusion it was very much like Trump. For sure, Mike Keiser and Todd Warnock are both nice guys who no doubt mean well and Trump is a lying sleazebag (undeniable I’d have thought irrespective of whether you approve of his policies) but the approach to gaining planning consent is out of the same textbook.
I recall when Trump got his consent at Balmedie, there was many on here who rejoiced, and I suspect many are the same people supporting this proposed development. And when he did get his consent I opined that what he had done was make it a lot harder for prospective golf developers to obtain consent in the future, and that his getting planning consent was in fact a bad thing not just in itself (I was against it) but also because of the collateral damage it would do to other proposed developments. Despite what is happening at Embo, I think I was wrong. Developments like Mach Dunes (pre-Balmedie from memory) and the more recent Dumbarnie development show what can be done by respecting planning policy and working with the planners and the environmental authorities rather than picking a fight and turning it into a popularity contest.
Niall
I'm not sure how useful your Dumbarnie comparison is Niall. Dumbarnie got planning because it was not a particularly sensitive site. There is SSSI there, but the golf course specifically avoids it. This is why Dumbarnie is going to be a made course, not a found one.
-
Adam
That was the point I was making, they avoided the sensitive areas. At Embo and at Balmedie, the developer chose not to do that.
Niall
-
Then what about Machrihanish Dunes, where they didn't?
-
Perhaps the Scottish body that makes these determinations didn’t discover nor recognize the endangeredness of the fly until they were forced to examine the environmentalists of the site as a part of this process?
You don’t HAVE to be so cynical, ya know...
While it's true that I was born in NYC, both my parents were from the Show Me State.
The fact that a species IS present at one site does not add to the case for it being endangered; it's whether it exists a lot of other places [or not] that is the question.
On what basis are you asserting that the existence of this fly at this site was the determining factor for it having been declared endangered?
Seems from light reading it is pretty clear it doesn’t exist a lot of other places; hence the designation.
-
Here’s a link to the SNH report. Makes for some interesting reading (if you like that sort of thing).
Most hilariously, seems they killed around 30 of the wee beasties for the survey! ;D
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Publication%202013%20-%20SNH%20Commissioned%20Report%20618%20-%20Survey%20and%20ecology%20of%20Botanophila%20fonsecai%20Ackland%20%28Diptera%2C%20Anthomyiidae%29%2C%20a%20seed-fly%20endemic%20to%20Scotland.pdf (https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Publication%202013%20-%20SNH%20Commissioned%20Report%20618%20-%20Survey%20and%20ecology%20of%20Botanophila%20fonsecai%20Ackland%20%28Diptera%2C%20Anthomyiidae%29%2C%20a%20seed-fly%20endemic%20to%20Scotland.pdf)
Happy reading.
F.
-
Here’s a link to the SNH report. Makes for some interesting reading (if you like that sort of thing).
Most hilariously, seems they killed around 30 of the wee beasties for the survey! ;D
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Publication%202013%20-%20SNH%20Commissioned%20Report%20618%20-%20Survey%20and%20ecology%20of%20Botanophila%20fonsecai%20Ackland%20%28Diptera%2C%20Anthomyiidae%29%2C%20a%20seed-fly%20endemic%20to%20Scotland.pdf (https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Publication%202013%20-%20SNH%20Commissioned%20Report%20618%20-%20Survey%20and%20ecology%20of%20Botanophila%20fonsecai%20Ackland%20%28Diptera%2C%20Anthomyiidae%29%2C%20a%20seed-fly%20endemic%20to%20Scotland.pdf)
Happy reading.
F.
;D
-
Then what about Machrihanish Dunes, where they didn't?
Yes they did, they worked with the environmental agencies and worked round the sensitive areas which is why you have long walks at some points. They still managed to successfully develop an excellent course.
Niall
-
Then what about Machrihanish Dunes, where they didn't?
Yes they did, they worked with the environmental agencies and worked round the sensitive areas which is why you have long walks at some points. They still managed to successfully develop an excellent course.
Niall
Well yes and no. The entire course is within the SSSI; it's just that at Mach Dunes they got consent to be in there, as long, as you say, that they avoided certain extremely sensitive areas.
-
Lou,
Must most everything be opposed? You mean, besides the things you’re opposing?
Ouch! I guess there is a bit of hypocrisy in all of us. I have seen Barney rubbing off on you a bit, but now I detect some David Moriarty creeping in as well! Though I share some of the populist concerns about your profession, I respect the value of the education. Being able to debate all points of view of an issue with apparent conviction while pounding the table as needed are very useful skills.
Actually, I mostly only oppose things that affect me directly and can't avoid, primarily top-down government laws and policies which, if I willingly or unknowingly violate will land me in jail. Examples: I don't care if the Masters or the Tour bifurcate the rules on balls and implements, but it would cause me concern if I was prevented from playing my favorite presently conforming ball. I don't care if NY and VA pay Amazon's corporate blackmail; I do care if the federal government attempts to impose laws prohibiting competition between the states. I am ok if an unbiased, apolitical evaluation determines that an insect is critical to the environment thus preventing the use of the habitat, provided that private property owners are then compensated fairly for what is a taking for the public good.
As to the fly study, ::) . Real First World problems in my estimation. I spent countless hours during the hot Ohio summers pulling milkweed from soybean fields to improve the yields. Not long ago, I think while playing golf, someone noted that the Monarch butterflies were starting to migrate and that because they had planted these large, noxious weeds, huge numbers were expected at the site, Apparently, milkweed attracts Monarchs, and though they are beautiful and highly valued by some, I felt no remorse for my past activity which helped a large, economically sensitive family pay-off a small farm through a lifetime of hard work.
-
I’ll confess when this all kicked off my initial reaction was more rich US golf developers looking to ride roughshod over our planning system by throwing a few baubles at the locals, much as Trump promised to do at Balmedie.
Sometimes confession can be cleansing. At times, perhaps, a bit too revealing. And I thought that our European brothers had evolved past crass nationalism and ethnocentricity! :(
Then again, for some, the prospect of 30-100+ jobs is a "bauble" (love the word!). To others it is a means to a life of better prospects, the dignity of work and being productive. Apparently, some believe that one out of over 100,000 species of flies have recognizable rights trumping those of property owners, the workers at the course, and supporting businesses.
And, if I may ask, is the current planning policy so well-calibrated, fair, timely, and efficient that is should be considered sacrosanct and impervious to challenge? Is it resulting in affordable property prices? Better living conditions beyond those of the NIMBYs? Does it have a positive impact on the population widely and the economy? Can a relatively small minority, no matter the quality of its intentions and its value judgments, be able to override the desire of a large local majority with last minute Hail Marys such as an "endangered" fly? Just asking!
-
Lou,
Must most everything be opposed? You mean, besides the things you’re opposing?
Ouch! I guess there is a bit of hypocrisy in all of us. I have seen Barney rubbing off on you a bit, but now I detect some David Moriarty creeping in as well!
I pay you a compliment and you hit me with this?!!?! OUCH!
-
Not a slam at all JC. ;) JK gets off the reservation at times, but his provocations, IMO, are much enjoyable and interesting than the pablum, "+1" stuff that too often appears here. On the few occasions I am able to decipher his short posts, his unusual insights and droll wit are enjoyable. And though I've had disagreements with David M in the past, I always admired his intellect and ability to project his ideas in writing. I think that both men add value of the site.
It just seems to me that the guy who partnered with me in victory at Aiken wouldn't be playing the bug card in this argument (hence the reference to Barney who likes to stir up things), and doubling down when challenged (a common Moriarty tactic). If indeed yours is a heartfelt opinion vis-à-vis the value of a fly and its rights within the legal framework, I fear that peaceful compromise between reasonable men is unlikely. I suppose that the courts and the ballot box are the final means to a resolution, but that is so damned cumbersome and don't we have much bigger fish to fry?
-
Lou,
First with the fly, now with the fish.
What are you? Some kind of animal-hating monster?
;)
F.
-
When was the land acquired for Coul Links?
-
When was the land acquired for Coul Links?
Aquired by who? The land is owned by the same person who owned it well before SSSI designation. FYI the fly in question was thought to be unique to the site initially but when they started looking elsewhere it was also found elsewhere. Whilst I do not doubt it is not as common as a bluebottle I suspect much of its present rarity is to do with the fact that it has not been looked for.
This whole calling in of the planning application is purely to do with having a weak government been dictated to by an unelected MSP and nothing to do with environmental issues.
-
So, as I understand it, Keiser and the hotel guy approached the owner of the land somewhere around 2014-2105 re development of the golf course. And, the owner remains the same but Keiser et al. would enter into a long term lease for the property were it approved for development.
Is that correct?
-
Lou
If you read my post, and earlier posts on the subject you will note I’ve endeavoured to distinguish between the personal and the business method. Many on here have decried me for comparing the way Trump pursued his planning and the way the Embo developer is doing it, and saying they are nothing alike. Well, I’m happy to allow that they are nothing alike personally although I’ve not met any of them, but in terms of their business methods they seem very much alike in terms of their low regard for the environmental issues and how they have looked to get round environmental safeguards by making promises of money. Is that a US cultural thing or is that just how the two of them operate ?
Clearly it’s not how everyone does it in the US as the Dumbarnie development appears to be financed by US money and I suggest that is a much better way of going about matters. No drama, no fuss and working around the environmental constraints rather than looking to drive a coach and horses through it with the promise of wealth.
Niall
Ps. As an aside, what put me in mind of throwing baubles at the locals was the Dutch (?) buying Manhattan island from the locals back in the 17th (?) century.
-
Then again, for some, the prospect of 30-100+ jobs is a "bauble" (love the word!). To others it is a means to a life of better prospects, the dignity of work and being productive. Apparently, some believe that one out of over 100,000 species of flies have recognizable rights trumping those of property owners, the workers at the course, and supporting businesses.
Lou
It’s been a while since I read all the planning documents submitted by the developer but as I recall about 60 was the figure for those directly employed (ignoring the niceties of whether caddies are self-employed). Again as I recall it the document allowed that the key posts such as course manager, head professional etc would likely be brought in but caddies would likely be local. Now accepting everyone works to get something out of it, usually financially, then all to the good however is a number of seasonal part time jobs worth trashing an environmentally sensitive site ? Personally, I don’t think so but clearly you do.
Niall
-
So, as I understand it, Keiser and the hotel guy approached the owner of the land somewhere around 2014-2105 re development of the golf course. And, the owner remains the same but Keiser et al. would enter into a long term lease for the property were it approved for development.
Is that correct?
Pretty much.
-
And, if I may ask, is the current planning policy so well-calibrated, fair, timely, and efficient that is should be considered sacrosanct and impervious to challenge? Is it resulting in affordable property prices? Better living conditions beyond those of the NIMBYs? Does it have a positive impact on the population widely and the economy? Can a relatively small minority, no matter the quality of its intentions and its value judgments, be able to override the desire of a large local majority with last minute Hail Marys such as an "endangered" fly? Just asking!
Lou
No planning system is perfect but it is essential if you don’t want to end up in a built environment that is f****d up. In this instance you have a site that is clearly identified as environmentally sensitive and significant. The markers were clearly there that this land should not be developed but the developers basically gave a two fingered FU to that. And while like every other property professional, I get frustrated with the system at times I still respect it. These guys don’t.
Niall
-
Niall,
I think my latest post got buried at the bottom of page 28; give it a look if you can as you seem to be intimate with the details.
Thanks
-
Not a slam at all JC. ;) JK gets off the reservation at times, but his provocations, IMO, are much enjoyable and interesting than the pablum, "+1" stuff that too often appears here. On the few occasions I am able to decipher his short posts, his unusual insights and droll wit are enjoyable. And though I've had disagreements with David M in the past, I always admired his intellect and ability to project his ideas in writing. I think that both men add value of the site.
It just seems to me that the guy who partnered with me in victory at Aiken wouldn't be playing the bug card in this argument (hence the reference to Barney who likes to stir up things), and doubling down when challenged (a common Moriarty tactic). If indeed yours is a heartfelt opinion vis-à-vis the value of a fly and its rights within the legal framework, I fear that peaceful compromise between reasonable men is unlikely. I suppose that the courts and the ballot box are the final means to a resolution, but that is so damned cumbersome and don't we have much bigger fish to fry?
The version of me that partnered with you in victory at Aiken wasn't as patient to wait for information to come in as the one now.
I mentioned before that the problem with playing the "environmentalists are to blame" card is that it typically lacks nuance. According to Jon Wiggett, that wasn't even the reason for the current halt in the plan. So, in this case, not only does it lack nuance, it lacks accuracy.
But as to the nuance, you and Tom quite cynically both dismissed the fly as an issue and said the whole thing was fabricated by the government to stop this project. The problem with that narrative is, unless I have my timeline wrong (which I've asked for confirmation), the study of the fly and of the site was commissioned prior to 2010, was conducted in 2010 and the report provided by FBD was issued in 2013. According to the timeline I've been able to put together from public reports, Keiser et al. didn't have interest until 2015. So, the idea that the environmental concerns are fabricated out of convenience doesn't seem to make sense.
Lastly, your argument that the owners deserve some sort of compensation doesn't make sense; at least not if you're applying United States takings law as your justification. Planning and zoning commission decisions that don't go the way the owner would like do not, in and of themselves, constitute takings for which the government should compensate the owner.
-
JC
Can’t comment on when MK got involved but I think you’re timeline is broadly correct. For this application to be successful it was almost certainly going to have to reach this stage. For Scottish Government not to call in the application following the Council granting consent would have been extraordinary given the proposal is contra to the development plan but even more so following the Balmedie debacle.
To blame it on environmentalists is akin to blaming the accused getting off a charge on his defence attorney. It’s all part of the process.
Niall
-
Niall
Could you please define the "The Balmedie Debacle?" Sounds like a John Grisham book..... ;)
From what I remember, the SSSI issue at Balmedie was focused on "shifting dunes," and a simple Google search told me that Balmedie was one of the many (20+) shifting dunes systems in Scotland, and the number of such systems in Wales, Ireland, England and Namibia, etc. were (almost) ad infinitum.
Is it just a coincidence that the scientists involved with the SSSI issues at the Balmedie property were ensconced at the University of Aberdeen? Maybe they were agoraphobic and not willing or able to see how "unique" was Balmedie (given that all things are "unique")?
Anybody who has visited Dornoch for any length of time will know that the dune system from Embo down to the Dornoch Firth is continuously moving and that the courses and the town are occasionally infested with sand flies when the temperature is high and the wind non-existent. Maybe the Embo flies are cousins of the Dornoch flies? If so, why not close down Royal Dornoch until all these scientific conundra are resolved? If so, maybe the old clubhouse might suffice....
Rich
-
Rich
I think you’re getting John Grisham mixed up with Stuart MacBride. “The Balmedie Debacle” was part of trilogy with the “Shiskine Shambles” and Muirfield Massacre”. As I recall the central character was a bit of an anti-hero type who tilted at Windmills while holding onto his hair. Sort of Don Quixote meets Gone With The Wind if you like.
Apparently Alex Baldwin is going to star in the film.
Niall
-
"Many on here have decried me for comparing the way Trump pursued his planning and the way the Embo developer is doing it, and saying they are nothing alike. Well, I’m happy to allow that they are nothing alike personally although I’ve not met any of them, but in terms of their business methods they seem very much alike in terms of their low regard for the environmental issues and how they have looked to get round environmental safeguards by making promises of money."
Niall -
We have debated this issue several times in the course of this thread.
While I will agree that the Coul Links team was overly enthusiastic and slightly hyperbolic in their initial comments about their plans for Coul Links, since then their behavior has been quite circumspect. If you can find any public comments they have made where they have demeaned, insulted or attempted to intimidate the opponents of the project, I would like to see them. In this regard, their behavior has been the exact opposite of Trump at Balmedie.
The Coul Links people have engaged with the locals on multiple occasions to describe what they intend to do and address the questions and concerns of the locals.
Have you reviewed the Coul Links website thoroughly? The various environmental issues are addressed directly. To assert that they have "low regard for the environmental issues" and "they have looked to get round environmental safeguards" has little basis in fact. All in my opinion of course. ;)
https://www.coullinks.co.uk/ (https://www.coullinks.co.uk/)
DT
-
Lou,
First with the fly, now with the fish.
What are you? Some kind of animal-hating monster?
;)
F.
I love animals: steaks medium rare, brisket aged and lightly-smoked, chicken breasts marinated for a day and grilled fully but still moist, center pork chops oriental style, ham baked to slightly overdone (jamon gallego a personal favorite), white fish blackened, shell fish grilled or Italian style. I spend a good deal of money trying to ward off fire ants, ticks, fleas, roaches from my yard and house, and keep flyswatters and various sprays close by to kill or discourage flies and mosquitos.
All kidding aside, I love animals. Flies and most bugs, not so much, though I recognize their role in an ecosystem. Genesis 1:26-28 describes the proper relationship between man and other animals. ;)
-
Lou,
First with the fly, now with the fish.
What are you? Some kind of animal-hating monster?
;)
F.
I love animals: steaks medium rare, brisket aged and lightly-smoked, chicken breasts marinated for a day and grilled fully but still moist, center pork chops oriental style, ham baked to slightly overdone (jamon gallego a personal favorite), white fish blackened, shell fish grilled or Italian style. I spend a good deal of money trying to ward off fire ants, ticks, fleas, roaches from my yard and house, and keep flyswatters and various sprays close by to kill or discourage flies and mosquitos.
All kidding aside, I love animals. Flies and most bugs, not so much, though I recognize their role in an ecosystem. Genesis 1:26-28 describes the proper relationship between man and other animals. ;)
Good thing you stopped reading before you got to Genesis 1:29-30, otherwise you'd be asking forgiveness for the sins in your first paragraph above.
-
I liked them up until Trick of the Tail, but Abacab onwards were monotonous dreck.
8)
F.
-
See Genesis 9:2-3
And though I haven't been a Catholic for more than 45 years, I can't help but to say an act of contrition on occasion just to be safe.
As to your retorts, are you suggesting that the environmental interventions of which the "rare" fly is but one are not what are primarily preventing the project? I went back and read Kris Shreiner's (sp) painful, hostile screeds and thought that I perhaps was taken to the wrong site. Since we are on a biblical theme, what I saw in the distance from the back of several farm buildings had much less in common with the Garden of Eden (per Kris's description of the land) than any number of sites along the coast. I think that in one of the CL threads states that the land had been grazed, hunted, and degraded with various invasive plants. The site certainly does not compare with the impressive dunes at Trump's course near Balmedie.
As to what constitutes a taking subject to compensation, I know very little of Scottish law, but my argument here is in general and about fairness in the context of private property rights. If the tract was acquired with the SSI in place and the attendant restrictions, that is one thing. But this is not the case here. There are probably few if any other uses for the property than as a golf course or for public use. Without being able to lightly develop the dunes part of the tract, it is of little value, and yes, I think that the SSI designation, whether political or truly scientific, is in effect a taking. If the government doesn't want to pony up, perhaps it should give BugLife the right of first refusal and proceed to grant the permits if it won't put its money where its mouth is. I know, it's a radical position >:(- until some environmentalist points out that your property where you were going to build a few houses for your extended family is a roosting place for bald eagles migrating south and the government says you can't touch it (analogous situation in the Dakotas). Then, maybe it is a taking.
-
Niall,
First of all, if you believe that Mike Keiser, Ben Crenshaw, and Bill Coore would be "trashing an environmentally sensitive site", then either you don't know the extensive, well-earned reputation of these men or you have a poor opinion of golf's place in the environment.
Unlike you, I put no more faith in folks who are paid by the government or environmental NGOs to objectively analyze a situation than I do in those engaged by industry. 45+ years working in the private and public sectors have taught me that the work product and recommendations most often tend to support the desires of those who pay their salaries and fees. Governments want to govern, industry wants to produce, environmentalists for the most part have a bias against development, growth, and capitalism. So, IMO, there is at least as much politics in the various environmental regulations as there is "science".
As to P & Z in the U.S., I and nearly all of the many real estate professionals I've known acknowledge the need for reasonable, consistent policies. We don't want a lead battery plant next to a residential community or a topless bar adjoining a school, but no one I know wants such rigid regulations which would render private property essentially unusable. Clear, flexible, well-informed comprehensive land plans are seen a necessity, with emphasis on flexible, reasoned and timely resolution of requested exceptions.
Typically, P&Z issues are governed locally, though some states like CA and NY tend to weigh in heavily. The federal government through environmental laws and agency regulations as well as social engineering schemes also plays a heavy hand.
As an industrial properties developer and former green chair at a famous SoCal club once explained to me, if I came to his backyard and attempted to develop a property, say an office/warehouse, it would take me three years and several $100k to $1 Million+ to get my permits, and that is if I did everything right. He could get the project going in less than a year for 25%-50% of my startup costs because he "worked" with the same P&Z staff, city councils, and all their preferred vendors (brokers, engineers, architects, appraisers, environmental and traffic consultants, public relations professionals). In other words, I would have zero chance of succeeding. A racket? You bet it is, with a lot of money flowing a bunch of different ways.
Yet, this guy, as he told me, can come down to Houston- a city notorious for very little zoning requirements- and get a project going in under a year. I would not have a competitive advantage over him in my own backyard.
Now, as you probably know, property values are much higher in SoCal than in Houston or Dallas. That office/warehouse will lease for 2-3x more there than here. They can get away with this because supply is also restricted (much like in the UK) and regulation forces land prices high. Of course, average people are leaving CA in droves and Dallas and Houston, actually much of TX, is experiencing tremendous population and job growth.
Do all U.S. developers run shod of government regulations? Of course not. While I don't think that Trump is representative of most developers, as long as money is available, developers develop. He has acknowledged contributing huge sums to the big NYC Democrat machine, making deals with the unions (some mob influenced if not controlled), and being in bed with some unsavory characters. The gentleman I played golf with paid high fees to preferred vendors and I am sure he donated to the campaigns of various politicos who ultimately decided the fate of his deals. Any number of highways and streets in TX are named after real estate investors who also spent some time in city hall. I suspect that it is not that much different in your part of the world.
I really don't have much of anything riding on the CL project. As I get older, my desire to spend more time in two or three places as opposed to seeing a bunch of new courses grows stronger. I just don't see any downside to the project. But I am a very firm believer that a well-planned, designed, and maintained golf course can greatly improve the environment for all but a very small group who are very difficult to please. Ironically, having travelled to various parks in Africa, India, the Americas, it never ceases to amaze me how much wildlife one sees from the road. Guides and game managers tell me that animals are smart. They too like prepared surfaces to move around. Go figure.
-
Niall,
First of all, if you believe that Mike Keiser, Ben Crenshaw, and Bill Coore would be "trashing an environmentally sensitive site", then either you don't know the extensive, well-earned reputation of these men or you have a poor opinion of golf's place in the environment.
Trashing/destroying/obliterating/wrecking/ruining – I’ll let you use whatever word you want, they more or less all mean the same thing, but when you wipe out a landscape and replace it with something else then what else are you doing ? As for Mike Keisers environmental credentials, read the side bar on the front page of http://www.notcoul.com/developers.html
Unlike you, I put no more faith in folks who are paid by the government or environmental NGOs to objectively analyze a situation than I do in those engaged by industry. 45+ years working in the private and public sectors have taught me that the work product and recommendations most often tend to support the desires of those who pay their salaries and fees. Governments want to govern, industry wants to produce, environmentalists for the most part have a bias against development, growth, and capitalism. So, IMO, there is at least as much politics in the various environmental regulations as there is "science".
Of course the environmental agencies are there to support the policy objectives and those objectives are set by elected politicians. They are there to do a job. There raison d’etre is to safeguard the environment. That will inevitably lead to an element of conflict with those who want to develop sites previously identified as being of high environmental significance. I’ll say it again, that’s what they are supposed to do. It’s what “we” the taxpayer pay them for. It’s what every main stream political party wants them to do.
As to P & Z in the U.S., I and nearly all of the many real estate professionals I've known acknowledge the need for reasonable, consistent policies. We don't want a lead battery plant next to a residential community or a topless bar adjoining a school, but no one I know wants such rigid regulations which would render private property essentially unusable. Clear, flexible, well-informed comprehensive land plans are seen a necessity, with emphasis on flexible, reasoned and timely resolution of requested exceptions.
Fine, you accept the need for zoning. In your opinion building a golf course on an environmentally sensitive site is an acceptable divergence from any planning designation that the land might have. That’s a matter of opinion but let me respectfully suggest your opinion is fairly extreme. I’d suggest more folk value the environment more highly.
Typically, P&Z issues are governed locally, though some states like CA and NY tend to weigh in heavily. The federal government through environmental laws and agency regulations as well as social engineering schemes also plays a heavy hand.
I’m not sure the value in comparing Scotland to parts of the US. There are different issues in play, different structures, different governance etc.
As an industrial properties developer and former green chair at a famous SoCal club once explained to me, if I came to his backyard and attempted to develop a property, say an office/warehouse, it would take me three years and several $100k to $1 Million+ to get my permits, and that is if I did everything right. He could get the project going in less than a year for 25%-50% of my startup costs because he "worked" with the same P&Z staff, city councils, and all their preferred vendors (brokers, engineers, architects, appraisers, environmental and traffic consultants, public relations professionals). In other words, I would have zero chance of succeeding. A racket? You bet it is, with a lot of money flowing a bunch of different ways.
Again, not sure of the comparison, if that is what it is, unless you are suggesting that there has been some illegal practice going on as opposed to the correct procedures being followed ?
Yet, this guy, as he told me, can come down to Houston- a city notorious for very little zoning requirements- and get a project going in under a year. I would not have a competitive advantage over him in my own backyard.
That sounds like apples to oranges but again I wonder what relevance that has to Scotland.
Now, as you probably know, property values are much higher in SoCal than in Houston or Dallas. That office/warehouse will lease for 2-3x more there than here. They can get away with this because supply is also restricted (much like in the UK) and regulation forces land prices high. Of course, average people are leaving CA in droves and Dallas and Houston, actually much of TX, is experiencing tremendous population and job growth.
And ?
Do all U.S. developers run shod of government regulations? Of course not. While I don't think that Trump is representative of most developers, as long as money is available, developers develop. He has acknowledged contributing huge sums to the big NYC Democrat machine, making deals with the unions (some mob influenced if not controlled), and being in bed with some unsavory characters. The gentleman I played golf with paid high fees to preferred vendors and I am sure he donated to the campaigns of various politicos who ultimately decided the fate of his deals. Any number of highways and streets in TX are named after real estate investors who also spent some time in city hall. I suspect that it is not that much different in your part of the world.
So when Mike Keiser donated money and provided the local Community group with a minor interest in the development he was just following the norm in the US ? Interesting.
I really don't have much of anything riding on the CL project. As I get older, my desire to spend more time in two or three places as opposed to seeing a bunch of new courses grows stronger. I just don't see any downside to the project. But I am a very firm believer that a well-planned, designed, and maintained golf course can greatly improve the environment for all but a very small group who are very difficult to please. Ironically, having travelled to various parks in Africa, India, the Americas, it never ceases to amaze me how much wildlife one sees from the road. Guides and game managers tell me that animals are smart. They too like prepared surfaces to move around. Go figure.
I too believe that golf courses can add greatly to the environment and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species. But there comes a point when you have to say that what is there already is more valuable.
-
But as to the nuance, you and Tom quite cynically both dismissed the fly as an issue and said the whole thing was fabricated by the government to stop this project. The problem with that narrative is, unless I have my timeline wrong (which I've asked for confirmation), the study of the fly and of the site was commissioned prior to 2010, was conducted in 2010 and the report provided by FBD was issued in 2013. According to the timeline I've been able to put together from public reports, Keiser et al. didn't have interest until 2015. So, the idea that the environmental concerns are fabricated out of convenience doesn't seem to make sense.
I said no such thing.
Over the years, i have seen many golf development projects stopped or delayed or ransomed in the name of all sorts of causes - birds, bats, snails, snakes, and spiders among the animal reasons. I often wonder whether the real reason for these arguments is really about the animals (and their importance to the ecosystem), or whether the animals are just a proxy to argue against development of an undeveloped area that some group believes should stay "wild", just as I wonder whether some posters here have a real interest in the issues of a thread or just use a thread to troll people.
But one cannot know the answer to any of those questions without seeing into the hearts of the individuals - which is impossible to do. I guess you can look back at their past stance in similar circumstances to get a gauge, but even then you are guessing as to motivation.
-
Nice reference to the motivation aspect by Tom, one I’ve after pondered myself, and not just on this project.
Indeed I wonder if the opinions of any individuals living say within 50 miles of CL who were originally for/against this project have changed since it was announced?
I further wonder if any argument put forward or publicised by either side actually changed any individuals views?
Difficult to say I guess considering the way that the web and social media in particular has spread the debate.
Once upon a time ‘local planning’ would have meant ‘local’. No such thing these days I guess.
Also, and obviously hindsight is easy, but I wonder if those wanting to develop the project wish now that they had gone about things in a different way and whether their different way would have resulted in a different outcome to date?
Atb
-
Interesting the opposite motivations aren't being challenged.
That of a developer willing to rape and pillage a site for personal gain at the expense of everyone else after jumping ship and leaving the onus of cleanup on the taxpayers. Granted I don't think this really applies much to golf courses, but 50-60 years ago no doubt this was extremely common in several other industries..
-
But as to the nuance, you and Tom quite cynically both dismissed the fly as an issue and said the whole thing was fabricated by the government to stop this project. The problem with that narrative is, unless I have my timeline wrong (which I've asked for confirmation), the study of the fly and of the site was commissioned prior to 2010, was conducted in 2010 and the report provided by FBD was issued in 2013. According to the timeline I've been able to put together from public reports, Keiser et al. didn't have interest until 2015. So, the idea that the environmental concerns are fabricated out of convenience doesn't seem to make sense.
I said no such thing.
Over the years, i have seen many golf development projects stopped or delayed or ransomed in the name of all sorts of causes - birds, bats, snails, snakes, and spiders among the animal reasons. I often wonder whether the real reason for these arguments is really about the animals (and their importance to the ecosystem), or whether the animals are just a proxy to argue against development of an undeveloped area that some group believes should stay "wild", just as I wonder whether some posters here have a real interest in the issues of a thread or just use a thread to troll people.
But one cannot know the answer to any of those questions without seeing into the hearts of the individuals - which is impossible to do. I guess you can look back at their past stance in similar circumstances to get a gauge, but even then you are guessing as to motivation.
You’re right, Tom, anyone who dares disagree with you is a troll. You’d probably do well around here to drop your trump-esque tactics of of late.
I’m sorry the facts here didn’t fit your preferred narrative; but, a simple check of the dates on the fly study was all it took to find out people were concerned about the situation long before a golf course development entered the picture. And, I know you benefit financially from golf course development, but we shouldn’t pretend that development of golf courses is some sort of noble cause to which all other causes should be cast aside.
-
But one cannot know the answer to any of those questions without seeing into the hearts of the individuals - which is impossible to do. I guess you can look back at their past stance in similar circumstances to get a gauge, but even then you are guessing as to motivation.
Having been sort of on the enviro side of at least one huge Federal project, I can tell you that the dead-serious professionals who opposed it would have used anything they had to to get it killed.
But it was because they truly believed that it was not only a huge waste of taxpayer's money, but an environmental disaster on several levels. If there'd been a an endangered snail darter to use as a reason to kill the project, they'd have brought it into the discussion.
In the end it was the fact that despite the project being about 90% done, the last 10% was still more than expected benefits.
So, you're right, but the fact that someone or some group is talking about an endangered fly doesn't mean they have nefarious motives. In fact, my experience in middle America was that the opponents almost always have fairly pure motives. Which, of course, doesn't mean a project is bad.
I mentioned the snail darter because it was the focus of the proponents and opponents of Tellico Dam. The opponents were "using" the Endangered Species Act to fight the dam, and proponents were "using" the fact that a silly, little minnow was going to kill such an important project.
When the "God Committee" was convened, it decided against the dam, but not because of the darter
Chairman Andrus stated, "I hate to see the snail darter get the credit for stopping a project that was ill-conceived and uneconomic in the first place."[/size] [/color][/size]The annual cost of the dam, $7.25 million, exceeded estimated benefits, $6.25 million, in addition to the cost of completing dam construction and also would tie up approximately $40 million in private (agricultural) land values.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]That it finally got built is completely about politics and had nothing to do with whether it was a good idea.[/color]
-
Interesting the opposite motivations aren't being challenged.
That of a developer willing to rape and pillage a site for personal gain at the expense of everyone else after jumping ship and leaving the onus of cleanup on the taxpayers. Granted I don't think this really applies much to golf courses, but 50-60 years ago no doubt this was extremely common in several other industries..
Certainly you jest! The zeitgeist being promoted by the environmental left in nearly every instance is precisely what you suggest: greedy capitalists pillaging the earth and exploiting the working class for their narrow, selfish gains. Look at the mud being thrown at Mike Keiser and the picture of Bandon Dunes the anti-Coul bunch is attempting to paint.
Ken, who self-identifies with an environmental cause, offers that those on his side "almost always have fairly pure motives". Virtue fighting evil. GMaFB!
The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism. We are not talking Mother Teresa types attempting to improve the fate of very poor people living in Third World conditions. These are folks in enviable positions refusing to acknowledge the good in a quest of their vision of the perfect. And for those whose prospects are marginal, well, that's what the dole is for, right? :(
Like with the Balmedie development, there is a lot of bad information (pulling punches here) being tossed around as fact. Local opposition should not mean a political planning council bending to the will of well-financed, organized outside groups and voting narrowly against the will of the people. The easiest thing for a politician to do in the face of opposition is to say "No" (page 1 of the unpublished bureaucrat's training manual- "One 'Oh Shit' offsets 10 'Atta-Boys'). There was a lot of evidence that the Balmedie project had substantial majority support from the local citizens. I would be interested in the results of a local referendum on Coul Links.
-
The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism.
Say it isn't so Sweet Lou. You show your hand too easily despite all your previous hard work. 8)
Ciao
-
Niall,
First of all, if you believe that Mike Keiser, Ben Crenshaw, and Bill Coore would be "trashing an environmentally sensitive site", then either you don't know the extensive, well-earned reputation of these men or you have a poor opinion of golf's place in the environment.
Trashing/destroying/obliterating/wrecking/ruining – I’ll let you use whatever word you want, they more or less all mean the same thing, but when you wipe out a landscape and replace it with something else then what else are you doing ? As for Mike Keisers environmental credentials, read the side bar on the front page of http://www.notcoul.com/developers.html
"WIPE OUT A LANDSCAPE"? IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL MOVING MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF DIRT AND SEEDING WITH NATIVE COOL SEASON GRASSES? ON THE CL SITE I CALL IT VASTLY IMPROVING A DEGRADED PROPERTY AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO A MUCH LARGER PUBLIC WHILE GENERATING REVENUES FOR AN AREA WHICH HAS LOST POPULATION FOR DECADES.
AS TO THE OPPONENTS AND THEIR CHARACTERIZATION OF KEISER AND BANDON DUNES, DID THESE FOLKS CONSULT WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THE KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION? I WONDER WHAT THE PRO/CON SPLIT IS ON BANDON, 9 TO 1? I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER GROUP TO DEVELOP A LOW IMPACT, ULTRA ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE GOLF COURE THAN KEISER/C&C TEAM.
Unlike you, I put no more faith in folks who are paid by the government or environmental NGOs to objectively analyze a situation than I do in those engaged by industry. 45+ years working in the private and public sectors have taught me that the work product and recommendations most often tend to support the desires of those who pay their salaries and fees. Governments want to govern, industry wants to produce, environmentalists for the most part have a bias against development, growth, and capitalism. So, IMO, there is at least as much politics in the various environmental regulations as there is "science".
Of course the environmental agencies are there to support the policy objectives and those objectives are set by elected politicians. They are there to do a job. There raison d’etre is to safeguard the environment. That will inevitably lead to an element of conflict with those who want to develop sites previously identified as being of high environmental significance. I’ll say it again, that’s what they are supposed to do. It’s what “we” the taxpayer pay them for. It’s what every main stream political party wants them to do.
MAINSTREAM? IS THAT WHAT THE LOCAL CITIZENS WANT? A DEGRADED SITE WITH A FEW FLIES AND NO CL? I DON'T THINK SO.
As to P & Z in the U.S., I and nearly all of the many real estate professionals I've known acknowledge the need for reasonable, consistent policies. We don't want a lead battery plant next to a residential community or a topless bar adjoining a school, but no one I know wants such rigid regulations which would render private property essentially unusable. Clear, flexible, well-informed comprehensive land plans are seen a necessity, with emphasis on flexible, reasoned and timely resolution of requested exceptions.
Fine, you accept the need for zoning. In your opinion building a golf course on an environmentally sensitive site is an acceptable divergence from any planning designation that the land might have. That’s a matter of opinion but let me respectfully suggest your opinion is fairly extreme. I’d suggest more folk value the environment more highly.
IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION THAT THE SITE IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. IT IS MORE A MATTER OF VALUES ON HOW PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOULD BE REGULATED. I HAVE FOUR GRANDCHILDREN BREATHING AIR AND INTERACTING IN NATURE EVERY DAY. I VALUE A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT VERY HIGHLY AND MY POSITIONS ARE ONLY EXTREME TO ONE WHO ADHERES TO THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE WITH A STRONG ANTI-GROWTH BIAS.
Typically, P&Z issues are governed locally, though some states like CA and NY tend to weigh in heavily. The federal government through environmental laws and agency regulations as well as social engineering schemes also plays a heavy hand.
I’m not sure the value in comparing Scotland to parts of the US. There are different issues in play, different structures, different governance etc.
I AM SUGGESTING THAT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ARE AT LEAST AS MUCH POLITICAL AS SCIENTIFIC. I AM ALSO ATTEMPTING TO POINT TO THE SIMILARITIES OF THE P&Z PROCESSES, WHICH PROBABLY HAVE SOME COMMON BASIS. IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF SOME THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE INTERVENING IN LOCAL DECISIONS, THOUGH I SUSPECT THAT THE SAME FOLKS WOULD BE FIRST IN LINE TO DEMAND INTERVENTION IF THE LOCAL DECISION HAD GONE AGAINST THEM,
As an industrial properties developer and former green chair at a famous SoCal club once explained to me, if I came to his backyard and attempted to develop a property, say an office/warehouse, it would take me three years and several $100k to $1 Million+ to get my permits, and that is if I did everything right. He could get the project going in less than a year for 25%-50% of my startup costs because he "worked" with the same P&Z staff, city councils, and all their preferred vendors (brokers, engineers, architects, appraisers, environmental and traffic consultants, public relations professionals). In other words, I would have zero chance of succeeding. A racket? You bet it is, with a lot of money flowing a bunch of different ways.
Again, not sure of the comparison, if that is what it is, unless you are suggesting that there has been some illegal practice going on as opposed to the correct procedures being followed ?
ILLEGAL, PERHAPS NOT UNDER THE LETTER, BUT MAYBE IN SPIRIT? ALL HEAVILY-REGULATED PROCESSES REQUIRING JUMPING THROUGH MANY HOOPS ARE PRONE TO GRAFT AND QUID PRO QUO NORMS/PAY-TO-PLAY. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CL SITUATION TO SUGGEST THAT THIS APPLIES HERE.
Yet, this guy, as he told me, can come down to Houston- a city notorious for very little zoning requirements- and get a project going in under a year. I would not have a competitive advantage over him in my own backyard.
That sounds like apples to oranges but again I wonder what relevance that has to Scotland.
RELEVANCE: HIGHLY REGULATED DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO HIGHER COSTS, HIGHER PRICES, LOWER SUPPLY/LESS DEVELOPMENT, HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT, SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH. I WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS JUST AS RELEVANT TO SCOTLAND AS IT IS TO NY, NJ, CA, IL AND ANY OTHER "PROGRESSIVE" COMMUNITIES IN THE STATES. PEOPLE FROM THESE PLACES AREN'T MOVING TO TEXAS FOR THE WEATHER AND THE POLITICS.
Now, as you probably know, property values are much higher in SoCal than in Houston or Dallas. That office/warehouse will lease for 2-3x more there than here. They can get away with this because supply is also restricted (much like in the UK) and regulation forces land prices high. Of course, average people are leaving CA in droves and Dallas and Houston, actually much of TX, is experiencing tremendous population and job growth.
And ?
SEE ABOVE.
Do all U.S. developers run shod of government regulations? Of course not. While I don't think that Trump is representative of most developers, as long as money is available, developers develop. He has acknowledged contributing huge sums to the big NYC Democrat machine, making deals with the unions (some mob influenced if not controlled), and being in bed with some unsavory characters. The gentleman I played golf with paid high fees to preferred vendors and I am sure he donated to the campaigns of various politicos who ultimately decided the fate of his deals. Any number of highways and streets in TX are named after real estate investors who also spent some time in city hall. I suspect that it is not that much different in your part of the world.
So when Mike Keiser donated money and provided the local Community group with a minor interest in the development he was just following the norm in the US ? Interesting.
MAYBE. HE COULD BE A GREAT HUMANITARIAN FOR ALL I KNOW. OR PERHAPS HE KNOWS THAT HE NEEDS TO GREASE THE SKID. DO I GIVE MY MAIL CARRIER AND PAPER BOY A CHRISTMANS BONUS IN GOODWILL FOR DOING A GREAT JOB? OR IS IT STRATEGIC TO ENSURE MY MAIL DOESN'T GET TRASHED AND THE PAPER THROWN IN A WATER PUDDLE? REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVATION, THE RECEIVER BENEFITS AND THE BENEFACTOR IS SOMETIMES REWARDED. I HOPE THAT GRACE AND GRATITUDE HAS NOT BEEN BRED OUT IN SCOTLAND.
I really don't have much of anything riding on the CL project. As I get older, my desire to spend more time in two or three places as opposed to seeing a bunch of new courses grows stronger. I just don't see any downside to the project. But I am a very firm believer that a well-planned, designed, and maintained golf course can greatly improve the environment for all but a very small group who are very difficult to please. Ironically, having travelled to various parks in Africa, India, the Americas, it never ceases to amaze me how much wildlife one sees from the road. Guides and game managers tell me that animals are smart. They too like prepared surfaces to move around. Go figure.
I too believe that golf courses can add greatly to the environment and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species. But there comes a point when you have to say that what is there already is more valuable.
WITH SUCH A TINY FRACTION OF THE COUNTRY DEVELOPED, THAT POINT IS VERY FAR FROM BEING REACHED. AGAIN, PUT UP THE PROS AND CONS, LET THE FOLKS HAVE A SHORT, BUT THOROUGH DEBATE AND LET THEM VOTE ON IT.
-
The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism.
Say it isn't so Sweet Lou. You show your hand too easily despite all your previous hard work. 8)
Ciao
You will have to tell me what my hand is before I can disown it. I do believe that there a relatively few masters in the environmental activist community pulling the strings of many good, well-meaning folks who are woefully uninformed on science, economics, business, politics, and how the world really works. Happy Thanksgiving!
-
The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism.
Say it isn't so Sweet Lou. You show your hand too easily despite all your previous hard work. 8)
Ciao
You will have to tell me what my hand is before I can disown it. I do believe that there a relatively few masters in the environmental activist community pulling the strings of many good, well-meaning folks who are woefully uninformed on science, economics, business, politics, and how the world really works. Happy Thanksgiving!
;D If only those poor fools had some intelligence, they too would have it all figured out. ;D
Come on, Lou. People can be well meaning and intelligent and have a different view than you.
-
The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism.
Say it isn't so Sweet Lou. You show your hand too easily despite all your previous hard work. 8)
Ciao
You will have to tell me what my hand is before I can disown it. I do believe that there a relatively few masters in the environmental activist community pulling the strings of many good, well-meaning folks who are woefully uninformed on science, economics, business, politics, and how the world really works. Happy Thanksgiving!
In this case, I am one of the woefully uninformed on science, economics (not that I beleive half of the drivel that comes from the mouths of econimists, politicians or business people), business, politics and how the world really works. I won't pretend to know the way forward, but I won't lightly dismiss environmental issues as some choose to do. I have said it before, a large part the government should play in our daily lives is to mitigate the damage a necessarily (IMO anyway) largely free market does to society and the environment. Governmental protectionsim ain't perfect, just as unions were never perfect, but I shudder to think what life would be without these (and more) clawbacks against a free market. To me, thats how the world should really work. So yes, I will tend to pay attention where encroachment on protected areas and the associated wildlife and ecosystems are concerned. Part of my skepticism is due to the argument that golf courses can be good stewards of the environment...an altered environment for sure. Yes, this can be the case, but it could just as easily not be the case. In other words, we have to put our faith in the developers...I am always skeptical about allowing the fox to watch the hen house. Ironically, the odds of the fox doing a proper job of stewardship rise when additonal environmental restrictions are applied. Anyway, carry on...all shall be revealed soon enough. I am not fussed either way in this case, though the prospect of another C&C course in the world doesn't have me doing cartwheels.
Ciao
-
JC,
You are right. But intelligence is highly overrated. Good, well-informed values, judgment, wisdom, and just regular common sense require more effort and active experience. I don't have a strong need for +1s and people agreeing with me.
The argument that an allegedly "rare" fly is a protagonist in the cycle of life may be heady in some circles; not in mine. But I agree with you, it is not about a fly. Raw power and control? The public sector flexing its muscle and showing the greedy American capitalist sand-baggers who is boss? Developing more precedence on the limits of private property rights? Who knows? Maybe the local council just wants to preempt another inevitable caravan park!
Sean,
We have a very different view of proper governance. I am the third generation of my family forced to immigrate by socialism and the statist, illiberal means it must employ to make its citizens do what they are by nature programmed to resist.
I am much more skeptical about what government can do to me than any corporation. The former can put me in jail, or worse in some cases. To the best of my knowledge, no company without the help of the government (reference ObamaCare) can force me to buy their products. And if they harm me, I can sue them in a consumer/lawyer friendly venue for redress. Try suing the government!
I too don't have a dog in this hunt. As to whether the world needs another C&C course, yep. These fine men have given me a lot of joy. I think many others feel the same way, and it is not like they're acting like Amazon, requiring the local governments to pay large ransom. :-*
-
Sweet Lou
Well if you are going to grace this thread with the mention of the so called socialism of Franco's Spain, then yes, I agree. However, my comments were couched within a free market economy. We have seen a world where companies ruled all...no thanks to either extreme. Hence my feeling that in this age of globalism...(has there ever been a business movement which so succesfully reduced the value of unskilled/union labour?) governments must find ways to ease the pain of the necessary evil (within reason) of the free market. We can argue til the cows come home...I ain't buying the notion of free company reign over the market, the social well being of the country and the environment. History tells us (well me anyway) this isn't wise.
Ciao
-
Trashing/destroying/obliterating/wrecking/ruining – I’ll let you use whatever word you want, they more or less all mean the same thing, but when you wipe out a landscape and replace it with something else then what else are you doing ? As for Mike Keisers environmental credentials, read the side bar on the front page of http://www.notcoul.com/developers.html (http://www.notcoul.com/developers.html)
I too believe that golf courses can add greatly to the environment and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species. But there comes a point when you have to say that what is there already is more valuable.
Niall,
it is not always easy to work out who wrote what when it comes to posts where replies are done within quotes so if these points are yours I apologies.
I would be VERY careful about using the 'notcoul' website or any information on there when it comes to backing up a point you are making. The site is run and fronted by the person who was the ecological advisor for the planning on the Balmedie Trump project. In that case his report came out in favour of the project saying it would enhance/improve the SSSI. Now he said this despite the fact that anyone with a smidgen of common sense could see that it would do exactly the opposite.
Now you would think that being an environmental expert who has worked another big golf project within a SSSI would be something he would use front and center no? Look at me not only the environmental expert but also the expert who worked on the last big project so I know what I am talking about better than anyone else. But not only does he not do this but he also refuses to acknowledge the fact even when asked about it.
So why is he anti? Well he lives very closely so has more than a professional interest but that could go either way. He also could have expect he might be offered the work as environmental expert on the Coul Links project. Yet for whatever reasons he was not. I suspect had he been, given his track record he might have been very much of a different opinion.
So when it comes to using websites to back up your points I would not be so quick to say look here this is the truth. To back the point up I have posted the following link. The site is full of interesting pieces where many of the facts are correct and logical yet I still do not agree at all with the big picture they are pushing. However, maybe after perusing their site you will believe the earth is flat.
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/ (https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/)
I would also say that I am not in favour of building within a SSSI though the idea of a SSSI is not to stop development but one of protecting certain characteristics of what is there. The two are not mutually exclusive. What is important in this case for me is to look at what would happen to the site under the current regime and what would happen if the proposed development went ahead. In this case to me the site will be massively better off in 20 years if the project happens.The bottom line is rather simple. We have a relatively small number of people who find meaning, actually a bit more than that, a raison d'être, in radical environmentalism.
Say it isn't so Sweet Lou. You show your hand too easily despite all your previous hard work. 8)
Ciao
You will have to tell me what my hand is before I can disown it. I do believe that there a relatively few masters in the environmental activist community pulling the strings of many good, well-meaning folks who are woefully uninformed on science, economics, business, politics, and how the world really works. Happy Thanksgiving!
;D If only those poor fools had some intelligence, they too would have it all figured out. ;D
Come on, Lou. People can be well meaning and intelligent and have a different view than you.
Mr. Jones,
where exactly did Lou say well meaning people are not intelligent regardless of if they are of his opinion or not?
Jon
-
JCJ
The "information" in your post #719 is fake news. Interests in developing Coull Links into a golf course extends back at least 40+ years when I first visited Dornoch and was informed by locals as to the magic of the place (relative to development as a golf course), well before when the bug scientists conducted their fairly recent research (and/or maybe were even before they were born). Kesier/Coore/Warnock just happened to be the first suitors who were not "All hat and no cattle" development wannabies.
rfg
-
Lou
You say that it is a matter of opinion that the site is environmentally highly sensitive. Can I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of PROFESSIONAL opinion that the site is environmentally highly sensitive. I’d also suggest that the developer’s through their own professional consultants aren’t necessarily disagreeing with the generality of that but are instead arguing the detail and putting forward mitigation measures.
With regards to the various hoops and costs that you refer to, that is all part of the process. I’m sure all other liberal democracies have similar. Think of it as being the cost of democracy. If we were like Franco’s Spain then perhaps it would be different ;)
Anyway, I digress slightly. In terms of development plans prepared by local government, they are there to provide a framework and guidance to developers and can help avoid unnecessary cost. In this instance the designation of the site in the development plan was a clear red flag to development. The fact that the developer’s decided to pursue an application despite that designation was their choice. The costs are therefore an inevitable consequence of that.
Niall
-
Jon
Happy to confirm that the quotes in red are indeed from myself.
Yes, I was vaguely aware that the environmental consultant involved in the Balmedie application (Tom Dargie) contributed to the notcoul website however I wasn’t aware he ran it. I’m also vaguely aware of reports that he felt ill-used by Trump in so much as he was misquoted as saying something that wasn’t in his report. I’m fairly sure that came out before the Embo application and was subject of at least one newspaper story.
Anyway if you read the Reporters report on the Balmedie application you will note that Dargie’s initial advice to Trump was to build his course inland but given Trumps refusal to do that his role was then one of looking at mitigation measures, or at least that last bit is my interpretation. In the final analysis his views didn’t seem to vary much from that of the consultants employed by the Council or that of SNH. I can well imagine that the consultants employed on behalf of the Embo developers will be acting similarly.
However the reason I included the notcoul link in my post to Lou was that I had been looking for info on Mike Keisers unauthorised encroachment and damage to government land to undertake site investigations, to illustrate to him that perhaps he wasn’t quite the eco-friendly developer that Lou was portraying him as. The notcoul link seemed a quick and easy way of imparting that information and making that point.
Niall
-
Lou,
Believe it or not, I'm first and foremost a believer in balance. Too much government or too much private interest are both anywhere from undesirable to awful. Where those checks of power are maintained will always be debatable, but the problem is too many people think in absolutes...aka the Ayn Rand crowd vs the all corporations are evil crowd.
-
Niall,
I am well aware of the fact that Mr. Dargie's initial report on the Balmedie project was to build the course inland of the dunes. You are also correct that he then worked on mitigating measures for the building of the course within the dunes. I am also aware that his report came to the conclusion that the if the mitigating measures were implemented it would be an improvement to the SSSI. A cynical person might conclude that when being paid there is an openness to building in SSSIs which disappears when circumstances alter. I of course prefer to believe this could not possibly be the case you understand.
As for feeling used by Trump. If you get into bed with the devil.....
As for MK I am aware of a case where a drilling operation searching for water was undertaken without the proper consents which included constructing roadways. This sort of thing is certainly not acceptable and does not reflect well.
-
Lou,
Believe it or not, I'm first and foremost a believer in balance. Too much government or too much private interest are both anywhere from undesirable to awful. Where those checks of power are maintained will always be debatable, but the problem is too many people think in absolutes...aka the Ayn Rand crowd vs the all corporations are evil crowd.
Me too. I am all for balance in any number of things, golf, governance, the economy. I marvel at my Democrat friends when they say that Republicans are extremists who just won't compromise. I suggest that they get beyond the rhetoric of their opinion makers and look at some figures, say total government spending as a percentage of GDP over the last 100+ years then less define "middle ground" (<7% around 1900 to 40%+ around 2010, presently trending around 35%).
Oops! Well, that has to be because conservatives feed the war machine, you know, the evil military/industrial complex. Ok, let's review those numbers: in the mid 1960s (Viet Nam) defense spending peaked at just above 10% of GDP. It is currently in the low 4%s. Go figure!
Balance. Or is it capitulation that some are after. Set one extreme high enough, say Bill de Blasio proffering that New Yorkers want the government to direct their private lives and calling for the end of federalism, and whatever falls in the middle is hardly balance. I have never heard anyone on the right advocate for "survival of the fittest/rugged individualism/dog-eat-dog/let granny eat dog food". The most "radical" suggestion stated from that side is that the 47% pulling the 53% riding in the cart is not sustainable. And for that, one of the most decent, honorable, middle-of-the road Republican politicians I know, your own junior senator-elect, was excoriated. Balance!
-
Lou
You say that it is a matter of opinion that the site is environmentally highly sensitive. Can I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of PROFESSIONAL opinion that the site is environmentally highly sensitive. I’d also suggest that the developer’s through their own professional consultants aren’t necessarily disagreeing with the generality of that but are instead arguing the detail and putting forward mitigation measures.
Do you think that there are not highly-trained individuals in the same disciplines, professionals, who would come to a very different conclusion? What "highly sensitive" is, as President Clinton once noted about the meaning of the word "is", has a lot more to do with context and opinion than fact (e.g. in the worst case, if as a result of the very light development maybe affecting 10-20% of the total site, the fly is forced to move or results in its extinction throughout the realm, what are the downstream impacts on the ecology of the region?- btw, my experience with flies is that they like to be around people and food, and that they have wings and can move readily to avoid being swatted).
As to the developer's people not contesting the designation, as you noted elsewhere, staying within the planning guidelines as much as possible facilitates the process and probably costs less in the long run. My personal experience is that developers generally stay within the set parameters/standards as much as feasible and request variances as needed for the viability of the project as envisioned. For example, I've not seen a developer request heavy industrial zoning when the master plan calls for mixed-use retail, office, residential. I've been personally involved in zoning cases asking for a less intense use than the master plan would allow for, and a couple of times it did take some arm-twisting on the political side as the staff tends to be risk-adverse (the "Oh Shit"/easy to say NO reflex).
You are right about Keiser and company knowing the landscape (specially after Trump and Balmedie). I didn't personally see the quality of the site to merit much of a fight, but he and C&C have me by light years.
-
Jon
The job of professional consultants is to assist the client by providing professional advice. Do you really think that the consultants for the Embo developers aren't doing the same job as Dargie did for Trump ? I don't wish to offend but I suggest it would be naïve to think otherwise.
As for getting into bed with the Devil, back when the Balmedie application was going through, Trump was known as a colourful businessman rather than the hugely divisive and controversial figure he's become. Why would Dargie not have worked for him back then ? Not all consultants can pick and choose who they can work for anyway.
Lou
The developer is, as you put it, contesting the designation. What else would you call submitting a planning application that is totally contrary to the development plan ? As I alluded to in my response to Jon above, what the consultants are doing is trying to get round it by mitigating factors, such as economic benefit and offsetting environmental damage similar to what Dargie proposed at Balmedie.
Niall
-
Jon
The job of professional consultants is to assist the client by providing professional advice. Do you really think that the consultants for the Embo developers aren't doing the same job as Dargie did for Trump ? I don't wish to offend but I suggest it would be naïve to think otherwise.
As for getting into bed with the Devil, back when the Balmedie application was going through, Trump was known as a colourful businessman rather than the hugely divisive and controversial figure he's become. Why would Dargie not have worked for him back then ? Not all consultants can pick and choose who they can work for anyway.
Lou
The developer is, as you put it, contesting the designation. What else would you call submitting a planning application that is totally contrary to the development plan ? As I alluded to in my response to Jon above, what the consultants are doing is trying to get round it by mitigating factors, such as economic benefit and offsetting environmental damage similar to what Dargie proposed at Balmedie.
Niall
Niall,
lets just get something straight. As a developer of a golf course myself I am aware of what the role of an Ecological Consultant is. Yes, the developer pays for the work that they do but the parameters of the report they write and conclusions are not influenced by the developer. As the developer you can request the consultant suggest possible mitigating work that might be undertaken but the conclusion of the report is the remit of the consultant. If the developer does not agree then they can pay for another consultant to do another report which might come to a different conclusion as experts often do. It is not the case however that the developer can influence the consultant forcing them to write something that they do not agree with. The same cannot be said for the various bodies especially groups such as the RSPB who are well known for skewing facts and for cherry picking data to suit their aims.
As for the Trump factor. I think most people were well aware of what type of person Trump was well before the Balmedie application. He has never tried to hide it and I would have thought Mr. Dargie found out what a prospective client had for a reputation before taking on the contract.
Jon
-
Niall,
lets just get something straight. As a developer of a golf course myself I am aware of what the role of an Ecological Consultant is. Yes, the developer pays for the work that they do but the parameters of the report they write and conclusions are not influenced by the developer. As the developer you can request the consultant suggest possible mitigating work that might be undertaken but the conclusion of the report is the remit of the consultant. If the developer does not agree then they can pay for another consultant to do another report which might come to a different conclusion as experts often do. It is not the case however that the developer can influence the consultant forcing them to write something that they do not agree with. I don't disagree with anything you write above. As far as I can see neither Dargie or Embo developers consultants have done anything different. Would you agree ? The same cannot be said for the various bodies especially groups such as the RSPB who are well known for skewing facts and for cherry picking data to suit their aims. When you say "skewing" do you mean they were altering the findings or instead do you mean they highlighted the relevant parts of the findings ? If it's the latter I don't see any problem with that.
As for the Trump factor. I think most people were well aware of what type of person Trump was well before the Balmedie application. He has never tried to hide it and I would have thought Mr. Dargie found out what a prospective client had for a reputation before taking on the contract. Really ? I don't recall the recording of him admitting sexual assault being public at that time ? Neither do I recall him having made his comments on Mexicans at that point. On the face of it Trump was (and is ?) a reputable if flamboyant businessman. And you don't have to like someone to do a job of work for them.
Jon
-
Niall,
Come on, is Keiser contesting the designation or merely seeking approval of what he wants to do either by receiving a variance or the blessing that the project is consistent with the political objectives of the regulators? He and any other developer, Trump as president included, would be nuts to take on another country's politicians that directly. BTW, I am curious, what is the development plan for an SSSI-inflicted piece of private property? Can the landowner charge the guardians of the rare fly rent?
Jon,
Perhaps the Scots are more virtuous than their American cousins, but professionals of many types here are at a minimum sensitive to the needs of their clients. I've been in the presence of any number of appraisers who while not directly asking for the value we are seeking, doing their best in fishing for clues.
Unfortunately, even for environmental assessments, what the client asks for is not simple discovery with binary conclusions (e.g. are there underground storage tanks? in the last x years, has the site served as a gas station or auto repair business? is the site within the 100 year flood plain? etc.). Instead, the questions also require professional judgment relative to probability and risk, and the expert's biases necessarily creep in.
In most areas, the biases and orientations of professional consultants are well-known. An NGO being paid by an environmental regulator to study sites to bring under their purview is going to know ahead of time the likely work product of the experts it is going to hire to render an opinion. A developer looking to borrow money is going to engage an appraiser who is known to value property handsomely.
I don't believe that those in government and their hired guns are any more or less virtuous than the developers and their contractors. Governments govern; developers develop. People are people. They all know who butters their bread.
-
Niall,
lets just get something straight. As a developer of a golf course myself I am aware of what the role of an Ecological Consultant is. Yes, the developer pays for the work that they do but the parameters of the report they write and conclusions are not influenced by the developer. As the developer you can request the consultant suggest possible mitigating work that might be undertaken but the conclusion of the report is the remit of the consultant. If the developer does not agree then they can pay for another consultant to do another report which might come to a different conclusion as experts often do. It is not the case however that the developer can influence the consultant forcing them to write something that they do not agree with. I don't disagree with anything you write above. As far as I can see neither Dargie or Embo developers consultants have done anything different. Would you agree ? The same cannot be said for the various bodies especially groups such as the RSPB who are well known for skewing facts and for cherry picking data to suit their aims. When you say "skewing" do you mean they were altering the findings or instead do you mean they highlighted the relevant parts of the findings ? If it's the latter I don't see any problem with that.
As for the Trump factor. I think most people were well aware of what type of person Trump was well before the Balmedie application. He has never tried to hide it and I would have thought Mr. Dargie found out what a prospective client had for a reputation before taking on the contract. Really ? I don't recall the recording of him admitting sexual assault being public at that time ? Neither do I recall him having made his comments on Mexicans at that point. On the face of it Trump was (and is ?) a reputable if flamboyant businessman. And you don't have to like someone to do a job of work for them.
Jon
Niall, much like Clinton, for those who followed Trump pre-presidential aspirations, his poor reputation concerning women was well known. Additionally, Trump had a sketchy business record as well. I put some of this down to gold diggers, disgruntled partners, customers and clients, but where there is that much smoke there must be fire. We haven't heard the end of this because Trump honestly thinks he is above the truth (or is the truth) and the law. He is a very strange cat.
Sweet Lou
Sure, planning is a dark art. What confuses me most is that the government would spend the money to designate land as special, then contemplate development applications on the very same land. It seems to me that what applications are is essentially a challenge to designation and use as prescribed in planning. I wouldn't mind if these designated areas were revisited every 10 years or so to make sure planning has succeeded with the initial intention of the designation...much like being in favour of sunset limits on laws unless renewed. It has to be better than ad hoc applications coming in when planners/cllrs then have guns to their heads to "make the right" decision. All these designations are at heart meant to remove this pressurized decision-making...as if the wheel needs to be re-invented every year.
Ciao
Ciao
-
I don't disagree with anything you write above. As far as I can see neither Dargie or Embo developers consultants have done anything different. Would you agree ?
When you say "skewing" do you mean they were altering the findings or instead do you mean they highlighted the relevant parts of the findings ? If it's the latter I don't see any problem with that.
Really ? I don't recall the recording of him admitting sexual assault being public at that time ? Neither do I recall him having made his comments on Mexicans at that point. On the face of it Trump was (and is ?) a reputable if flamboyant businessman. And you don't have to like someone to do a job of work for them.
Niall,
to address the three comments you raise I would say:
With the first point. I would concur they both handled their respective projects correctly. I would point out I do not disagree with Dargie's conclusions in his report for Balmedie in that with his suggested mitigation measures the project might be seen as acceptable. Baring this in mind, it is odd he comes to a different conclusion with the Coul Links project. What went wrong at Balmedie was not his report but the fact that the measures were not implemented.
Now were his argument that he did not believe the mitigation at Coul would be implemented I could understand his position given his experience with Balmedie but to suggest that his mitigation measures where okay whilst those at Coul are not is simply not a defendable position and one that all statutory experts disagree with.
With the second point by skewing I mean not giving a whole picture. An example at Coul would be the RSPB stating the golf would have an effect on the winter cycle of water foul which is correct. However, were Coul not to happen what will happen is a continuation of winter shooting of said birds which is having a far greater and negative effect on the birds. When looking at the whole picture it would be an enhancement of the resting grounds but that does not suit the argument if you are against the project hence is not mentioned by RSPB particularly.
Finally, of course nobody knew in 2010 about comments made after that date (apart from Dr. Who maybe). But to suggest he was seen as a flamboyant yet jovial businessman is pushing it a bit. It was well known that he was a rude, boorish bully who thought he could get his way through money or meanness.
-
Lou,
I do not know the answer to your initial question but it could be that the main difference is in the planning process though as I have no experience of the US system I can only comment on the Scottish system. Here the Environmental survey is carried out by an independent surveyor who's fee is paid for by the developer. The surveyor is not employed by the developer, they are not influenced by the developer nor are they beholden to the developer in anyway. The parameters of their survey is set by the planning process/authority not the developer. The developer can ask the surveyor to comment on matters raised by the developer.
Once the report is done then the governmental bodies such as SEPA & SNH will also give their comments based on the environmental report and input from other outside bodies. Likewise, the developer can also use the report to back up their application.
Niall says that surveyors cannot pick and chose who they do reports for but this is not the case. They are free to work on any project they are asked to. What makes a difference in the end except of course the price is how well a surveyor can write the report. If they can make it comprehensive, laying out the facts clearly then they will help the developer understand what is needed in the planning application to satisfy the planners and so gain a positive reputation.
Where Mr. Dargie did not agree with Balmedie is that the developer did not use the survey to guide the planning application but rather had decided what they wanted and tried to cherry pick bits to suit their desired solutions. It should be noted that this approach led to the planning application being rejected. It was only when the Scottish Government called it in that the official system was circumnavigated and the bravado became important.
Jon
-
Like legions of others before him and currently, Tom Dargie may be seeking to wash and cleanse the “Trump Stain” off himself... ;D
Anyone who comes in contact with the man (Trump) directly is “tainted”, tarred, used and cast aside as roadkill.
He thought he might raise his status with a working relationship with Trump. Instead, he will be forever associated with institutional environmental malpractice.
Looks like a sudden crisis of conscience has now taken over and he’s leaning in hard with “Not Coul.”
His demons may be excorcised or he may devolve into a punchline whose ghost may inhabit the Dornoch cathedral for centuries.
Fair to assume we may all know by summer.
-
Sean
I think it was well known that some of Trumps businesses had failed but that others were doing very well. That was certainly the public perception and I think probably reflects reality to an extent. Of course how well some of his companies are actually doing appears to be shrouded in some mystery, and certainly the guy at Forbes magazine stated that they routinely divided his stated wealth by 3 when assessing him for their rich list. That in itself doesn't disqualify him from being someone most folk would do business with.
In terms of his reputation with women, it was generally known he was on to his 3rd or 4th glamorous wife and that was part of his "legend", however that's very different to being recorded boasting of committing sexual assault. That was not known, at least not in the UK as far as I'm aware.
Where I do agree with you is that at some point, the chickens will come home to roost.
Jon
Surveyors like any other consultants be they planners, solicitors or environmental consultants or even golf course architects can indeed choose there client. The point I was making is that there is not many in position like say Tom Doak, who can pick and choose to the extent of turning down well paid work from a legitimate source. In my experience the things you look for in a client are is it/he/she a legitimate business, are they asking me to do something that is legal and within my professional capabilities and will they pay my fees.
As it happens I used to work for the firm who gave Trump valuation advice on Balmedie. Does that mean I'm tarnished (or "tainted" as Ian would put it) ? Because if it does then so is Lou because he's worked for the same firm.
Lou
With respect, your attempts at equating the US and Scottish systems isn't helpful. Not only are the systems different (I'd imagine) but clearly so is the terminology. What the Embo developer has done is pursue a planning application. That application is seeking consent for a development that is contrary to the development plan. They're not declaring war.
Niall
-
Niall,
I am not attempting to equate the two systems; I am trying to understand them. So much of our economic thinking in America was imported from your shores that there has to be very important commonalities in how we treat the ownership of land.
A public sector development plan in Scotland does not allow variances? A planning application must either be totally "conforming" or it should not be made and/or the government decision not challenged? I find hard to believe that it is a matter of take it or leave it, especially since it is my understanding that such development plans don't have a sunset and it takes a political act to revise or replace it. I wonder, have the conditions or the political thrust which make a site an SSI ever changed such that the designation was repealed?
I asked earlier what is the development plan for a site within the SSI, i.e. what can the owner do to enjoy his property. I can't think of a less intense use of the CL site which may produce some income to its owners than a minimalist links course. Are there any? If not, what about this specific situation is not a taking?
My involvement on this thread and others like it is in the interest of fleshing out what, IMO, is really at the heart of golf's decline in the countries of its tradition. I can say with considerable confidence that is has very little to do with how far the ball goes or how easy a large, exotic metal driver is to hit.
Instead, it is my belief that the decline has mostly to do with the increasing claims governments make on private income and regulation of everyday life in the name of the public good which result in less discretionary funds and higher costs. Yes, golf is expensive, and it takes a lot of time, neither of which has changed significantly from the time that total rounds played were increasing rapidly to now when they are flat or declining in places (in real terms, golf is actually cheaper in many places than it was in the 1980s and early '90s).
Private property is meaningless if the underlying bundle of rights is expropriated one straw at a time to the point that the owner can derive little or no value from it. If the owner of the CL site can't enjoy its benefits because a government body deems its public value is more important, in fairness, SHOULD he not be compensated for his loss? Without the SSI designation which came while the family owned the property, would the politicos have a leg to stand on in denying the application?
Disrespect for property rights is a slippery slope that always ends badly. Of course, Niall, you are familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons.
I know this not from books, but very personally. Part of my family immigrated from Galicia to Cuba to escape the killing between the communists and fascists during the Spanish Civil War. My great uncles, father, and later my mother started with nothing and through three decades of extremely hard work, built good lives there. Let me tell Sean, Genarilisimo Franco was a piker in comparison to Comrade Castro.
With much of the same rhetoric that I hear here in the U.S., but with less patience and no credible opposition, Fidel's rebels took over all private property in a very short period of time. Essentially, on the day he overthrew the government, most people stopped paying rent. And what was once the jewel of the Caribbean is now in shambles. Look at Venezuela today even with its vast oil reserves.
Our good friend Philip Gawith can speak much better about the current situation in South Africa than I can. And it shares a border with Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, now reduced to begging for foreign aid to prevent its own people from starving. Taking property from those who have it might seem fair, even righteous to large segments of the population, but it cuts the roots to what allows economies and societies to prosper.
You may say, well that will not happen here. Understanding the human condition probably better than most, I suggest that it is already happening in the country of my refuge in manner akin to the unsuspecting frog in the cauldron being simmered so slowly until it is too late to hop out.
As I've said before, the outcome of the CL dispute will have at most a negligible impact on my life. I do have a vested interest well past my own life in the rule of law, private property rights, and the protection of minority interests. I would have little to say if the good folks in Scotland would come to the realization that it is not appropriate to take something away from someone without compensation, and, if it is in the public interest that the CL site remain undeveloped, that the proper authorities and NGOs come to an agreement with the owners to compensate them fairly.
And with this, I recite the Serenity Prayer.
Ciao.
-
Niall,
please ignore the various fonts and font sizes as they are nothing to do with me, hold no significance being just part of the wonders of posting on this site since the last major (upgrade).
no, I would not say you were tainted by working for a company that had dealings with Trump. Now as for your choice of football team well..... Go the Staggies ;D
Just so everybody understands what happens in the planning clearly. The decision to use a golf course architect entirely a matter for the developer and is chosen and paid for by the developer. They need not be approved by the planning authority or have any qualifications. The developer can chose whether to accept entirely, or alter or reject their work. It is not a requirement of planning.
The decision to use a building architect entirely a matter for the developer and is chosen and paid for by the developer. They need not be approved by the planning authority or have any qualifications. The developer can chose whether to accept entirely, or alter or reject their work. It is not a requirement of planning.
The decision to use a planning consultant entirely a matter for the developer and is chosen and paid for by the developer. They need not be approved by the planning authority or have any qualifications. The developer can chose whether to accept entirely, or alter or reject their work. It is not a requirement of planning.
The use of an environmental expert to make an impact assessment is a planning requirement. They must be approved and hold the relevant qualifications. The developer has no influence over the report. It is a planning requirement.The Environmental Impact Assessment is a neutral study. SNH & SEPA are also asked to add their opinions to the development and the study.
In the case of Balmedie both SEPA and SNH had objections based on the study to the development and planning was refused by the local authority.
With CL neither SEPA nor SNH had any objections based on the study with the SNH objection being purely procedural. Planning was approved by the local authority.
Jon
-
https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-advice-note-1-2013-environmental-impact-assessment/pages/6/
Jon
I'm not sure that the above link will work but if not it might be worth tracking down the guidance on EIA's. So as not to confuse, the environmental consultant who produces the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is instructed and retained by the applicant to advise them.
The relevant section on who the consultant works for is as below;
1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) is a process which identifies the environmental effects (both negative and positive) of development proposals. It aims to avoid, reduce, and offset any adverse impacts.
1.2 This PAN explains the role of individual planning authorities and that of the Consultation Bodies in EIA, as well as providing guidance on the ways in which EIA can be integrated into the overall development management process. It is also intended as a point of reference for developers and their consultants - who prepare the EIA Report on behalf of their client - on the role they too have to play in working toward the Scottish Government's aim of more efficient and effective EIA. This PAN does not however provide any detailed technical guidance on how to undertake an environmental assessment, other than to set out what planning authorities and the Consultation Bodies will expect to see in an EIA Report which is both proportionate and 'fit for purpose'.
The purpose of the EIA is to provide information so that the planning authority can make an informed decision. In that respect they advise what they need to do that. I'm not sure that in principle that is any different to requiring plans for a building.
Niall
-
Lou
I’m not going to attempt to respond to a lot of your individual points. Many are clearly hearfelt but I’m not entirely sure of their relevance to this discussion. However let me address your question regarding the planning system. The history of planning is not really my thing but as I understand it the system was developed as a response to poor quality ribbon development and recognition of limited resources etc.
With regards to the development plan, it is reviewed and updated on a periodic basis (every 5 years). Generally speaking development plans are prepared by planning officials who put it to elected officials for approval and adoption.
Anyone is free to submit a planning application for something that is contrary to the development plan and it will be considered on its merits and in consideration of the development plan.
Niall
-
Niall,
which is what I have always said. Just to be clear. When the document says instructed and retained by the applicant. This means the applicant says what the EIA should encompass as laid out by the planning officer and not that the applicant is the one who decides what is covered. The applicant is not the person in charge just the person who pays.
Jon
-
Jon
The EIA is there to inform the planners of the impact of the proposed development. The guidance I referred to is guidance on how best to do that. The proposed development therefore to an extent dictates what is required for the EIA, and that is down to the developer.
It is also a process that allows the consultant to engage with the statutory consultees and deal with their concerns. That inevitably involves taking instruction from the client ie. the developer. To suggest that the consultant isn't somehow working for the developer and the developer has no part in the process other than paying the consultant is simply wrong.
In the case of Embo, the statutory consultees have withdrawn some of their objections. That would be on the back of this process and on the basis of certain mitigating works or agreements being put in the planning consent as planning conditions.
Niall
-
Niall,
I am not saying that the developer does not influence the EIA through the nature of the project but what I am saying is that the nature of the EIA is as a direct result of the proposed development. It would be incorrect to suggest that the applicant picks and choses what the EIA covers regardless of the proposal.
My experience is that the applicant has an initial discussion with the planning officer about a basic proposal and will through this get an idea of what is, and is not likely to pass. The applicant will then get a basic outline of the project including various studies which might include environmental issues, archaeological, traffic, required building, and so on. To do this the applicant might use consultants or not. With this outline proposal the applicant will meet with SNH, SEPA, County Forester, County Archaeologist to get comments and concerns about the proposal.
It is at this point that the applicant will have to decide on either full or outline planning and assuming it is full planning will employ an approved Environmental Consultant/s to carry out the various required assessments. The scope of these assessments are set by the planning officer based on the input of the various bodies who's input is based on the outline proposal the applicant presented to them.
It is SNH for instance that might decide that a bat, red squirrel and badger survey is needed but might decide that no assessment of Owls is needed. It is not the applicant. The applicant only influences the choice of survey and assessment through the proposal and in no other way.
I do not disagree in general with what you are saying other than the idea that the applicant can dictate to the consultant what they have to do which is the kind of what you are insinuating. This is plainly wrong. The applicant can ONLY influence the scope of the proposal. This is in no way a sign of control. Assessments are part of the planning process which is fixed and doe not alter unless the executive gets involved.
Jon
-
Jon
You might have noted in the guidance that they mention it being an iterative process which is to say a process that repeats, with refinements each time, until you get closer to the desired result. (Apologies if that definition is a bit clunky but for me it's one of those words that is easier to understand than to explain).
In the context of an application like this, where as you say, the initial plan would have been more conceptual than detailed, many of the issues wouldn't have been identified or dealt with without this process, and the process would involve a lot of discussion by all parties, not just the planners dictating terms. Often it results in adaption or refinement or tweaking of the initial proposal and agreement on how to deal with certain issues. So when SNH agreed to remove all their objections bar one, they likely did so on the basis and understanding that certain issues would be dealt with in a certain way and they would be covered in the planning consent by way of planning conditions should consent be granted.
Most major applications have something similar. In an urban setting the issue might be traffic related rather than environmental in which case the applicant might be required to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and come up with solutions in their design for any potential issues in the report. If it was a major retail scheme then the applicant might have to do a retail impact assessment (can't recall the formal term) etc.
In every instance the Council would expect the consultant employed to produce the report to be properly qualified. I can't see how that could be considered in anyway unreasonable.
Niall
-
Niall,
No, not so clunky an explanation. I agree with you in general. You are correct that it is not just the planners dictating but rather the planning process. Which has been my point all along that in general it is neither the applicant nor the planners that decide what is needed but the process. The applicant puts forward the proposal and the planners inform/advise on what is required to fulfil the planning requirements. Then as you say through an iterative process a suitable solution is either found or the proposal is unsuccessful.
My original comment was however that the Environmental consultant is chosen and paid for by the applicant but the consultant is still beholden to the planning regulations NOT the applicant.
On another note a [font=]public inquiry will be held in public on Tuesday 26 February 2019 at 10:00 a.m. within Carnegie Hall, Clashmore, Dornoch, IV25 3RG[/font]
[font=]So it looks as though this particular process has a way to run.[/font]
-
It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
-
So Mark, are you saying that this is all politics and not about law or science?
Notwithstanding people's opinions of Trump, he is/should be a non-factor in this project. So, what does this say about the politicians who put personal animosities and slights ahead of the expressed wishes and interests of the local citizens?
-
Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/trump-golf-course-destroys-4,000-year-old-sand-dunes-scotland/10050786) and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.
-
Lou,
Mark has it pretty much spot on. Trump's Balmedie project never should have achieved planning permission in the format that it did which is why the application was denied by the planning authority. However, this is where politics became involved in the form of the National Government who foolishly had been having shall we say not so transparent dealings with Trump. He had of course promised them the world which they greedily believed and on the back of a Billion Dollar investment in the Aberdeen project circumvented the planning process and approved a project that should have been denied.
Roll on a few years and an election the former governing party have lost their leader and control of parliament needing the backing of a small party with just a handful of parliamentarians in order to run a (functioning) government. One of these decides to do some political grandstanding insisting the Coul Links project is called in which the Scottish Government is forced into doing.
So this situation is entirely down to the Scottish Government and their somewhat dealings with Trump. It should be noted that the then First Minister is also embroiled in a sex scandal and the Russians which is somewhat familiar :-\
-
Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.
I would go further and posit that Trump's close association with golf is damaging immeasurably the image and reputation of the game around the world.
-
Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.
I would go further and posit that Trump's close association with golf is damaging immeasurably the image and reputation of the game around the world.
Difficult to be convinced that he’s generally done/doing the game any favours.
Atb
-
It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm)). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
+1..!!
The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.
CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.
Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.
-
Wait, is this the same site from 4 or 5 years ago? Where are all the cheerleaders who said that, regardless of what those of us who knew him as a bridge-and-tunnel wanna-be used car salesman from NY said, he clearly loved the game, was the only guy really investing in golf and was clearly a net positive for the game? ::)
-
So Mark, are you saying that this is all politics and not about law or science?
Notwithstanding people's opinions of Trump, he is/should be a non-factor in this project. So, what does this say about the politicians who put personal animosities and slights ahead of the expressed wishes and interests of the local citizens?
Lou
It's not a popularity contest, it's a planning application. Salmond subverted that last time round with Trump but that is no reason why that should act as precedent. Indeed events at Balmedie since then should be a strong warning against doing so.
Niall
-
Lou,
Mark has it pretty much spot on. Trump's Balmedie project never should have achieved planning permission in the format that it did which is why the application was denied by the planning authority. However, this is where politics became involved in the form of the National Government who foolishly had been having shall we say not so transparent dealings with Trump. He had of course promised them the world which they greedily believed and on the back of a Billion Dollar investment in the Aberdeen project circumvented the planning process and approved a project that should have been denied.
Roll on a few years and an election the former governing party have lost their leader and control of parliament needing the backing of a small party with just a handful of parliamentarians in order to run a (functioning) government. One of these decides to do some political grandstanding insisting the Coul Links project is called in which the Scottish Government is forced into doing.
So this situation is entirely down to the Scottish Government and their somewhat dealings with Trump. It should be noted that the then First Minister is also embroiled in a sex scandal and the Russians which is somewhat familiar :-\
Jon
That the Embo application got called in is NOT another example of the tawdry politics employed by Alex Salmond last time round at Balmedie as you seem to be alluding to. At Balmedie, what was so striking about that was that the application got called in after it got refused at Council level. I've never heard of that happening before and the only justification you could have for it would be it being a development of national importance. Clearly building a golf course, hotel and some housing in itself is not of national importance.
In contrast at Embo, the application was passed at Council level. Given it the nature and designation of the land, it was as near a racing certainty as you'll get to be called in. Yes, the decision to call it in would have been made by the relevant Scottish Minister, however almost certainly he would have done so on the recommendation of the civil servants/planning officers within the Scottish Government. If he had refused to do so, against the advice, that would have been the political act. Merely signing off on the recommendation, that was administrative.
Niall
-
It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm)). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
+1..!!
The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.
CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.
Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.
Ian
See my response to Jon above about the process. The application being called in is not a political one. It was to be fully expected and a very likely scenario that the developer would probably have been made well aware of by their consultants at the outset.
And as I said to Lou, this is a planning application, not a popularity contest. Whether Todd Warnock is a lovely guy or whether Mike Keiser is less harmful to the environment than Donald Trump is neither here nor there. None of that is of any relevance, at least for the planning application.
Niall
-
It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm)). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.
+1..!!
The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.
CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.
Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.
Ian
See my response to Jon above about the process. The application being called in is not a political one. It was to be fully expected and a very likely scenario that the developer would probably have been made well aware of by their consultants at the outset.
And as I said to Lou, this is a planning application, not a popularity contest. Whether Todd Warnock is a lovely guy or whether Mike Keiser is less harmful to the environment than Donald Trump is neither here nor there. None of that is of any relevance, at least for the planning application.
Niall
Your rear view mirror observations are spot-on!
-
Niall,
it might have been called in due to the procedural objection that SNH had to raise due to it been partly in a SSSI. However, a procedural objection is not a guarantee to the Scottish Executive calling in an application. In this case, they were not minded to call in the application up on it being passed which would have probably been the case had they planned to. It was only called in after John Finnie started kicking up a fuss. You can draw your conclusion how you wish from that.
Jon
-
Jon
The designation in the development plan made it a near racing certainty it would be called in. There is little doubt about that. From memory the Scottish Ministers have 28 days from being notified of the planning committees decision to decide to call it in. They did that. To suggest it was all down to John Finnie is far-fetched although I dare say Mr Finnie might take the credit.
Ian
If you would care to look in the rear view mirror yourself (try the Discussion Board search engine) you will note that I've made all these observations several times before on not only this proposed development but also on the Balmedie development.
Niall
-
Niall,
obviously you are much better informed than I am on such matters though I could have sworn that John Finnie did in fact publicly state he had demanded it be called in. That this would influence the government given the fact that the greens are propping up the SNP government might be seen as far fetched by you but I beg to differ.
-
Just saw this article on the "calling in" hearing for the Coul Links project. The hearing will begin in late February and could take 4 weeks.
Two questions for those who might know: 1) Does anyone know how long it might take "the powers that be" to make a decision? 2) Will "the powers that be" make a decision to simply approve or deny the project as proposed or do they have the option of approving the project with limitations or changes to what has been proposed?
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1599280/rules-teed-up-for-coul-links-inquiry/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1599280/rules-teed-up-for-coul-links-inquiry/)
-
David
The following is from the guidance note issued by Scottish Minsters following the Balmedie debacle.
WHAT HAPPENS ONCE AN APPLICATION IS CALLED-IN? Once an application is called-in, the Scottish Ministers effectively become the planning authority for that application. This means that Scottish Ministers are required to ensure that issues such as neighbour notification and public consultation are carried out as required by legislation. In practice, as many applications are only called-in once the planning authority are minded to grant permission, much of this is work will already have been carried out. Such administrative tasks and general management of the application process following a call-in are handled by Scottish Government planning officials.
Just as local authorities rely on their planning staff to consider a planning application and make recommendations, so Scottish Ministers rely on an independent Reporter working for the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals, formerly the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU), to examine the merits of a called-in application. The Reporter considers the application, prepares a report setting out their conclusions and recommends whether Scottish Ministers grant the application unconditionally, grant the application subject to conditions or refuse the application. The report is then submitted to Scottish Ministers who subsequently issue their decision, which does not have to follow the Reporter’s recommended course of action.
Niall
-
OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?
-
Lou,
I doubt anyone can say at the moment. It should be a slam dunk approval but politics are involved now.
-
It’s interesting Coul is a “special untouched place” etc, etc yet there’s an old railway line running through the property and a horrid area of harvested woodland. I can only see a golf course improving and preserving the site for the future.
-
Mark,
Coul Links was designated a SSSI in a blanket style operation where many such sites were so called in order to reach a required amount of hectares for an environmental scheme. It
is of such importance to the various environmental bodies that in the 40-ish years since it called a SSSI they have spent a total amount of £0 on its maintenance. There isn't even a maintenance plan.
Yet suddenly it is of vital national importance. I will predict that if the project is rejected the various environmental bodies will instantly forget about the site and be quite happy to allow its steady decline into worthless scrubland. It is only about certain bodies flexing their political muscles for the sake of it.
Jon
-
OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?
Lou
Not really being a betting man I'm not sure how the over under thing works but FWIW I'd suggest that there is a better chance it will get the nod than not although not much in it.
Niall
-
OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?
Lou
Not really being a betting man I'm not sure how the over under thing works but FWIW I'd suggest that there is a better chance it will get the nod than not although not much in it.
Niall
Niall,
As one who understands how the over/under works, I was a little confused myself. Unless he means by what year?
P.S. I think what he meant to ask is, what % chance would you give this thing of happening? Is it a 50/50 or is one side clearly favored at the moment?
-
Kalen
FWIW – the Reporter is a planner by profession and I suspect unlikely therefore to go against the Council planners recommendation to the planning committee. IIRC the recommendation from the Council planners was to approve the application subject to conditions although my memory might be dodgy.
As I posted before the Reporter gives his recommendation to the Scottish Minster to allow him to make his decision. Normally they just sign that off as a matter of course. In this case, and for the conspiracy theorists out there ;D, the present SNP administration might be looking to keep their junior partners, the Green Party, happy and could very well knock it back irrespective of the Reporters recommendation. Just a thought.
If I was a betting man however I’d think it more likely to be granted with the chances of success being 60% or something like that. But hey, what do I know !
Niall
-
Sorry about the lack of precision chaps. Both of you are right, I was just curious about the chances of the project getting approved AND built. And yes, I think the world is better off with another C & C course.
BTW, is anyone aware of a C & C course that NLE (Blaketree Natl. does not count) due to financial hardship?
-
"BTW, is anyone aware of a C & C course that NLE (Blaketree Natl. does not count) due to financial hardship?"
Lou -
There was a C&C course in Florida (Sugarloaf Mountain) that closed. I think it was part of a real estate development that never took off.
DT
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/790655-sugarloaf-mountain-fl-what-happened/
-
The final inquiry/hearing begins next week:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Golf-links-planning-inquiry-set-to-begin-22022019.htm
-
David,
Are members of the public able to go, or is this a closed inquiry?
-
Tim -
As far as I know, the inquiry hearings will be open to the public.
As noted in the article, it is being held in the Carnegie Hall in Clashmore, a very small village a few miles west of Dornoch.
A schedule for the hearings is shown here:
https://www.coullinksgolf.com/ (https://www.coullinksgolf.com/)
DT
-
I watched a bit of the inquiry yesterday and was surprised by a few things:
https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/409100
- I didn't realise it would be essentially like a court case with cross examination! I thought the Ministers would be leading the questioning, but from what I watched, it seemed like the legal team from the applicant were trying to poke holes in the arguments of the scientific interest of the site - Yikes! I would not want to be questioned by that Ms. Wilson (think that's her name) - holy smokes, she was making me nervous.
- There are documents galore! How could anyone keep up with all there is to read? They were referring to so many different letters, it would be impossible to keep up, unless this was your full-time job
The more I watched, the more I realised I see both sides of the argument. From a selfish perspective, I'd love there to be a golf course there. Looking specifically at the special scientific interest of the site, a few things became clear:
- There is no way that the developers can legitimately say that building the course on the site will have the same or more positive impact on the entire site, than if it was left in its current site. The site is accepted by both sides to generally be in decline as it relates to its SSSI, but as the Professor being questioned said, the scales are not even even close to being comparable.
- That said, it became painfully clear that the site has been left abandoned. I normally wouldn't think this is a big deal as I am of the thinking that you should 'let nature be nature'. But the SNH and all the opposing forces have lauded on about how vital this particular site is for both the dunes and the wildlife it shelters, and yet, since 1973 the site seems to be in steady decline with loss of dune land (debatable by both sides) and increase in invasive specie (not debatable), which threatens the wildlife they seem so set on protecting, and the stability of the dune system.
If the course doesn't go ahead, and I can see arguments why this should be the case, then the SNH and other bodies must respond by ensuring the site gets the attention and dedication that they say it deserves. If that course does go ahead, I genuinely think the parts of the site that aren't covered by course will generally see an uptick in maintenance.
-
Tim G. -
Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware the hearings would be webcast.
Something to watch if you have way too much time on your hands. ;)
DT
-
I’m listening at work. It is quite hard work, but I am learning a lot about dune systems and transplantation!!!
-
Tim,
you would hope that if the project is rejected that the various eco bodies would finally be shamed into doing something to maintain this apparently vital natural area. However, if they win they will spend no more in the future that they have in the past. The idea behind the planning process is that applicants and the various bodies work together to get the best overall result and when the bodies involved are from the town or county area this works on the whole quite well. However, when as in this case the national bodies get involved and especially RSPB it is all about blocking any progress that is not part of their overall political vision.
-
you would hope that if the project is rejected that the various eco bodies would finally be shamed into doing something to maintain this apparently vital natural area. However, if they win they will spend no more in the future that they have in the past. The idea behind the planning process is that applicants and the various bodies work together to get the best overall result and when the bodies involved are from the town or county area this works on the whole quite well. However, when as in this case the national bodies get involved and especially RSPB it is all about blocking any progress that is not part of their overall political vision.
Your last sentence is of critical importance. I kill an eagle in the U.S., I pay thousands in fines and go to jail for a couple of years. A wind farm in CA or TX kills hundreds, and it gets federal subsidies to build (and kill) more.
Ironic to me that an "expert" for the NOs can have such limited knowledge of the entire site and relies greatly on an old study by some other entity on a matter that turns on "specific" scientific interest. I know of a lawyer or two who could have fun with this guy.
As to the notion that the interveners might/should be responsible for remedying the decline of the site, history shows that no infusion of cash or sweat equity has flowed to further its "scientific interest". What would change now if the stake is driven into the owners' heart? Surely we have all heard of the Tragedy of the Commons.
-
Lou,
you are spot on with your analysis. The big problem I have with the objections of the NOs is if the site was of such importance as they now claim why have they not spent any money on maintaining this site and why do they have no maintenance plan in place for it?
Jon
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/golf-tycoons-want-to-raid-scotland-duty-to-defend-beauty (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/golf-tycoons-want-to-raid-scotland-duty-to-defend-beauty)
Golf tycoons want to raid Scotland. It is our duty to defend its beauty
Kevin McKenna
Yet another golf course on the north-east coast would be a disaster for the environment
Sat 9 Mar 2019
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a5ecc8bd1ebe21ea0b491884a5cf766614b46afa/0_200_6000_3600/master/6000.jpg)
If there were an international beauty pageant for countries, Scotland would win it most years. In January it was voted the most beautiful country on the planet by the travel website Rough Guides.
This follows similar awards by global travel specialists in three of the previous five years, as well as ancillary awards for “best island” (Lewis and Harris) and quality of living (Orkney, Edinburgh). Other countries have spectacular mountains and gorgeous lakes, but nature seems to have chosen Scotland as the location for her best work.
Each year, however, the Scottish government is faced with the challenge of balancing its duty to preserve and nurture Scotland’s natural beauty with ensuring as many of its citizens as possible are provided with the basic requirements for a decent standard of living: homes, jobs, food and health. Scotland may be the world’s most popular museum of natural history – some of its mountains were formed amid the birth pangs of the world itself – but more than five million people live in this museum and the country needs more to help sustain an economy creaking under pressure from an ageing population.
Occasionally, we may be required to hold our noses and concede that beauty can also be found in designs for living. Many of our green spaces have formed a happy synergy with golf tourism, one of the principal drivers of our vital tourist industry. You’ll struggle to find a location where you can’t see mountains or sea, and few are the places where a golf course isn’t close at hand either. We haven’t merely exploited opportunities for golf tourism, we have wrung them dry. Yet, in a place such as Gleneagles in Perthshire, the relationship between commerce and nature brings a glorious communion. However, it’s a fragile relationship and one that requires constant vigilance to ensure that the temptation of easy, corporate money and the untested promises of jobs and investment do not override our moral duty to protect Scotland’s beauty and to pass it intact to future generations.
A public inquiry is underway into the proposed development of a luxury golf course on one of our most fragile and beautiful stretches of coast. The planned 18-hole course at Coul Links near Dornoch in Sutherland is being proposed by the US developers Todd Warnock and the golf course tycoon Mike Keiser, who claim that it will create about 200 jobs and provide £60m of investment into the area over 10 years. The plans were originally passed by Highland council, despite objections from its own planners and just about every environmental and heritage group in Scotland and across the UK. This inquiry was triggered after the Scottish government opted to call in the proposals due to “issues of national importance” related to “natural heritage issues”.
Seven years later, the promises of jobs parroted by Trump and well connected local supporters have yet to materialise
You don’t have to be closely acquainted with these issues to understand why there is so much distress at the prospect of another stretch of this wild and vital north-east coastline being sacrificed to the whims of a US billionaire and the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege. Further along this coastline, Donald Trump’s luxury course at Menie was waved through in the face of objections about damage to the globally unique dune system. Almost seven years later, the promises of jobs and investment parroted by Trump and some well-connected local supporters have yet to materialise.
A remarkable nexus of environmental protections has made Coul one of Scotland’s most fortified locations against marauding corporate interests. It possesses one of the last undefiled dune systems in the country and has a unique triple-lock of designations comprising SSSI status (site of special scientific interest), special protection area (SPA) and is a Ramsar site of international importance. Scottish Natural Heritage lists the loss of 40.5 acres of direct habitat in its objection. Much of this would be excavated and have its natural vegetation stripped to be replaced by artificially manicured greens of negligible conservation value.
A crude manipulation of the land will be required to squeeze a golf course on to this specific site, like trying to fit Oliver Hardy into a Versace. To ensure a high viewpoint for sea and loch, a large area of unique dune heath would need to be quarried out. A remarkable and unique biodiversity would be threatened, including rare lichens, orchids and invertebrates. A rare dune habitat comprising 95 junipers would be moved, along with species such as rock-rose, the food plant of the scarce northern brown argus butterfly.
A couple of very vocal local groups and individuals are supportive of the development and curiously have swallowed the optimistic economic projections of the billionaire developers. Their social media responses suggest that, as locals, their views must carry more weight. Such an attitude betrays a fundamental arrogance. This beautiful coastline has evolved over millions of years. Just because you’ve lived there for a micro-fraction of that time doesn’t give you the right to have it turned into a corporate vanity project in exchange for some woolly future economic windfall of uncertain provenance.
The Scottish government must exercise its sacred duty of protection of our natural heritage and kick this environmentally ruinous proposal out. If it fails to do so, it will open up Scotland’s beauty to the predations of other international corporate raiders. As one objector put it: “The developers claim only a small part of this site will be altered. But that’s like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa and saying only a small area has been affected.”
-
Wow, very inaccurate and biased piece. Journalism at its worst and certainly nothing balanced about it. I am surprised the Guardian prints such dross but there you go.
-
Jon
Kevin McKenna is in the business of writing opinion pieces. If you have read any of his stuff you will know where he's coming from, and if you haven't then let me just say that he's unlikely to sit down and enjoy a drink and a chat with Lou ;).
That said, he makes what I consider one valid point and that's that if this application goes through then environmental designations elsewhere won't be worth much. Arguably the precedent was set at Balmedie but that could possibly be argued away as being due to unrealistic and over the top promises that weren't scrutinised, allied to political expediency.
Anyway, opinions aside, what facts has he got wrong ?
Niall
-
Having seen biased news articles about this project in the past, I actually took this as an opinion piece, and thought it was ok. I actually thought for an opinion piece, he frames the project in question quite well (balance of economic interests of the people and preserving the land).
The only part I don't agree with is his go at the locals. It reeks of someone who doesn't know the situation in the area, and looks from afar through the judgmental lens of theory vs. reality. I once went into the Amazon, and you start to realise that there are communities there that are just trying to feed their families - so chopping forests down to plant banana trees is what they have to do. It's not about giving them a telling-off, but rather, there are organisations that are working with them to ensure they have some sort of way to make an income - in a sustainable way.
If this golf plan doesn't go through, I hope the government will look at alternative ways that the locals can generate more income for the area - possibly through NC500 partnerships, etc. You can't blame locals for wanting better for their families. Just because they have come late to the party (ie - other communities have already exploited their dunesland) shouldn't be a knock against them.
-
It is an opinion piece. Sadly, the Grauniad (disclosure, I subscribe to the Guardian) appears to have no interest in any balancing opinion.
-
"You don’t have to be closely acquainted with these issues to understand why there is so much distress at the prospect of another stretch of this wild and vital north-east coastline being sacrificed to the whims of a US billionaire and the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege."
This statement is not factually correct. It is wrong to state that the property will be available only for "the exclusive use of golfers." In fact, the golf course will occupy well under 20% of the property. The vast majority of the property will still be available for walkers, birdwatchers or anyone else who wishes to enjoy this scenic place.
-
Niall,
in addition to the point that DT makes in the previous post he gives the impression that only a few loud locals are in favour of the project when the opposite is true. The overwhelming majority want the project and you will be hard pressed to find a local outside Mr. Dargie who is against it.
I do take the point that it is an opinion piece though and agree that Balmedie has made it harder for new projects.
Jon
-
I think the last few points make some excellent points, especially as it relates to most "news" especially by the big providers.
The vast majority of online stories and TV slots are Commentary and IMO pieces being implicitly advertised as actual news...
-
David/Jon
In this instance I don't think he is making a false statement as presumably he's referring to the golf course and not the larger property. I appreciate that the developer is trying the argument of "hey, we're not using all of it, only a small portion" but the objectors focus is not on what's not being destroyed but on what is being destroyed.
Niall
ps. always thought that the developer missed a trick by referring to the course only taking up 10% or whatever of the larger SSSI area. They really should have said that they were only using 0.00005% of Scotlands land mass, or even better only 0.0000000000000000000000000000005% of the planet.
-
Jon
the other thing.......how does anyone know who thinks what ? There was partitions signed on both sides as well as letters of support and objections sent to the planners, which as I recall didn't have addresses identified. I doubt either side can make any claim with any degree of certainty.
You will also recall how vocal and visible Yes campaigners were relative to No voters during the Indyref and you will recall what happened then.
Niall
-
Having seen biased news articles about this project in the past, I actually took this as an opinion piece, and thought it was ok. I actually thought for an opinion piece, he frames the project in question quite well (balance of economic interests of the people and preserving the land).
The only part I don't agree with is his go at the locals. It reeks of someone who doesn't know the situation in the area, and looks from afar through the judgmental lens of theory vs. reality. I once went into the Amazon, and you start to realise that there are communities there that are just trying to feed their families - so chopping forests down to plant banana trees is what they have to do. It's not about giving them a telling-off, but rather, there are organisations that are working with them to ensure they have some sort of way to make an income - in a sustainable way.
If this golf plan doesn't go through, I hope the government will look at alternative ways that the locals can generate more income for the area - possibly through NC500 partnerships, etc. You can't blame locals for wanting better for their families. Just because they have come late to the party (ie - other communities have already exploited their dunesland) shouldn't be a knock against them.
Tim
According to SNH, banana trees are an invasive species ;D
You make a good point about the economy etc but I bet the vast majority of those doing the NCR 500 are not there for the golf or indeed interested in golf. They are basically there for the scenery and while you and I can see the beauty in a golf course don't bet that others can. They may just look over Embo links complete with golf course and see an eye sore in the middle of a beautiful landscape.
And as I've said before, this development might do wonders for Mr Warnocks luxury hotel in Dornoch (and why not) but what real impact is a few seasonal jobs, that won't necessarily be taken by locals anyway, going to have ?
As for your last comment, I very much doubt this land would have been seriously considered for a golf course in any other era.
Niall
-
Niall,
Quick question for you. Assuming you wanted to get some value from this land and went about looking for the least intrusive way to generate revenue that would benefit both owners and the local community.
Can you think of anything less intrusive (that would be a viable model) other than a golf course? Worst case scenario the project fails and you have a few small structures on property..but the rest gets re-consumed by nature, rather quickly. The course that closed by the Salt Lake airport just 3 years ago, massive parts of it are already hard to discern what was there before.
-
Niall -
Even if one was to accept your contention (which I don't ;) ) that Mr. McKenna was referring just to the area the proposed golf course will occupy and not the entire 600+ acre Coul Farm property, the notion that the public will somehow be denied access to the area occupied by the golf course is not correct.
The golf course will not be surrounded by a fence. Walkers/ramblers will be able to stroll across the golf course during the day and along the golf course during the long hours of daylight in the summer, just as they can at almost every golf course I have encountered in Scotland. During the winter months, when play is minimal or the course will possibly be closed, the golf course will also be accessible to the public.
Regarding the promotion of golf and the North Coast 500, that subject has already written, blogged and podcasted about:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=graylyn+loomis+north+coast+500+golf
DT
-
Niall,
I would see it the same way as David. I do not believe that the reference was just to the area being used by the golf course. Having said that, were that to be the case we have the right to roam which does give people the right to wander across any golf course as long as they do not interfere with the use of the land so your point there is still not valid.
As to the reference to the Indy vote. One of the main reasons that there was such a quiet majority for the 'Better Together' side is that if you openly admitted to supporting it in public you were very likely to get harassed and even beaten up by 'Yes' campaigners. If you were daft enough to have a 'Better Together' sticker on your car then it was certain to get vandalised so many just kept silent. This is definitely not the case in the Embo community and the fact that the vast majority of the local population is in favour of the project is well known.
Jon
-
David
Most golf courses in Scotland are in an urban setting and do very much have fences/walls/hedges round them to stop folk wandering across the golf course for obvious reasons. While in this instance the developers might not put up a fence, or be allowed to put up a fence, you can bet they won't be making it easy to access the course other than through the "proper" channels. Golfers and ramblers don't tend to mix well.
Re NCR500 - nice that these courses are getting a bit more attention but presumably you appreciate that golfers still make up a small percentage of those doing the route ? It's extremely hard to get accommodation during the summer month(s) in a lot of areas yet you will have little issue getting on a course. The only problem might be finding someone to pay your greenfee to as I did at Wick, and Reay and indeed Durness come to think of it.
Jon
Re indyref - you make my point for me. Without going to the lengths of acts of violence as the Yes campaigners did on occasion, the proponents of this development have been very vocal and not slow to rubbish those who have stood up to oppose the development eg. Tom Dargie. In that kind of environment, who would want to make their voice heard ?
Niall
-
Niall,
Quick question for you. Assuming you wanted to get some value from this land and went about looking for the least intrusive way to generate revenue that would benefit both owners and the local community.
Can you think of anything less intrusive (that would be a viable model) other than a golf course? Worst case scenario the project fails and you have a few small structures on property..but the rest gets re-consumed by nature, rather quickly. The course that closed by the Salt Lake airport just 3 years ago, massive parts of it are already hard to discern what was there before.
Kalen
Without going into detail, and ignoring the environmental/planning issues, potential uses that might give you a return might be forestry, grazing and of possibly a high end residential scheme maybe. And while I take your point about the robustness of nature to fight back, would you get the same environment back again if you removed all the trees planted, cows grazing and any buildings ?
In any case I think the issue is not what would be less damaging but whether any development should be allowed in the first place.
Niall
-
Niall,
While grazing does seem feasible, I would think building real estate structures would be far too impactful and certainly the "worse" use of the land. Forestry could be good, but is there much ROI or demand for that given its location? Perhaps as a tree nursery but that would probably be more destructive than a golf course?
Of all these, I would guess grazing would be the least impactful, even over a golf course, so it appears that may be a better solution. But once again given its remote location is there any demand for the site to be used for that purpose?
-
Niall,
I am afraid you are misrepresenting an entire community in an attempt to prove a point that does not hold up. There can certainly be no suggestion that the proponents of the project have behaved in a way as to make those against it fear to speak out.
As to access. I am not sure where you get the idea that any of the courses in the area make any attempt to discourage free public access to their land. Even the big names such as Dornoch or Nairn do not.
Jon
-
Jon
I suspect a lot of the Yes campaigners didn't think for a moment that what they did was intimidation but that kind of vocal/visible movement that has a bit of edge from a small minority does indeed intimidate. I don't know if you watched the Indyref documentary last night but interesting comment from Dan Snow.
Anyway, how do you know that the vast majority of locals are in favour other than it is "well known" ?
Re access - at Dornoch there are fences/walls up the left side of the holes on the way out as far as I can remember, and while I don't recall there being a fence along the side of the beach I also don't recall there exactly being pathways criss crossing the course. Likewise at Nairn, and Lossiemouth, and indeed Brahan. Where there are paths to the beach for instance, or in the case of Dornoch the road, they tend to be historical rights of way that predate the golf.
In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access. Of course I may be totally wrong in terms of Embo, perhaps there are paths all over the proposed course.
Niall
-
In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access.
I don't think that fairly reflects the position of either of the clubs in Scotland I'm a member of. Both have well used footpaths on them in places that can interfere with play (and one a road), both are very happy to co-exist with the public.
-
Niall,
I formed my view of local opinion through regularly visiting the Embo area and talking with the locals. Whilst the vast majority of the locals are in favour of the project the few discussions that I have been party to where people voiced concern were carried out in a very civilised manner.
As to access to courses. At Dornoch the fences and walls down the left side of the course on the way out are garden boundaries and nothing to do with the club. There is nothing that hinders the access to the course from the beach side nor that have been erected by the club. Whilst you are correct clubs do not encourage people to walk across the course neither do the hinder it. The original point that was been discussed was the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege'
yet you are now moving the goal posts to saying 'well the clubs don't exactly build pathways for ramblers' so they are stopping people accessing the land. I have walked thousands of miles on golf courses and very few have been on pathways. I am sure ramblers are perfectly capable of managing without them too.
It seems to me you are clutching a straws in trying to maintain an untenable position.
-
Sorry for this, but can someone please give us a synopsis of where this project is presently? Sorry but I tried reading a couple posts per page, but with so many I stopped.
-
Jeff -
To the best of my knowledge, the planning inquiry/hearings currently under way near Dornoch are the final step in deciding whether or not the course gets permission to be built. I believe the inquiry/hearings will run thru the end of next week. I do not know how long it will take "the powers that be" to issue a ruling.
This article ran in the local press on February 22:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/golf-links-planning-inquiry-set-to-begin-174332/ (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/golf-links-planning-inquiry-set-to-begin-174332/)
DT
-
Sorry for this, but can someone please give us a synopsis of where this project is presently? Sorry but I tried reading a couple posts per page, but with so many I stopped.
Jeff,
In short, the application was approved by the local council (despite a recommendation to reject the plan), and there was / is growing support against the plan from a coalition of governmental & 3rd party agencies like the Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB.
Although approved by the local councillors, it has been called in my the national government to be reviewed by ministers. Right now, there is a 4-week hearing taking place where two ministers are listening to both sides (the applicants and those against the plans). After this four week period, they will make a decision, and to my knowledge, that will be the final word (unless there is some legal loophole I'm not aware of).
For the applicants, it's all or nothing - they want to build the course as routed by C&C, or they won't build at all. Those against are arguing that the course goes into a scientific area of special interest, and effectively would destroy the habitat of the duneland and wildlife in the area.
I can honestly see this going either way. If I was a betting man, I'd say it looks like the course won't go ahead, but I haven't been following the hearing too closely.
-
Thanks David & Tim for the update. Keep our fingers crossed.
-
Maybe I was looking in the wrong direction when I visited the site last summer. And perhaps my reading comprehension and understanding of the issues are lacking.
I was under the impression that the site had been "misused" in a variety of ways for decades and that nothing had been done to re-mediate or arrest the decline since the political imposition of the SSSI status. From where I stood, I saw nothing to suggest that it was extraordinary or pristine in the context of coastal Scotland. In fact, I came away thinking that maybe Bill Coore was a bit off in his assessment, but far be it for me to question his judgment.
I also thought that the site in its entirety was privately owned as opposed to part of the course being built on common land. Other than to provide a few public easements/paths to public land, is it customary for the public to have access to private property? Royal Dornoch, TOC, and others, as I understand, are on common land. Can someone just hop the fence near the farmer's house at Coul Links and prance about?
-
Tim - I've been following it even less closely, and only via this thread. But my guess is the opposite of yours: imo, that the 'case' is in the hands of national gov't ministers makes a building approval more likely than ever.
P
-
Lou,
your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas. There was a mandatory area of land that each country had to designate in order to qualify for funding. The body responsible for this effectively went round the country choosing sites at random. Coul Links was part of one of these sites.
It is private land and the land owner gets some financial assistance and has retained some rights such as the right to graze cattle and the right to shoot wild birds. The area is there to make up the numbers and such is its importance that there has never been a survey carried out by the various bodies of it, there has never been any money spent on its up keep nor is there any sort of maintenance plan.
In my opinion, the current situation is purely down to the debacle that was 'Trump International' and the entire planning process that went on there. There the planning permission was turned down by the local council and there was substantial local resistance to it as well as the land being a genuine SSSI with all that goes along with it. Ironically, Trump's environmental expert was on Mr. Dargie who thought the Trump course could be acceptable.
Finally, yes here in Scotland you have the right to access any land you wish so long as you do not damage anything ordisturb the use of the landowner. So as long as you are respectful you can walk across a golf course as you please. Do note that there are exceptions such a private gardens and the like. Certainly a far cry to what is the case in most other countries but I would say it has worked out really well.
Jon
-
In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access.
I don't think that fairly reflects the position of either of the clubs in Scotland I'm a member of. Both have well used footpaths on them in places that can interfere with play (and one a road), both are very happy to co-exist with the public.
Mark
You would hope that all clubs and facilities would be working in compliance with the access legislation and any existing legal rights such as rights of way or servitudes that impact on their course. Notwithstanding the constraints that introduces, all clubs will be very conscious of keeping non-golfers away from the course and therefore out of harms way. Likewise they will work to ensure that play is kept “within bounds” and that the course is routed/designed in such a way as to avoid any conflict non-golfers ie. 3rd at RDGC.
While both your clubs are bounded by the Fife Coastal Path which is a voluntary agreement that the clubs entered in to, it is also an agreement that was backed up with the right to roam legislation and potentially CPO powers. I think I’m also right in saying that the path skirts the courses rather than cutting across them.
Therefore to suggest that clubs are happy to have members of the public rambling across their course is I think wrong, and on the contrary I’m sure it is a concern to many a member of club committees.
And while it isn’t always possible or desirable to put up a wall (even Donald didn’t try that at Balmedie) you can use landscaping/vegetation to try and deter ramblers for example by creating the path of least resistance away from the golf course. I’d be very surprised if such measures weren’t built into the design at Embo, even if only for H&S reasons, so while Mr McKenna might have been using hyperbole I suspect that in essence he is correct.
Niall
-
Lou
You still seem determined to make Scotland the 51st state. ;D
I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon so you will just need to accept that we have our own legislation and legal system. Some of that legislation comprises the relatively recent legislation on Land Reform and access rights. So yes, anyone can ramble across this site provided the follow the legislation (outdoors access code I think it’s called). There is a section in the code that mentions golf courses.
Niall
-
your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas. There was a mandatory area of land that each country had to designate in order to qualify for funding. The body responsible for this effectively went round the country choosing sites at random. Coul Links was part of one of these sites.
Random ! Really ?
-
In my opinion, the current situation is purely down to the debacle that was 'Trump International' and the entire planning process that went on there. There the planning permission was turned down by the local council and there was substantial local resistance to it as well as the land being a genuine SSSI with all that goes along with it. Ironically, Trump's environmental expert was on Mr. Dargie who thought the Trump course could be acceptable.
Jon
From one of the newspapers, can't remember which I copied and pasted it from but possibly the Guardian;
Dr Dargie was employed by the Trump organisation and acted as a witness for it at a public inquiry in 2008, but had advised it to build the course further inland and always remained opposed to development of the course on dunes; at the inquiry he said such development would have significant adverse effects on habitats and plant species but argued that effective mitigation of this could be achieved. He says his advice was ignored by the Trump organisation.
Niall
-
Niall,
I formed my view of local opinion through regularly visiting the Embo area and talking with the locals. Whilst the vast majority of the locals are in favour of the project the few discussions that I have been party to where people voiced concern were carried out in a very civilised manner.
Jon, I never thought that you would be anything other than civilised as nearly everyone tends to be when you speak to them. However, the pro-development lobby have been very vocal and visible and on occasion have cast aspersions at some of those involved in opposing the development, and when you have groups like the Embo Trust coming out and supporting the development and supposedly representing the locals (what mandate did they have to do that ?) then it must be a bit daunting if you are in that community to come out and object. That was the comparison I was making to Indyref.
And in noting that you base the level of support on your perception that is the other comparison to Indyref where for all the world it appeared that the Yes side were winning in a land slide, or at least it would have been if it wasn’t for the opinion polls. As far as I know, no one has undertaken an opinion poll at Embo so how reliable is your perception ?
But at the end of the day this shouldn’t be about a popularity contest, it should be about planning policy.
As to access to courses. At Dornoch the fences and walls down the left side of the course on the way out are garden boundaries and nothing to do with the club. There is nothing that hinders the access to the course from the beach side nor that have been erected by the club. Whilst you are correct clubs do not encourage people to walk across the course neither do the hinder it. The original point that was been discussed was the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege'
yet you are now moving the goal posts to saying 'well the clubs don't exactly build pathways for ramblers' so they are stopping people accessing the land. I have walked thousands of miles on golf courses and very few have been on pathways. I am sure ramblers are perfectly capable of managing without them too.
It seems to me you are clutching a straws in trying to maintain an untenable position.
Jon, no straw clutching needed, just read my response to Mark.
-
"But at the end of the day this shouldn’t be about a popularity contest, it should be about planning policy."
Really? Wasn't the argument on Trump International the opposite? There was considerable popular support locally but for a narrow majority of the local council led by one particular individual opposing it. Perhaps there is logic in believing that the unpopular decision of the local government against the Balmedie proposal shouldn't have been "called in", but a favorable local decision on Coul Links should be.
As to "it should be about planning policy", I would hope that policy is to guide and facilitate the well-being of the people affected by it the most, not as an end in itself. Hopefully planning or any type of policies are constantly under review to ensure that they serve the interests of the affected, and modified through time as needed.
Re: "You still seem determined to make Scotland the 51st state. ;D "
Not at all, I am just trying to understand how things work. There are any number of American states where I wouldn't own property. But for the kool-aid I've been drinking on this site for so many years extolling the superiority of links golf, I probably wouldn't have a second thought about spending much time in Scotland. I have no problem with people selecting their own form of government so long as they eat their own cooking and, for those types I find intolerable, that they are not infectious.
I guess that if I continue to visit the UK, a primer on tort law would be a good idea. Suppose I hit a big 200 yard drive a bit left on TOC #1 and catch a lass as she starts to run across the fairway causing her great harm. Could I be found criminally or civilly liable?
-
Lou,
your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas.
A similar movement occurred in Spain during the formation of the EU and the conversion of the Peseta to the Euro. The exchange was very favorable to the Spanish and tons of money flowed into the country. In Galicia, where my folks are from, money from the major cities started pouring into the rural areas, and what was once a fairly stable market heated up to a bubble.
Along with the provincial government pushing and subsidizing wind power, much to the benefit of large companies domiciled elsewhere and creating next to no local jobs, this sudden goose to the local economy was very short-lived. Today the diaspora to the large cities continues and properties that might have sold for € 500k can't trade for the cost of exchange. In fact, there was an article in the financial news last year of whole rural towns begging for well-heeled foreign investors to take them over like we see the occasional golf course in the U.S.- $1 "and other valuable consideration".
A lot of bad things happen under policies based on the "broken window fallacy". What many Gallegos have today as most of the young people pursue livelihoods in the big cities are abandoned ancient homes not only with broken windows, but also holes in the roof. I have such an opportunity if anyone has an interest.
-
"Suppose I hit a big 200 yard drive a bit left on TOC #1 and catch a lass as she starts to run across the fairway causing her great harm. Could I be found criminally or civilly liable?" Lou - No doubt there are those here better informed than I am, but believe you could be civilly liable for damages. There are insurance policies you can buy for a very modest premium (20-25 pounds a year) to protect you in such an event. Here is an example:https://www.insure4sport.co.uk/golf/?ref=money15&type=lite&utm_source=awin&utm_medium=Awin&utm_campaign=Affiliates (https://www.insure4sport.co.uk/golf/?ref=money15&type=lite&utm_source=awin&utm_medium=Awin&utm_campaign=Affiliates)
Insure4Sport Golf’s Public Liability protects you up to £5 million if you injure someone or cause property damage while playing – covering potentially costly hospital bills. DT
-
In the old days, they used to tack on 50p or a pound to the visitors’ green fees at some UK clubs to cover the insurance David mentions.
We had some local opposition in getting planning permission for The Renaissance Club (mostly regarding tree removal, but it also bounded on an SSSI). Generally, though, the attitude in Scotland is much different than America, because Scots know a golf course isn’t going to wreck the environment. And they don’t think of the game as elitist, until there are Americans involved.
-
I spent about an hour yesterday scanning the eastern coastline of Scotland on Google Maps Satellite view. What I found, other than long stretches of mostly nothing...was there are relatively few permanent structures (houses/buildings) right on the coast line. Instead it was Caravan Parks, cemeteries, or golf courses with some farming areas sprinkled in.
This was an interesting contrast to what you often find here in America, (at least on the West Coast) as this land tends to be extremely valuable with very expensive housing. So i'm curious what the mindset is as to why these fantastic spots are mostly relegated to things like trailer parks and cemeteries. Or are the environmental designations intended to prevent any kind of future development on ocean front property?
-
Lou
The Balmedie application was quite remarkable, not because it got “called in”, but because it got “called in” after being refused by the Local Authority’s Planning Committee. While Trump could have appealed the decision it was “called in” by the Scottish Ministers before he got a chance to do so, or more likely it was done with collusion between Trump and Salmond. This was at a time when the Donald and Salmond were still having their love-in. They subsequently fell out over the off-shore wind turbines you may recall.
Anyway, as I understand how the process works if Trump had appealed then the appeal would have been heard by a Reporter who would have made a decision on behalf of Scottish Ministers without any referral to Scottish Ministers. However because the application was called in then the Reporter would still consider the application but would then report to the Scottish Minsters who would then make the decision and in doing so wouldn’t be bound by the Reporters recommendation. In other words it was a political decision. With regards to Balmedie, I can’t recall what the Reporters recommendation was but I doubt it would have mattered.
The point to note about Scottish Ministers using their “call in” powers is that it almost always after the Local Authority has granted permission for something that is totally contrary to the planning policy (ie. Embo). I can’t recall a situation where “call in” powers were used the way they were for Balmedie but then I’m not a planner by profession and there may well be some precedents.
So to answer your question, I suppose ultimately it came down to what was popular with Mr Salmond.
As an aside I’ve previously made comparisons between the method of Trump regarding getting permission for Balmedie and the method being used at Embo, and got a fair bit of stick for doing so.
My point was that in both instances you had sites where the planning designations screamed “don’t even think of making an application”. In both instances the developer was advised to look at the land adjacent rather than using the really sensitive land, and in both instances the developer ignored that advice. Both developers then proceeded to court local interest groups before submitting their respective applications amid great fanfare on how they would boost/save the economy; what great guys they were; and how they had local roots.
The upshot much heated debate and division.
Contrast that with the Dumbarnie development. It’s a new links development in Fife that is already being built and yet it’s barely caused a ripple on this site dedicated to the discussion of golf course architecture. I suspect most on here have never heard of it and the number of people who know who the developer is can be counted on one hand. So why is that ? Why did this application go through with a minimum of fuss and in a relatively straightforward fashion ?
Was it perhaps because the developer respected the planning designation by avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas and working with the planners and environmental bodies ? Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there ?
Niall
-
Contrast that with the Dumbarnie development. It’s a new links development in Fife that is already being built and yet it’s barely caused a ripple on this site dedicated to the discussion of golf course architecture. I suspect most on here have never heard of it and the number of people who know who the developer is can be counted on one hand. So why is that ? Why did this application go through with a minimum of fuss and in a relatively straightforward fashion ?
Was it perhaps because the developer respected the planning designation by avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas and working with the planners and environmental bodies ? Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there ?
Niall
The difference is all in the image below.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7810/46656502294_f91636f17f_c.jpg)
-
Tim,
Would you span on that?
If the picture is of the problem-free site Niall alludes to, is it comparable to the CL property? While I didn't get much into the Embo site, I was mostly underwhelmed. Bill Coore has said that CL is the best site "we have ever had", and I don't think he has ever been accused of fluffing up his projects.
-
Kalen the far north of Scotland has long winters, short summers and little employment outside of Inverness and Aberdeen plus the west coast has biting midges close to the sea. Basically there’s no market for “ocean front property” unless linked to golf, fishing or hunting.
-
Niall,
firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?
With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.
As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead.
As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.
As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.
Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)
Jon
-
Tim,
Would you span on that?
If the picture is of the problem-free site Niall alludes to, is it comparable to the CL property? While I didn't get much into the Embo site, I was mostly underwhelmed. Bill Coore has said that CL is the best site "we have ever had", and I don't think he has ever been accused of fluffing up his projects.
Lou
Just to clarify, I didn't say the site was problem free, I just said that it wasn't part of the neighbouring SSSI land. I should add that I've no idea whether obtaining ownership of the SSSI was an option anyway.
Niall
-
Niall,
firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?
I've acknowledged the right to roam and I've also addressed the historical situations where there is public access and how that has to be managed or allowed for. But in this instance we are talking about a brand new course and you seem reluctant to acknowledge that the design will likely discourage non-golfers wondering across the course. Or maybe I'm wrong in that the design will have paths going across it and picnic areas in the middle of the fairway ?
With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.
An EIA is a fact based report that contains professional opinion. The clue is in the title ie. assessment.
As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead.
Jon - I respect your opinion, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it.
As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.
To be fair, what I said was face to face discussions generally tend to be civilised which I think is true. But the point I was making that you don't necessarily need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion.
As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.
Interesting, I'll need to see if I can find that.
Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)
Having spent the last decade working in the public sector I can well imagine a situation where lists are drawn up in a hurry to take advantage of grant funding before financial year deadlines ie. use it or lose it. But to suggest it was done at random suggests no thought or even basic level of knowledge was involved in the decision process which seems not only highly unlikely but unrealistic. Grant funding generally comes with a level of initial appraisal and oversight. We are after all talking about public money.
Jon
-
Having seen biased news articles about this project in the past, I actually took this as an opinion piece, and thought it was ok. I actually thought for an opinion piece, he frames the project in question quite well (balance of economic interests of the people and preserving the land).
The only part I don't agree with is his go at the locals. It reeks of someone who doesn't know the situation in the area, and looks from afar through the judgmental lens of theory vs. reality. I once went into the Amazon, and you start to realise that there are communities there that are just trying to feed their families - so chopping forests down to plant banana trees is what they have to do. It's not about giving them a telling-off, but rather, there are organisations that are working with them to ensure they have some sort of way to make an income - in a sustainable way.
If this golf plan doesn't go through, I hope the government will look at alternative ways that the locals can generate more income for the area - possibly through NC500 partnerships, etc. You can't blame locals for wanting better for their families. Just because they have come late to the party (ie - other communities have already exploited their dunesland) shouldn't be a knock against them.
Tim
According to SNH, banana trees are an invasive species ;D
You make a good point about the economy etc but I bet the vast majority of those doing the NCR 500 are not there for the golf or indeed interested in golf. They are basically there for the scenery and while you and I can see the beauty in a golf course don't bet that others can. They may just look over Embo links complete with golf course and see an eye sore in the middle of a beautiful landscape.
And as I've said before, this development might do wonders for Mr Warnocks luxury hotel in Dornoch (and why not) but what real impact is a few seasonal jobs, that won't necessarily be taken by locals anyway, going to have ?
As for your last comment, I very much doubt this land would have been seriously considered for a golf course in any other era.
Niall
For a review of the economics of the proposal given by two locals (an academic and the captain of RDGC), assuming Niall does not object to local facts interfering with his opinions, I refer you to the 2:33:00 mark here:
https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/413992 (https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/413992)
-
Thanks Ian, Willie Mackay is actually only the Vice Captain at the moment but I didn't get in to his evidence too far as I was already losing the will to live and the Wales/Ireland game has started. But just let me say that Professor Bell's evidence was interesting as was his cross-examination. His evidence is of course his opinion and assessment based on certain statistical information so isn't actually fact. And as he was forced to admit in cross examination, the basis of his precognition (which although I haven't read but would seem to be on the decline in the population judging from his evidence) that the population has reduced steadily isn't actually true since it has been fairly constant since the 1950's and actually rising slightly after 2000.
However, what Professor Bell didn't address was why Coore and Crenshaw, world class gca's that they are, are unable to design a world class golf course on the land outwith the SSSI. ;)
Anyway back to the rugby....
Niall
-
Lou
Just to clarify, I didn't say the site was problem free, I just said that it wasn't part of the neighbouring SSSI land. I should add that I've no idea whether obtaining ownership of the SSSI was an option anyway.
Niall
Poor choice of words on my part. Sorry. By "problem-free site" I was referring to the approval process, not the physical characteristics of the site. Is the picture posted by Tim that of the Dumbarnie site?
Just curious, would your opinion of the project be different if it was sponsored by some locals and the price structure was more mid-level, say green fees under £100? Sand?
-
Niall,
firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?
I've acknowledged the right to roam and I've also addressed the historical situations where there is public access and how that has to be managed or allowed for. But in this instance we are talking about a brand new course and you seem reluctant to acknowledge that the design will likely discourage non-golfers wondering across the course. Or maybe I'm wrong in that the design will have paths going across it and picnic areas in the middle of the fairway ?
yet again you duck the issue Niall. Please show me where there is any note of making Coul Links an area that is for the exclusive use of golfers. In relation to access that is the original point which you called into doubt and once proven wrong have refused to engage on. In answer to your comment that the project will reduce public access to the site would you please furnish me with the facts behind your comment. Where is the information to back up this claim. I would also ask if you really think 'picnic areas in the middle of fairways' is a balanced or serious point? There are no picnic areas in the middle of main roads as it might be dangerous. Is it your position that because of the lack of said picnic areas the local authority is preventing the public from traversing said road to get to the other side? REALLY!!!
With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.
An EIA is a fact based report that contains professional opinion. The clue is in the title ie. assessment.
Correct but having actually gone through this process myself an EIA is professional opinion on the actually proposal and it's impact on the areas ecology. In this case Mr. Dargie found that with mitigation measures the project was possible without an overall negative impact. The part he offered about building inland being his preferred option is firstly not within the parameters of the report, secondly personal not professional opinion and thirdly was not part of his professional opinion in the paperwork submitted. Professionally his report was that the project would not have a negative out come.
As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead.
Jon - I respect your opinion, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it.
As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.
To be fair, what I said was face to face discussions generally tend to be civilised which I think is true. But the point I was making that you don't necessarily need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion.
Indeed you do not need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion but just because there is a lack of locals voicing an opinion against the project does not mean this is the case. It could be as is my experience there are none. Do you have any information to the contrary?
As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.
Interesting, I'll need to see if I can find that.
Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)
Having spent the last decade working in the public sector I can well imagine a situation where lists are drawn up in a hurry to take advantage of grant funding before financial year deadlines ie. use it or lose it. But to suggest it was done at random suggests no thought or even basic level of knowledge was involved in the decision process which seems not only highly unlikely but unrealistic. Grant funding generally comes with a level of initial appraisal and oversight. We are after all talking about public money.
So can you find the in depth studies filed in the process papers when the site was chosen.
Jon
-
Lou
That is indeed the site or so I believe. Martin Bonnar or indeed I think Rich would be able to say more as they have been over the ground. The build is at the stage where it has been shaped out and their was an article with an aerial photo in one of the local golf mags a couple of months ago. I suspect if you do a google search you will probably find a website with some up to date photos on it.
To answer your question regarding would it make a difference if it was a Scottish developer looking to do this development and I can honestly say no. My concern regarding developing this ground would remain. You may get the impression from my posts regarding Embo that I'm a bit of a tree-hugger but I can truthfully say that the Green Party are the only mainstream political party I haven't voted for. I just think I have a fairly healthy and normal concern for the environment.
If the Dumbarnie development shows anything (as does Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns BTW) you don't have to use SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designated land to build what looks a very fine golf course. And as Balmedie has also shown using such land doesn't necessarily give you anything better. In the case of Embo (and Balmedie) I understand the developer was encouraged to look at the adjoining land outwith the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar area but declined to do so.
Niall
-
Jon
So as not to give everyone a headache with multi coloured posts let me take out the comments from your most recent post and respond as follows;
Jon - yet again you duck the issue Niall. Please show me where there is any note of making Coul Links an area that is for the exclusive use of golfers. In relation to access that is the original point which you called into doubt and once proven wrong have refused to engage on. In answer to your comment that the project will reduce public access to the site would you please furnish me with the facts behind your comment. Where is the information to back up this claim. I would also ask if you really think 'picnic areas in the middle of fairways' is a balanced or serious point? There are no picnic areas in the middle of main roads as it might be dangerous. Is it your position that because of the lack of said picnic areas the local authority is preventing the public from traversing said road to get to the other side? REALLY!!!
Me - firstly Mr McKenna wrote the article, not me. I'm of the view he was referring to the golf course area whereas you and DT think he was referring to the whole site. You may well be correct in that but I don't think so. My comments however should be taken to refer to the golf course only as should be obvious given my point of view on Mr McKenna referring to the golf course only. My comment on footpaths and picnic areas was an attempt at humour which I thought obvious but clearly not. Next time I'll try and remember the emoji.
Your example of the road is quite useful as no, the roads authority wouldn't have a picnic area in the middle of the road in the same way as a golf developer wouldn't have a picnic in the middle of the fairway. And while people have to cross the road, you can be damn sure the roads authority take great care in designing crossing points and at times put in barriers to prevent pedestrians crossing the roads at other points. Basically the roads are for cars and other vehicles. In the same way a golf developer/architect will go to pains to have non-golfers preferably go round the course or make sure they cross at designated points only. I can't really explain it any simpler than that.
Jon - Correct but having actually gone through this process myself an EIA is professional opinion on the actually proposal and it's impact on the areas ecology. In this case Mr. Dargie found that with mitigation measures the project was possible without an overall negative impact. The part he offered about building inland being his preferred option is firstly not within the parameters of the report, secondly personal not professional opinion and thirdly was not part of his professional opinion in the paperwork submitted. Professionally his report was that the project would not have a negative out come.
Me - Mr Dargie would still be giving his client professional advice outwith writing a submission. Yes that is opinion, but it is his professional opinion based on his expertise. It was also his professional opinion that the course would be better built elsewhere. In this instance his client chose not to take his advice as sometimes happens.
Jon - Indeed you do not need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion but just because there is a lack of locals voicing an opinion against the project does not mean this is the case. It could be as is my experience there are none. Do you have any information to the contrary?
Me - I seem to recall it was you who said that all the locals were in support and I questioned that. I didn't have any evidence but conflicting statements from the Not Coul group suggested there was opposition and indeed your own comments in an earlier post also referred to opposition so I assume their is some level of opposition, is there not ?
Niall
-
If the Dumbarnie development shows anything (as does Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns BTW) you don't have to use SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designated land to build what looks a very fine golf course. And as Balmedie has also shown using such land doesn't necessarily give you anything better. In the case of Embo (and Balmedie) I understand the developer was encouraged to look at the adjoining land outwith the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar area but declined to do so.
Niall
Niall
Have you seen Dumbarnie at all? If not isn't that a fairly meaningless assertion?
-
Adam
I said it looks like a fine golf course which was a reference to the photos and article that was in Bunkered (?) so I don't think it is a meaningless comment. Of course, whether it plays like a fine course remains to be seen but it certainly looks the part and that is the point. You don't need to use SSSI land to make a fine course. KB and CS are proof of that as I said. And while Balmedie certainly isn't a bad course is the fact that it was built on SSSI land made it any better ? There's an obvious answer to that.
Niall
-
Adam
I said it looks like a fine golf course which was a reference to the photos and article that was in Bunkered (?) so I don't think it is a meaningless comment. Of course, whether it plays like a fine course remains to be seen but it certainly looks the part and that is the point. You don't need to use SSSI land to make a fine course. KB and CS are proof of that as I said. And while Balmedie certainly isn't a bad course is the fact that it was built on SSSI land made it any better ? There's an obvious answer to that.
Niall
Niall:
As someone who has made his living building golf courses on beautiful land - and hopefully respecting the environment - it bothers me to see this view, which is all too common among those who oppose golf development. "Let them build it on a landfill - we want this land preserved [so we can use it as we please]," is a common attitude.
I don't have any idea of the details of the Coul Links project or the SSSI that goes with it, so I don't mean to comment on it specifically. And certainly, no, you don't have to find SSSI land to build a great course . . . just as I think we could agree not every developer is the same as Donald Trump.
At the same time, I've seen plenty of golf courses massively shaped from formerly flat farmland a la Dumbarnie Links, and very few of them held much appeal for me as a golfer. For me a great part of the appeal of the game is playing over natural ground, rather than man-made contrivance. And I believe it's possible to build on beautiful natural ground without screwing it up. In fact, I've got a few examples I'd be happy to show you.
-
Niall,
You are simply wrong about Elie. As well as the coastal path there's a public footpath crossing 10 and 12, which is well worn, and another which runs behind 4 and across 8. It's a seaside resort and it's common for walkers and their dogs and hods to stray off these paths and I have never seen anyone have an issue. The non-golfing public are (mostly) very aware of golfers and I stand by my statement. Though thanks for the lesson.
At Crail, you are right, the main interaction with walkers is the coastal path, which runs alongside as many as 5 holes. Walkers there tend to be less aware but, honestly, it's rarely a problem.
At both, your interaction with a walker is far more likely to be a friendly conversation than anything else.
I used to be a member of Chorleywood Golf Club, a 9 holer on common land (note that there are many courses in England on common land, Kington and Berkhamsted among them) and, again, walkers and golfers get on just fine.
-
Here's the deal... virtually everything about American golf either makes me sad or pisses me off.
And exporting American golf to Scotland makes me sad... and it pisses me off.
;D ;D ;D Quote of the thread thus far! I'm American and I totally get where you're coming from. This has been a real interesting thread as there's been good debate and banter on both sides of the issue. I don't have a dog in the fight, but the environmental politics surrounding this situation are eerily similar to much of what we see in the U.S. now - regardless of the type of property development we are talking about.
-
Here's the deal... virtually everything about American golf either makes me sad or pisses me off.
And exporting American golf to Scotland makes me sad... and it pisses me off.
;D ;D ;D Quote of the thread thus far! I'm American and I totally get where you're coming from. This has been a real interesting thread as there's been good debate and banter on both sides of the issue. I don't have a dog in the fight, but the environmental politics surrounding this situation are eerily similar to much of what we see in the U.S. now - regardless of the type of property development we are talking about.
My take is a bit different. As I progress on the inward nine, I am trying to find at least some understanding and enjoyment in those things I normally don't favor or find familiar. It is amusing how golfers from the UK who visit the U.S. readily acclimate to the residential routings, golf carts, beer coolers, and an eclectic playlist serenading their rounds. Golf is a big world, so I guess there is plenty of room to be cantankerous, pissed, and mostly avoidable. I know of golfers who check the tee sheet to see who is playing around them.
-
Thanks Mark, I couldn’t recall Elie well enough to say definitely where any paths might be but presume the ones you refer to are long standing rights of way. I too have rarely had any bad interaction with walkers (an instance at St Andrews of all places being the one exception) but I suspect that if an architect was starting with a clean sheet of paper they would endeavour to keep golfers and non-golfers well apart, which would just be good practice I’d have thought.
Niall
-
Tom
If you would like to show me some examples I’ll happily book some time off and you can send me the plane tickets and course reservations. ;D
Seriously though, I’m a firm believer that a golf course can be an environmental benefit and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species but I also believe that there are some sites that shouldn’t be developed for golf or for anything else because of their sensitivity and existing value as a landscape/habitat.
Frankly, I’m not qualified to make the call as to what sites should be left alone but we do have a planning system that designates sites as SSSI/SPA/Ramsar or whatever based on their environmental value and importance. Notwithstanding Jon’s previous comments I think we can take it as read that sites with those kinds of designations have been evaluated by those that are qualified.
Accordingly there is a very strong presumption against development of those sites in planning terms. In the same way therefore that it bothers you to hear the sort of comment that you describe, it bothers me that some just blithely dismiss any environmental concerns/issues as irrelevant or having no foundation. I think a lot of non-golfers, and even in Scotland you get a lot of non-golfers, find that unreasonable. Probably outwith this website quite a few golfers also find that unreasonable. It’s the sort of thing that just gets peoples backs up and promotes an “us and them” attitude when it comes to golf and you now see that in some of the comments coming out of RSPB etc. That can’t be good for the game IMO.
As an aside, where I have previously compared the Balmedie development to Embo it has been about the methods employed by both to obtain their consent, and not to do with personality, politics or nationality although I do wonder whether the business culture both parties come from might explain their methods. For instance I doubt whether a UK based golf developer (is there such a thing ? Adrian Stiff perhaps) would have challenged the Development Plan in such a fashion. I’m not a planner but work in property although usually dealing in a more urban environment. In that context UK developers generally work with the Structure/Development Plan rather than looking to completely over ride it.
Niall
-
I’m a firm believer that a golf course can be an environmental benefit and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species but I also believe that there are some sites that shouldn’t be developed for golf or for anything else because of their sensitivity and existing value as a landscape/habitat.
Frankly, I’m not qualified to make the call as to what sites should be left alone but we do have a planning system that designates sites as SSSI/SPA/Ramsar or whatever based on their environmental value and importance. Notwithstanding Jon’s previous comments I think we can take it as read that sites with those kinds of designations have been evaluated by those that are qualified.
Accordingly there is a very strong presumption against development of those sites in planning terms. In the same way therefore that it bothers you to hear the sort of comment that you describe, it bothers me that some just blithely dismiss any environmental concerns/issues as irrelevant or having no foundation. I think a lot of non-golfers, and even in Scotland you get a lot of non-golfers, find that unreasonable. Probably outwith this website quite a few golfers also find that unreasonable. It’s the sort of thing that just gets peoples backs up and promotes an “us and them” attitude when it comes to golf and you now see that in some of the comments coming out of RSPB etc. That can’t be good for the game IMO.
Niall
This about sums it for me. I can't understand why we bother spending lots of money to go through a process conservation only to have it all questioned when an application arises. I would be all in favour of revewing the designated sites as a matter of course to see the progress of conservation etc then decide if the designation should stand and other recommendations. I am not in favour of tossing aside a planning system every time someone waves money around with promises of jobs and riches.
Ciao
-
Niall,
As you suggested, I perused the Dumbarnie website and the pics of the course under construction are very attractive (and very different than the one posted by Tim). I do note that the course is targeting the "high end" market in an area already crowded in that segment. I hope it does well, but unless they have a "coupon day", I am a doubtful customer.
As to your comments on Coul Links, I accept your word. And you are right in your response to Jon about the environmental assessments, they are mostly opinions (and values) based on some measurable facts, interpretation of difficult to replicate data, and more opinions.
An example (of opinions based mostly on sketchy, incomplete data and more opinions) is the testimony of the lady representing the Nay group around 2:23 in the video, speaking mostly of the impact on birds. She is attempting to refute, I think, the professed mitigation that the CL course would have on the "fear landscape" vis-a-vis past and present shooting (hunting) on the site. She is a bit halting and confusing in her testimony, but I think that she is arguing that though shooting would not be permitted on the site if the course is built, the so-called "fear landscape" is not mitigated because the poor birds could still be killed in other areas outside the property.
Now, as a hunter for years in the past and a frequent visitor to areas where hunting is a way of life, I can give first-person, qualified testimony that places where shooting is not permitted are precisely where wildlife often congregates. This is true in the various protected parks in Africa and India as it is in my own fully-developed neighborhood where coyotes and bobcats are seen daily and are a menace to our small pets.
Note that the opponent of the project is not suggesting that shooting as a means to cull and keep in balance wildlife populations is desirable, an argument that could be reasonably entertained. She apparently believes something quite contrary to the experience that many of us who've played golf widely can attest to, that rather than impede the well-being of desirable wildlife, even in dense urban environments, golf courses often offer safe-harbor for many species.
I think the whole issue does come down to values. Does the site possess sufficient national interest to offset the will and interests of the local people? In the context of both, the specific site and coastal Scotland in its entirety, is the value of the very small area that would be disturbed if the project goes forward eroded in excess of the potential benefit it would bring to the local stakeholders? And if it is, from the standpoint of fair treatment, should the local stakeholders be compensated if approval by the national government is withheld?
As you know, I am convinced that most central planning is to be avoided at all costs. But from the standpoint of Coul Links vs. Dumbarnie, I can easily argue from a collectivist/societal standpoint that the former should be green-lighted and the latter held to great scrutiny. Really, who needs another high-priced course in an area that already has some 40 venues, a good economy and a stable if not growing population? Surely the birds, NIMBYs and blowing sand in Fife deserve some consideration! ;)
-
I find it perplexing that some folks believe planning should in essence be a matter for local opinion. Much of the point of conservation planning is precisely to take decision making out of the hands of the opinion of the day and recent trend makers.
Ciao
-
Live by the sword, die by the sword, no?
Some talk as if zoning plans & environmental assessments (and monetary & fiscal policies and agricultural/cultural subsidies etc) have come down to us from on high as fixed principles and absolute verities, as unchanging as the laws of gravity or the rules of mathematics, instead of being what they actually are -- as fickle as the weather, the most relative of all relativities in this transient & ever changing world, ie social constructs and public decision-making in a neo liberal democratic context.
In other words: the same forces and mechanisms and people and short-sighted political expediencies that brought you the SSSI designations (or tax cuts or soy bean supports) are now at work to dismiss or side-step or reinforce such designations (or policies or subsidies etc) with the same lack of careful thought and genuine good faith and studied expertise that engendered them in the first place.
So maybe there'll be a C&C golf course there and maybe not -- and it might all depend on what a couple of national Ministers had for breakfast this morning or who they last spoke to and want something from down the road.
From afar, that site looks to me like neither a pristine & untouched natural ecosystem nor a dramatic and feature-rich setting for anything close to a truly striking & exemplary example of golf course architecture.
For all its repetition, this thread itself will likely prove more interesting in the end than either the farmer's field or the resulting golf course.
Which is not to say that hordes of retail golfers won't flock to that resulting course and drop hundreds of dollars each there once the early previews identify it as an 8 or 9 on the Doak Scale.
-
I saw an interesting quote recently - “conservation is not always about preservation”.
Atb
-
I saw an interesting quote recently - “conservation is not always about preservation”.
Atb
David- it would be interesting if you could expand on the quote, or at least what you find interesting about it. Conservation as practiced ideally has less to do with preservation per se as with being deliberate and widely contemplative in replacing those things which have served us well over long periods of time. I suspect that most conservatives value true progress and have no quarrels with creative destruction.
Sean- your perplexion appears to betray a belief that someone far removed and perhaps much more capable has a better idea of what is good for you and your family than you. I am of the opinion that those closest to the source who suffer directly the consequence of their decisions are normally in a better position to make their own choices. It was a major basis for the founding of our country (you are still the Yank, right?) and the primary condition of the 13 original states under which the Republic was formed. Perhaps those who espouse building a wall on part of the southern border not to keep our population from leaving but for the purpose of controlling the millions pouring in are suggesting that the founding principles continue to serve the country well.
As to planning and environmental laws, of course they should be contested, often and regularly. Things change; all laws should be periodically reviewed and defended. In fact, I would support a new law that for a period of 10 years, to pass any law, four or five must be removed from the books. The zoning and permitting process in many parts of the U.S.- at least those where housing is affordable and business development is feasible- allow specifically for those types of reviews, where allowances and exclusions from normal planning overlays are granted after proper review.
A good example is my former community whose master plan had a many miles-long corridor along a major highway zoned for high end commercial (mainly office, clean, high-tech/low human input mechanized manufacturing- e.g. computer chips, pharma products- and some specialized retail on one side). Though very attractive from the city government's standpoint- ultra-high tax base, very low service requirements, these grandiose plans of very well-educated people had to be abandoned after several years, but not before several owners lost their land because it was essentially unsalable for those uses which had no support in the marketplace. Our "betters" in far-away places have the luxury of not eating their own cooking while still being motivated by the same human nature of pursuing their own self-interest. Closer to home, at least in areas where the local government bureaucracies aren't so deeply entrenched, politicians and staff have a more difficult time avoiding the conflict.
-
If you have some spare time listen to the evidence of the RSPB expert before Professor Bell, her evidence is at best shambolic and she quickly has zero credibility. She has to admit her paper is based on scientific papers and she hadn’t even visited the site until after she’d submitted her report.
-
I saw an interesting quote recently - “conservation is not always about preservation”.
Atb
David- it would be interesting if you could expand on the quote, or at least what you find interesting about it. Conservation as practiced ideally has less to do with preservation per se as with being deliberate and widely contemplative in replacing those things which have served us well over long periods of time. I suspect that most conservatives value true progress and have no quarrels with creative destruction.
Sean- your perplexion appears to betray a belief that someone far removed and perhaps much more capable has a better idea of what is good for you and your family than you. I am of the opinion that those closest to the source who suffer directly the consequence of their decisions are normally in a better position to make their own choices. It was a major basis for the founding of our country (you are still the Yank, right?) and the primary condition of the 13 original states under which the Republic was formed. Perhaps those who espouse building a wall on part of the southern border not to keep our population from leaving but for the purpose of controlling the millions pouring in are suggesting that the founding principles continue to serve the country well.
As to planning and environmental laws, of course they should be contested, often and regularly. Things change; all laws should be periodically reviewed and defended. In fact, I would support a new law that for a period of 10 years, to pass any law, four or five must be removed from the books. The zoning and permitting process in many parts of the U.S.- at least those where housing is affordable and business development is feasible- allow specifically for those types of reviews, where allowances and exclusions from normal planning overlays are granted after proper review.
A good example is my former community whose master plan had a many miles-long corridor along a major highway zoned for high end commercial (mainly office, clean, high-tech/low human input mechanized manufacturing- e.g. computer chips, pharma products- and some specialized retail on one side). Though very attractive from the city government's standpoint- ultra-high tax base, very low service requirements, these grandiose plans of very well-educated people had to be abandoned after several years, but not before several owners lost their land because it was essentially unsalable for those uses which had no support in the marketplace. Our "betters" in far-away places have the luxury of not eating their own cooking while still being motivated by the same human nature of pursuing their own self-interest. Closer to home, at least in areas where the local government bureaucracies aren't so deeply entrenched, politicians and staff have a more difficult time avoiding the conflict.
Sweet Lou
In planning it is generally helpful to devise a framework to aid in making decisions rather than in an ad hoc popular opinion approach based on the opinions and trends of a single point in time. Hence, regulations, guidelines and principles are established and used as touchstones. Coming from a country which on the one hand was as progressive (national and state parks etc) as any on earth to the other which allowed endless urban sprawl I can fully appreciate the positive aspects of sound planning. Being a relatively small country, it is essential that the UK take the idea of conservation very seriously. I don't say this only because I treasure open space free of development, but also because my grand children may as well.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I was once a financial planner for a Fortune 50 company. You are absolutely right that plans form the framework for decision making (I would say focus the attention of relevant activities in the direction of long term plans). In addition, plans provide the basis for feedback mechanisms by which current performance can be measured and evaluated.
I was involved in strategic planning, a general, topside review of where and how the company would be heading, typically with a five-year time horizon, and updated on an annual basis. In much greater detail, I coordinated the preparation of annual plans for sales, selling expense, and marketing. These then became the basis for budgeting and performance analysis.
Perhaps an important reason why the private sector is much more productive and, yes, democratic, has to do with plans and guidelines being subject to scrutiny every day. If the customer is not pulling product off the shelves, things better change, and the company can't be stubborn or fatalistic about it.
Though it has been many years, I can clearly remember very difficult decisions made because of changing market conditions rendering some of the planning assumptions obsolete. A blind allegiance to a plan did not rule the day. Do we spend $Millions on unneeded capacity when projected sales aren't materializing, or do we keep the powder dry?
Unlike the old Soviet Union, if size 12 boots aren't selling, you stop making them and do something else. Or if you have 60+ million empty apartments, do you review your x-year plan and conserve resources? Maybe not in a government-directed economy such as China's, or a highly regulated one in Scotland where the government has conniptions with deviating from its dated plans when asked to "allow" a small number of acres of private land out of 6,000+ miles of coastline to be lightly developed.
And by the way, I too have grandchildren for whom I have the highest hope for a long, happy, and healthy life. If they lived near Embo, I would hope that they have the choice to remain with their children and not be forced to join the migration to the big cities in order to make a living. It should take a much stronger case than shifting sands and the desires of a few birders to say no to the locals.
-
Sweet Lou
I am not sure "blind allegiance to a plan" is an accurate description for the situation at hand. I would characterize the situation as a strong presumption toward non development of sites with special designation. If a developer can prove their plan would be strong financial asset for the community while doing little or no harm to the site, then of course the proposal should be given due consideration under planning guidelines, not by some sort of popular opinion. I admit to being very skeptical of the notion of less than substantial harm, but thats from a personal PoV..
Having been intricately involved with the process of obtaining Conservation Area status for a rather large chunk of the village I live in, I can say the process was detailed and grueling... nothing like the whim of a notion passed with little or no thought...as some seem hint is the case with these sorts of land designations.
To be honest, I never thought the land in question was very special! To the untrained eye the land is much like any countless parcels of land. But in terms of preserving viewpoints which have existed for hundreds of years, the land is quite special in its own way... for many people connected with the village anyway. The upshot is that Conservation Area designation was good enough to thwart three attempts at housing development. Even though I am not overly excited by the land, the decisions for refusal were right and proper Not so much because of the designation, but because there are much better options for development in the vicinity. The land designation is merely a tool for helping to come up with better solutions for very serious issues such as housing.
The bottom line is there simply isn't enough land in the UK to develop it without a strenuous planning system in place.
Ciao
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances)
-
TMI FDB!
-
TMI FDB!
This from the man who can even tyop FBD!
;D
-
Population density is 65 persons per square kilometre for Scotland and ranges from 8 persons per square kilometre in Highland Council area to 3,298 persons per square kilometre in Glasgow City Council area.
Sean,
You make my point re: central planning. CL is in an area that lacks population. Not that the CL property is suitable for housing, but the area is crying for jobs and thus far I am unaware of other suitable industries beating the door down. The density issues you allude to in some areas of the UK are irrelevant here.
-
Population density is 65 persons per square kilometre for Scotland and ranges from 8 persons per square kilometre in Highland Council area to 3,298 persons per square kilometre in Glasgow City Council area.
Sean,
You make my point re: central planning. CL is in an area that lacks population. Not that the CL property is suitable for housing, but the area is crying for jobs and thus far I am unaware of other suitable industries beating the door down. The density issues you allude to in some areas of the UK are irrelevant here.
Sweet Lou
The UK is union and must therefore be treated as such in all matters. Some land must be preserved and if not now, when? As I said previously, I don't know enough about this application to have a strong opinion on it specifically. However, I strongly believe in conservation and I am far from convinced that a golf course will achieve the necessary results regarding conservation. IMO, the presumption must be strongly against development unless
1. There is overwhelming evidence that the land shouldn't have a special designation and is therefore stripped of this special treatment or
2. There is overwhelming evidence that the reason(s) for the designation will not be compromised by the proposed development or
3. Scotland becomes independent.
The UK necessarily needs tough planning regulation because it is among the most densely populated countries in Europe. With much of England given over to dense population (which provides a huge percentage of the tax revenue), it is imperative that remaining natural habitats are given due consideration for preservation.
Ciao
-
Unlike the old Soviet Union, if size 12 boots aren't selling, you stop making them and do something else. Or if you have 60+ million empty apartments, do you review your x-year plan and conserve resources? Maybe not in a government-directed economy such as China's, or a highly regulated one in Scotland where the government has conniptions with deviating from its dated plans when asked to "allow" a small number of acres of private land out of 6,000+ miles of coastline to be lightly developed.
And by the way, I too have grandchildren for whom I have the highest hope for a long, happy, and healthy life. If they lived near Embo, I would hope that they have the choice to remain with their children and not be forced to join the migration to the big cities in order to make a living. It should take a much stronger case than shifting sands and the desires of a few birders to say no to the locals.
Forgive me Lou, I previously accused you of looking at Scotland as though it were the 51st state of the US when in fact you see us more as a Soviet satellite state ;D
As for your second para, I think you've got it the wrong way round, it should take a very very strong economic case to justify trashing an environmentally sensitive site. I'm not sure how providing some seasonal work for a couple of dozen bag carriers does that.
As an aside, one of the points that the solicitor/QC for the Objectors was trying to make in his cross examination of Professor Bell (and to be honest he wasn't doing it very well) was how the supposed economic benefit, much of which will naturally enough flow to the developers, will benefit the community. For instance many of the direct jobs created will be low wage seasonal work and any indirect jobs (mainly tourism and hospitality industry) will be similar. Professor Bell's view was that we shouldn't be snobby or elitist about it as a job is a job. The QC's point however was that how does someone like that afford a mortgage of £130K ? If anything a high end golf course will just encourage more incomers, higher house prices and therefore actually add to the displacement effect. Just a thought.
Niall
-
Unlike the old Soviet Union, if size 12 boots aren't selling, you stop making them and do something else. Or if you have 60+ million empty apartments, do you review your x-year plan and conserve resources? Maybe not in a government-directed economy such as China's, or a highly regulated one in Scotland where the government has conniptions with deviating from its dated plans when asked to "allow" a small number of acres of private land out of 6,000+ miles of coastline to be lightly developed.
And by the way, I too have grandchildren for whom I have the highest hope for a long, happy, and healthy life. If they lived near Embo, I would hope that they have the choice to remain with their children and not be forced to join the migration to the big cities in order to make a living. It should take a much stronger case than shifting sands and the desires of a few birders to say no to the locals.
Forgive me Lou, I previously accused you of looking at Scotland as though it were the 51st state of the US when in fact you see us more as a Soviet satellite state ;D
As for your second para, I think you've got it the wrong way round, it should take a very very strong economic case to justify trashing an environmentally sensitive site. I'm not sure how providing some seasonal work for a couple of dozen bag carriers does that.
As an aside, one of the points that the solicitor/QC for the Objectors was trying to make in his cross examination of Professor Bell (and to be honest he wasn't doing it very well) was how the supposed economic benefit, much of which will naturally enough flow to the developers, will benefit the community. For instance many of the direct jobs created will be low wage seasonal work and any indirect jobs (mainly tourism and hospitality industry) will be similar. Professor Bell's view was that we shouldn't be snobby or elitist about it as a job is a job. The QC's point however was that how does someone like that afford a mortgage of £130K ? If anything a high end golf course will just encourage more incomers, higher house prices and therefore actually add to the displacement effect. Just a thought.
Niall
Niall,
Come on, man...you are selectively "cutting and pasting" items to craft and fit your own narrative.
A less biased account of testimony would show that witnesses gave detailed accounts of salaries, staffing and (yes) mortgage status of the employees at Royal Dornoch to extrapolate the possible economic impact of Coul in the area on just the direct jobs planned.
In addition, total salary and employment stats WITH home mortgage data were also given for the two other properties in Dornoch developed by the team behind Coul - Links House and the four businesses at the newly renovated Carnegie Courthouse.
Rising home prices? So, now youre a Dornoch real estate speculator..?.. ;D
-
Sean,
While the UK overall is fairly dense at #49 in the world (275 PP SQ/Km), Scotland only accounts for 65 PP SQ/Km, which nearly puts it in the bottom 1/3 of densely populated countries in the world at 37 Percentile. (England accounts for most of this 395 PP SQ/Km.) Then when you factor in that most live in the southern part of Scotland, the northern part is certainly sparsely populated (8 PP SQ/Km) and is one of the least populated places on earth. (Bottom 10th Percentile)
I'm a fan of conservation too, but shouldn't it all come in context?
http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php (http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php)
-
Sean,
While the UK overall is fairly dense at #49 in the world (275 PP SQ/Km), Scotland only accounts for 65 PP SQ/Km, which nearly puts it in the bottom 1/3 of densely populated countries in the world at 37 Percentile. (England accounts for most of this 395 PP SQ/Km.) Then when you factor in that most live in the southern part of Scotland, the northern part is certainly sparsely populated (8 PP SQ/Km) and is one of the least populated places on earth. (Bottom 10th Percentile)
I'm a fan of conservation too, but shouldn't it all come in context?
http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php (http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php)
Kalen
That is one way to look at it and very valid way at that. Another way is to think of huge percentage of England is given over to the overwhelmingly largest percentage of population of the UK which generates essential tax revenue... which then leaves very little opportunity for major conservation areas. In a very real sense, just as Scotland relies on tax revenue from England, England relies on Scotland for open space. That isn't to say there should be a blanket hands off development policy in Scotland, but imo protecting designated areas is very important as it is a very limited amenity. As Niall states, it is difficult to grasp how a golf course will provide an impactful financial uplift as a trade-off for the possible sacrifice of a limited amenity. Lets just say I am skeptical.
Yes...I am anti-Brexit and pro-union :D
Ciao
-
Sean,
Your last post is also very valid, and I find myself agreeing in general principle.
The only bit of nuance I would add is being flexible enough to differentiate between:
- High populated areas that are actively under assault from encroachment and need a very strict hands-on approach
- vs areas that are not and would benefit from additional stimulus at a seemingly minimal cost.
Its a difficult balancing act, but I certainly appreciate the mindful effort and err'ing on the side of caution.
P.S. I'm also anti-Brexit and pro-union. ;)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Country
Kalen
I've no idea whether the above link will work but if it does its worth a read. It will give you an indication why the north of Scotland is sparsely populated and it will also give you a clue as to why environmental legislation has been brought in in the last few decades.
Niall
-
Niall,
Thanks for posting that, sounds like they made an excellent move to step-in and put an end to those activities.
A few things to note in relation to this project thou:
1) I can't recall the size of this project, but even at 200 acres, that's less than 1 Square KM, of which maybe 1/2 would be modified/maintained area?
2) Is the proposed area peat land? I'm guessing that would be difficult to work in, but I was under the impression it was mostly sand dunes?
3) Probably safe to say C&C won't be planting any trees. ;)
-
Unlike the old Soviet Union, if size 12 boots aren't selling, you stop making them and do something else. Or if you have 60+ million empty apartments, do you review your x-year plan and conserve resources? Maybe not in a government-directed economy such as China's, or a highly regulated one in Scotland where the government has conniptions with deviating from its dated plans when asked to "allow" a small number of acres of private land out of 6,000+ miles of coastline to be lightly developed.
And by the way, I too have grandchildren for whom I have the highest hope for a long, happy, and healthy life. If they lived near Embo, I would hope that they have the choice to remain with their children and not be forced to join the migration to the big cities in order to make a living. It should take a much stronger case than shifting sands and the desires of a few birders to say no to the locals.
Forgive me Lou, I previously accused you of looking at Scotland as though it were the 51st state of the US when in fact you see us more as a Soviet satellite state ;D
As for your second para, I think you've got it the wrong way round, it should take a very very strong economic case to justify trashing an environmentally sensitive site. I'm not sure how providing some seasonal work for a couple of dozen bag carriers does that.
As an aside, one of the points that the solicitor/QC for the Objectors was trying to make in his cross examination of Professor Bell (and to be honest he wasn't doing it very well) was how the supposed economic benefit, much of which will naturally enough flow to the developers, will benefit the community. For instance many of the direct jobs created will be low wage seasonal work and any indirect jobs (mainly tourism and hospitality industry) will be similar. Professor Bell's view was that we shouldn't be snobby or elitist about it as a job is a job. The QC's point however was that how does someone like that afford a mortgage of £130K ? If anything a high end golf course will just encourage more incomers, higher house prices and therefore actually add to the displacement effect. Just a thought.
Niall
Niall,
Come on, man...you are selectively "cutting and pasting" items to craft and fit your own narrative.
A less biased account of testimony would show that witnesses gave detailed accounts of salaries, staffing and (yes) mortgage status of the employees at Royal Dornoch to extrapolate the possible economic impact of Coul in the area on just the direct jobs planned.
In addition, total salary and employment stats WITH home mortgage data were also given for the two other properties in Dornoch developed by the team behind Coul - Links House and the four businesses at the newly renovated Carnegie Courthouse.
Rising home prices? So, now youre a Dornoch real estate speculator..?.. ;D
Ian
The only evidence video link I've watched is the one you pointed me towards which was Professor Bell and the very first bit by the RDG vice-Captain. Professor Bell also talked about other things such as agglomeration and displacement which was interesting, especially the bit where he said displacement shouldn't be taken into the calculation as areas like Fife, East Lothian and presumably Ayrshire although he didn't mention it, as these areas were better off for job opportunities anyway which is quite a novel argument when discussing the economic pro's and cons. Whether that's true in percentage terms I'm not sure but I can't imagine clubs like Prestwick St Nich's or Kilspindie or Leven would be too impressed !
With regards to salaries etc I can't recall him mentioning the other properties you refer to but its possible I fell asleep at that point however not sure what relevance they would have in relation to the golf development anyway ? What I do recall was his chat about salaries at RDGC. That was information he had been given by the club and was only general information as obviously they had to comply with GDPR as I'm sure you know. Presumably the point with him forwarding this information was that the wages would be broadly similar to the proposed Embo development. The figure given by Professor Bell was £20K which was the average annual wage at RDGC.
What the solicitor in his cross examination was saying was how does someone on that wage afford a mortgage ?
Niall
ps. as it happens I'm a RICS Registered Valuer but in truth you don't need to be a valuation surveyor to appreciate that we have a rising population of retirees many of whom are cashing in on there family homes and moving out of the suburbs to places like Dornoch or are using equity to buy holiday homes in places like Dornoch. And as the professor was forced to admit, the population of east Sutherland has rose after 2000.
-
Gentlemen
I think it's time to stop spinning our wheels and going onto another topic. I'll be up at Dornoch for a long weekend starting Friday and will report back if I hear anything of inetrest. IMHO the broader powers that be in Dornoch and the Scottish government are idiots if they think that Coul Links is anything other than tremendously positive for the area and its people. It is not going to turn Dornoch into Pebble Beach, but it is going to revitalize (in a modest way) the local economy.
Rich
PS--maybe it has been mentioned before, but David Bell is a Dornoch lad, a fine golfer and one of the most well-respected Economists in Scotland. Listen to what he says.
rfg
-
Does anyone have a rough idea of how long it will take "the powers that be" to make a decision and announce their ruling once this hearing concludes?
-
I don't know Rich, can you think of spinning your wheels on a better topic?
I for one would like to know the due diligence involved in designated the CL site as having SSSI importance. Has anyone ever challenged the scientific assumptions?
Do put in a good word for me at RDGC. I am still working on a summer schedule.
-
In this particular case, just be thankful that Britain never embraced Europe. By all rights, that site should have been designated by European Law as an SAC rather than the less stringent - and British only - SSSI.
Under European Law, it would have been given the Priority 1 Fixed Dune habitat for the most part.
European Law does not care about economic advantages so it would come down to proving that you are not changing the habitat by developing it. The best you could hope for is that mowing the grass is seen as managing the area rather than being detrimental. Construction work would be an almost impossible sell.
-
Lou,
Although I'm not sure what kind of "due diligence" you're looking for, you can find a lot of information about the designation and plans for the SSSI that Coul Links is a part of, at the following link:
https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/984 (https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/984)
The SSSI is actually called Loch Fleet. It was first designated in 1975. The documents include: SSSI Citation, Operations Requiring Consent, Site Management Statement, Nature Conservation Order, and SSSI Map.
Loch Fleet is one of 1,423 SSSI's in Scotland (a country about the size of Maine) that cover about 12.7% of Scotland's land area. My first thought was that 12.7% sounded like a lot, but now I'm not so sure. How much of a country should be protected from development?
It seems that some people and governments in some countries value protecting some natural areas over the inexorable creep of development and economic growth.
Decades ago, Ontario's government created a Greenbelt area protected from development surrounding Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe. It has survived for a while despite continuous attacks of developers.
As you probably know, Glen Abbey, the long time home of the Canadian Open and a Nicklaus course is currently in litigation trying to remove a heritage designation so it can be developed for housing. It's worth a lot more to the owner as a housing development than it is as a golf course. My guess is that it will be another course that NLE in a few years.
As far as Coul Links goes, that's for Scotland to decide. Having been to the Highlands a fair number of times, I'm skeptical of the economic benefits of the development. There are only so many well-heeled travelling golfers to go around and it seems likely that if they were to go to CL they'd likely subtract from somewhere else. If it gets built I'd be fine with that, although I probably wouldn't go given the likely price range and the great number of other historical
links courses available in Scotland that I'd rather go back to. Whether it will be financially successful, I don't know. You'll recall that Trump Balmedie was pretty well empty when we dropped by last year and is reportedly bleeding money every year so far and it is somewhat more on the beaten path being near Aberdeen. We shall see what happens.
-
Good to hear from you, Ali. "Spinning Wheels" reminds me of Blood, Sweat and Tears.........
Didn't know that you have some plans to be at Dornoch this summer. Send me a PM and we'll find a way to get together. I'll definitely be there from late July to early August.
All the best
Rich
-
Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area) Jon W (from page 34)
Bryan-
If what Jon states is fact, the due diligence is in this context, i.e. the burden of proof might be better placed on those who claim the scientific importance of the few acres involved in this project. Me, and you know me well enough to understand where I am coming from, I will take the word of a local, highly-regarded economist with a vested interest in his club and the area over the political orientations of the governing elite hundreds of miles away. If you consider Mr. Keiser's extensively proven record and his willingness to invest his own money in the project (this is about as 180° different than the typical Solyndra government boondoggle as it can get), I think it is reasonable to believe the pro-CL story.
As to Trump International, maybe we'll be able to talk about it in 10 years if we are still able to make sense. Regardless, do you really see any similarities? Would Dundonald be a closer comparison with less competition?
Yes, the CL project is up to the Scots. So is it up to the members of Augusta National how to maintain their course; the USGA on how it manages the ball and equipment rules; the members of Congressional CC on who to bring in to renovate the course, etc. None of this stops us from opining passionately and voluminously. I do hope to spend some of my summers up near there and I could see playing CL on the occasional open or "coupon day".
-
Lou,
I did see that Jon said that previously. It seems at odds with the documents at the site I linked to. He's closer to the action, so maybe he's got it right, but the web site link does seem to suggest it's not as totally random or unstudied as Jon suggests.
The SSSI's were designated by duly elected governments and their agencies. They were elected to govern. On a topic such as protecting natural resources I'm not sure there's a burden of proof on the government to deny a development application. The burden of proof surely resides with the developer who wants relief from the direction of the government. This SSSI has been around since 1975 and there have been several different governments since then that haven't changed the direction so I don't know that SSSI's are a political thing anymore.
I don't think that protecting an SSSI environment vs privately developing a golf course is, in the end, a cost benefit or due diligence exercise. Protecting the environment is a belief for many.
As to TIGLS and Coul Links, they are both courses to be developed on SSSI land by American developers for the high end tourist market. What more similarity would you like to see. The TIGLS SSSI was a much more dramatically unique shifting sand natural dune environment that is now gone - sort of sad.
Not sure Dundonald has less classic links course competition. Are you suggesting it was an SSSI before?
-
Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area) Jon W (from page 34)
Bryan-
If what Jon states is fact, the due diligence is in this context, i.e. the burden of proof might be better placed on those who claim the scientific importance of the few acres involved in this project. Me, and you know me well enough to understand where I am coming from, I will take the word of a local, highly-regarded economist with a vested interest in his club and the area over the political orientations of the governing elite hundreds of miles away. The highly regarded economist that you refer to is also a government adviser and therefore part of that government elite hundreds of miles away (201 miles from Edinburgh to Embo to be exact). If you consider Mr. Keiser's extensively proven record and his willingness to invest his own money in the project (this is about as 180° different than the typical Solyndra government boondoggle as it can get), I think it is reasonable to believe the pro-CL story.
So basically if you have the money you get a free hand ? I’m still trying to get a handle on where you see Scotland, is it the 51st state, a soviet satellite or some third world country where money counts above all else ?
As to Trump International, maybe we'll be able to talk about it in 10 years if we are still able to make sense. Regardless, do you really see any similarities? Would Dundonald be a closer comparison with less competition?
The comparison between Embo and Balmedie is/was the environmentally sensitive nature of both sites; how the respective developers are arguing an economic case to over-ride planning policy; and in doing so promoting and ingratiating themselves with the locals.
In that respect there is no real comparison with Dundonald which used to be a golf course before closing down and being turned over for grazing. It simply didn’t have the same environmental designation. Likewise Dumbarnie which had a similar history.
The closest might be Mach Dunes which was farmland with pockets of SSSI from memory. There the developer chose to respect the designation, work with the respective environmental and planning agencies and design round the sensitive areas rather than build over them. KB and CS were mostly farmland and therefore there was no SSSI designation on any part of the site as far as I’m aware.
Yes, the CL project is up to the Scots. So is it up to the members of Augusta National how to maintain their course; the USGA on how it manages the ball and equipment rules; the members of Congressional CC on who to bring in to renovate the course, etc. None of this stops us from opining passionately and voluminously. I do hope to spend some of my summers up near there and I could see playing CL on the occasional open or "coupon day".
-
Bryan
I'm not sure how anyone can say Dundonald has less classic links course competition than the proposed course at Embo. You can stand on a fairway at Dundonald and hit a ball over the railway line onto Western Gailes with a lob wedge. You can also hit from Dundonald over the fence onto Kilmarnock Barrasie with a 9 iron. Hitting Glasgow Gailes takes a bit more effort as it will likely need a 3 wood to reach the Gailes practice area unless you’re a big hitter.
Also in half the time that it takes to drive from Embo to Brora you can drive from to Dundonald to 12 other venerable (ie. old/classic) links courses beyond the 3 I’ve just mentioned.
That’s 15 links courses in total within 15 minutes drive including a former Open course (Prestwick), a current Open course (Royal Troon) and at least 5 other courses that have been Open Qualifiers at some point in time (Glasgow Gailes, Western, Irvine Bogside, Troon Portland, Troon Lochgreen).
Anyway, in the words of the good Professor, is not all about agglomeration ?
Niall
-
Bryan
I forgot to add, if you want some info on SSSI see link below. It will tell you nearly all you need to know. I say "nearly" as unfortunately they forgot to include the bit where the government elite get together to pick the SSSI’s by putting on blindfolds and then sticking pins in the map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
Niall
-
Just as a quick update - the enquiry has now ended. It looks like the coalition (against) will have 2 weeks to provide their closing submission with conditions, then the council will have an additional week, and then the applicant one final week to submit theirs. All told, all closing submissions will be in by April 22. My guess is it will take a few weeks / month for a decision to be made thereafter. Looking increasingly like end of May / June before a decision is made.
-
Niall,
I was trying to gently respond to Lou's assertion that "Would Dundonald be a closer comparison with less competition?" I'm well aware of the many classic links courses near Dundonald.
In looking at the background of SSSI's, I've been looking at the Scottish National Heritage site. http://www.nature.scot (http://www.nature.scot)
-
After McKenna's not entirely balanced piece last week, The Observer give some praise to golf's approach to sustainability this week: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/mar/24/time-to-follow-golfs-surprising-lead-and-find-different-ways-to-be-green (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/mar/24/time-to-follow-golfs-surprising-lead-and-find-different-ways-to-be-green)
-
Mark
Do you mean the Guardian rather than the Observer ?
Bryan
My remarks were more aimed at Lou although I'm fairly sure Lou as a good idea of the courses near Dundonald.
Niall
-
I think it was published today, so no, I mean the Observer. They share a website. If it was published yesterday then it was the Guardian.
-
Mark
Thanks, my mistake. I don't think I was aware that the Guardian and Observer were linked in the same way as the Times and Sunday Times.
Niall
-
Re: my Dundonald comparison to the CL project- it was solely in response to the "gentle" Mr. Izatt who brought up the financial viability of Trump International (he implies that it is failing, I think) to question the financial/economic future of CL. I am suggesting that the much more moderate objectives and plans for CL better resemble those of Dundonald, a single 18-hole golf course with modest hard, fixed infrastructure. TI is about large, upscale real estate development. CL seeks to add a high quality item to a limited menu in that area. That the project enjoys strong local support including from its most likely competitors- R. Dornoch, C. Stuart, maybe even Skibo- suggests that it has a leg up. My comments regarding Mike Keiser have nothing to do with money running roughshod over the interests of the people. Quite the opposite, he has a strong record of investing wisely which very much incorporates careful consideration of his customers and the local communities.
Re: the ever-hyperbolic NiallC's characterization of my views of Scotland- the 51st state, a Soviet puppet, a banana republic- could this be an attempt to draw a distinction without a difference? For example, if the 51st follows in the mode of CA where experts estimate the regulatory cost of a new home is upwards 30% of the total price, does that differ from having to pay Vlad through one of his cronies a similar amount to build a hotel in Moscow? Might there be a reason other than political philosophy why developer Trump gave a lot of money to his pals Chuck, Hillary, and the Democrat NYC political machine? Could these top-down, highly corrupt practices be a good part of the reason why CA and NYC are not affordable for the vast majority at prevailing wages? Want to build along the Costa del Sol or in parts of other former Spanish colonies, get with the ayuntamiento and grease those skids. Visit Mexico for examples of the effects of central planning on real real estate as actually practiced.
It really comes down to private property rights, respect for the law, and who wields control. As I understand, the SSSI designation was imposed on the CL property owners by the central planners without compensation. Perhaps it is not the law in Scotland to fairly compensate those affected by adverse possession. With the shifting political sands, I wonder if someday London or Edinburgh might not see wisdom and necessity in mandating the use of spare bedrooms in private homes to alleviate housing shortages. In Cuba, they just let people stop paying rent and move into temporarily unoccupied homes, permanently. In Venezuela, that other socialist paradise, they closed golf courses to build shanties for public housing, until they ran out of oil money after the government and the military took their cuts from the top. What awaits the Western World? Be careful what you wish for. Don't respect private property rights, delegitimize the framework of laws, abandon common sense and it won't end well. Whew, I might have exhausted the subject matter!
-
Lou
You are correct about the difference between Embo and Balmedie (just this week there were stories about Trumps revised application for the housing element) however Dundonald is a private members club that allows visitors as most Scottish clubs do, which is different to a pay and play model. A better comparison for Embo might be to CS, KB, Dumbarnie or perhaps best of all in terms of business model, relative remoteness and proximity to classic links, Mach Dunes.
As for my gently poking fun at your various worldly examples of how Scotland should be or might be or whatever (I'm never quite sure which) it is all intended as good fun as you hopefully appreciate. I do wonder however why you think the planning system in Scotland is an attack on private property rights and doesn't respect the law as you seem to allude. I'm sure Scotland's planning system isn't perfect but it's not that bad, surely ?
Niall
-
Niall
Property rights in the US are far more sancrosanct than in the UK because individual rights are cherished more in the US than any country I know of (well, maybe the Patriot Act has changed that!). The property rights deal probably stems from the days when the Constitution allowed States to set voting rights (or more accurately requirements!). Most states only allowed (white, male) property owning, tax paying citizens to vote...property rights are deeply rooted in the American psyche. The voting rights in the US is long and very chequered!
Ciao
-
Niall,
Mine is a mostly philosophical argument, so "should" is what I am going for. And I do understand that our banter is lighthearted.
Re: CL similarities to Dundonald, again, I wasn't addressing the structures of the respective clubs, only that they share more in common from the standpoint of footprint and capital requirements than CL and Trump International. I was unaware that CL was planned as solely a pay and play club.
As to Sean's civic lesson, it is clear that he's been away too long. What I can do with my property is largely dependent on which state the property is in, and within that state, the city or local jurisdiction involved. Then there are issues dealing with water, flood prone areas, wetlands, etc. in which the Feds (CoE, EPA, Fish & Wildlife, etc.) have a lot of sway.
An example is a Dallas course which completed a major renovation recently that was deemed highly successful but for one thing, not enough trees were taken out. The architect was first to acknowledge the shortcoming, noting that for an additional $1 Million payment to the city, it could have removed the offending trees (the city supposedly would use the money to plant an equal # of caliper feet on its many properties).
In contrast, my old club near Arlington, less than 30 miles away, was sold to a warehouse developer who proceeded to clear cut the site. The city involved didn't have a tree ordinance and the site had been zoned nearly 70 years earlier as part of a gigantic industrial park. Ironically, part of the golf property along Johnson Creek was under the auspices of the CoE, but the developers were able to stay away from the affected areas.
Back to civics, the S in USA stands for States, not State. The 13 states came together to form a union only on the condition of each mostly maintaining their sovereign rights. Without getting into negative and positive rights, suffice it to say that the framers had in mind a very limited federal government with much of the responsibilities of governing left with the states and whatever jurisdictions each charters.
As to the voting history here, how many centuries did it take for the UK to allow most of its citizens to vote? And, BTW, how well is it working? It is absolute nonsense that certain people are disenfranchised unjustly in the U.S., unless of course one is talking about conservative voters in any number of large blue cities and states. But that and having skin in the game are whole other discussions.
-
Lou,
I wouldn't quit your day job and become a history or political science adviser. That is one hellavu viewpoint on politics and the state of voting in America.... ;)
-
Lou Duran states, “I was unaware that CL was planned as solely a pay and play club.”
As far as I know, and from what I have read, this has never been discussed publicly therefore and I doubt that anyone on this forum knows - one way or another.
Who here has been to Sand Valley?
If yes, what do you see on the large wall just before you walk into the pro shop from the lobby?
A list of “Founders” that number close to 100.
Keiser's "model" is no secret.
-
As to Sean's civic lesson, it is clear that he's been away too long. What I can do with my property is largely dependent on which state the property is in, and within that state, the city or local jurisdiction involved. Then there are issues dealing with water, flood prone areas, wetlands, etc. in which the Feds (CoE, EPA, Fish & Wildlife, etc.) have a lot of sway.
An example is a Dallas course which completed a major renovation recently that was deemed highly successful but for one thing, not enough trees were taken out. The architect was first to acknowledge the shortcoming, noting that for an additional $1 Million payment to the city, it could have removed the offending trees (the city supposedly would use the money to plant an equal # of caliper feet on its many properties).
In contrast, my old club near Arlington, less than 30 miles away, was sold to a warehouse developer who proceeded to clear cut the site. The city involved didn't have a tree ordinance and the site had been zoned nearly 70 years earlier as part of a gigantic industrial park. Ironically, part of the golf property along Johnson Creek was under the auspices of the CoE, but the developers were able to stay away from the affected areas.
Back to civics, the S in USA stands for States, not State. The 13 states came together to form a union only on the condition of each mostly maintaining their sovereign rights. Without getting into negative and positive rights, suffice it to say that the framers had in mind a very limited federal government with much of the responsibilities of governing left with the states and whatever jurisdictions each charters.
As to the voting history here, how many centuries did it take for the UK to allow most of its citizens to vote? And, BTW, how well is it working? It is absolute nonsense that certain people are disenfranchised unjustly in the U.S., unless of course one is talking about conservative voters in any number of large blue cities and states. But that and having skin in the game are whole other discussions.
Sweet Lou
My point was merely to show the relationship between property rights, voting rights and individual rights. IMO it is quite obvious that property rights are better protected in the US than in the UK. I made no comment on current disenfranchisement...just the past...and calling it chequered is a soft criticism given history. I don't pay much attention to disenfranchisement, but unless things have changed, you may wish to look into WDC. The Puerto Rican set up is very odd as well. People tell me wars are started over this stuff. 8)
I know nothing about voter rights in the UK other than PA 1918 and 1928 and the idea of plural voting(!). For sure, the UK doesn't have a stellar record regarding this issue.
Ciao
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
Ok with the censors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDEr9R0snU
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
+1
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
Ok with the censors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDEr9R0snU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDEr9R0snU)
I am a new member at Royal Dornoch and I have my own mixed feelings about a another course just down the road, but the last 20+ posts have been about properly rights in the EU and UK. I know those are real issues. They just have nothing to add about golf course architecture in my view,
Although they do represent the nature of the arguments about every new land development project on a coast.
-
Given that I’m typing this before 12:00 hrs on 1st April perhaps rock-paper-scissors would be an appropriate way to resolve this matter?
Atb
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
In a mostly very civilised way. If you don't like it, no-one's forcing you to read it.
-
OMG, somebody kill this thread! 36 pages of squabbling!
In a mostly very civilised way. If you don't like it, no-one's forcing you to read it.
+1
With over 50,000 views, it has been read more times than the next 50 threads combined.
THAT says something...and it is more than squabbling.
Unique prism into the embryonic machinations that go into the birth of a development.
With several key GCA topics thrown in all at once: Scotland, Mike Keiser, Coore/Crenshaw, the environment and Dornoch. - all topics of multiple threads themselves.
I get that some may find it tedious in the same way that I find many "OT" threads inane and replete with senseless drivel.
Opining simply that you do not like something is the antithesis of "value-add"...;-)
Imagine some here reading threads and posting",
"I dont like this thread, It should be deleted according to me."[size=78%]....[/size] ;D
Wouldn't it be great if life worked that way..?.. ;)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ksztiu_Q
-
Just a rehash of previous videos. It seems the Scottish Executive are just sitting on this decision.
-
Seems this slipped below the radar:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/decision-on-proposed-new-golf-course-at-coul-links-due-soon-187128/ (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/decision-on-proposed-new-golf-course-at-coul-links-due-soon-187128/)
No decision, but it appears that a recommendation has been provided, and now it's up to the Ministers to give their verdict. I don't know how long this might take, but the paper seemed to think a decision was near.
-
Seems this slipped below the radar:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/decision-on-proposed-new-golf-course-at-coul-links-due-soon-187128/ (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/decision-on-proposed-new-golf-course-at-coul-links-due-soon-187128/)
No decision, but it appears that a recommendation has been provided, and now it's up to the Ministers to give their verdict. I don't know how long this might take, but the paper seemed to think a decision was near.
And that headline about an "imminent" decision was posted on November 28 of last year.
The definition of "imminent" is really taking a beating lately.
-
If "imminent" is used in matters involving government and politics, then it can mean anything. I've been asking around for news without success. The word when I was in the area late this past summer was that the decision would be forthcoming by the end of the year- "imminent" in this context- and the expectation was that it would get the green light. I was near Todd Warnock a couple of times and he seemed to be in fine spirits.
More recently, I've heard rumors from a couple of sources that "the bank" was becoming impatient. Hard to say if this is more than unfounded speculation or that the delay can be construed as a bad sign, but ...... I know that another C & C project was scuttled after a 10-year fight with CA interveners with no end in sight for a positive resolution.
During my last visit to Dornoch I spent several hours over three days walking the east (seaside) and west boundaries of the CL site, and diagonally across from west to east. I don't know who produced the video linked by Tim, but they should receive an Academy Award for editing in the Fantasy category.
The site has some interesting minor dunes in the interior, but I didn't see any areas with sea views without bulldozing spaces on large high dunes along the beach (I am nearly sure that this won't happen) or raising some of the higher points considerably. To the best of my knowledge, the design is more minimalist in style, though I have to believe that they will have to move some dirt around (I am not sure that it is all sand).
The property has been used for dumping, primarily dead trees and other vegetation, and has many areas that accumulate water. I didn't see very much other debris, but reports are that it was used in the past for grazing and hunting- who knows what the vegetation might be hiding.
Though it is grown-in with invasive vegetation and small thickets, the only wildlife of note I witnessed was a small deer and a grouse. The only people I saw around the property were a relative few on the beach, and an older couple walking on a path along the western boundary. Perhaps I was there at the wrong time during three separate visits in different months, and a year apart.
It would be a shame for the area if the site is forced to languish in its current condition in perpetuity. Seems like the idiom of looking at a gift horse in the mouth has an application here.
-
...
The definition of "imminent" is really taking a beating lately.
LOL
Or, as some people write, "eminent."
;D
-
Lou
https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883
Not sure the above link will work but it is basically the same link as on www.coullinksgolf.com. It has all the cut and thrust of the planning process with publication of the various submissions. If you spend a bit of time perusing the submissions you will first note the delay in the latter part of the process has been down almost entirely to the applicant who has repeatedly broken agreed deadlines by quite some margin. If the deadlines had been met the report very likely would have gone to the Ministers several months earlier than the end of November which is when it was sent.
If you also go through the submissions, assuming you have the time, you'll get a better idea of the environmental and ecological issues. Deer and grouse don't really feature from memory.
Niall
-
Thanks Niall. As you should be able to surmise by my presence here, I have all the time in the world. So, I suppose I should do some digging instead of relying on information from folks who are closer to the matter and might have more riding on the decision than I do. As I said, the impression given while I was in Dornoch this past September was that the final decision would come down by year-end and that it was expected to be favorable to the development of the course. I would be surprised that an anxious applicant with a time sensitive project would be missing deadlines for reasons other than to address new demands being made. But as you have pointed out on numerous occasions, I could be wrong. ;)
-
Looks like planning permission has been refused. “Case closed” as it says on the Scottish Government website.
-
Yes, it has. A disgrace that Trump Aberdeen was permitted and this has been blocked. Scotland’s politicians should hang their heads in shame
-
Looks like planning permission has been refused. “Case closed” as it says on the Scottish Government website.
Yes - all over the news.
No doubt this development was hugely damaged by the Trump affair. I’m sure it would have had a much lighter touch.
I’d say that could be the death knell for any future permission for a brand new course on true links land. St.Patricks will be the closest thing we get. It’s as good as new / untouched. Any other developments will be more adjoining sand dunes, such as Dumbarnie.
-
From the local newspaper:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/coul-links-golf-course-plans-refused-by-scottish-government-192055/ (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/coul-links-golf-course-plans-refused-by-scottish-government-192055/)
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49733098
-
Yes, it has. A disgrace that Trump Aberdeen was permitted and this has been blocked. Scotland’s politicians should hang their heads in shame
Adam
If your comment is on the inconsistency then I agree.
Niall
-
I disagree Adam. The Scottish Ministers have been entirely consistent in totally ignoring the locals in both cases which is rich coming from a party that continually moans, whines and whinges about how they are ignored by the UK government. Of course it also helped Trump that the Scottish Executive were having secret backroom meetings with Trump's representatives whilst at the same time been on the phone about the application.
I am very surprised though and saddened but still it is not the Central Belt so of no interest. ;)
-
Looks like planning permission has been refused. “Case closed” as it says on the Scottish Government website.
Yes - all over the news.
No doubt this development was hugely damaged by the Trump affair. I’m sure it would have had a much lighter touch.
I’d say that could be the death knell for any future permission for a brand new course on true links land. St.Patricks will be the closest thing we get. It’s as good as new / untouched. Any other developments will be more adjoining sand dunes, such as Dumbarnie.
Ally
Well, I will say this, when most of this board were cheering on Trump in his efforts to develop Balmedie I made the point how his development was going to make it harder for everyone else. Mind you Mr Keiser and Mr Warnock didn't help themselves by mimicking a lot of Trump's methods and most importantly by their choice of site.
It is also over 20 years since Michael Bonnallack made his prediction that there would be no more links courses built and he has been proved wrong. I'm sure there will be more in the future but I doubt they will be achieved by the approach taken by Trump and to a large extent by the Embo developers.
Niall
-
Looks like planning permission has been refused. “Case closed” as it says on the Scottish Government website.
Yes - all over the news.
No doubt this development was hugely damaged by the Trump affair. I’m sure it would have had a much lighter touch.
I’d say that could be the death knell for any future permission for a brand new course on true links land. St.Patricks will be the closest thing we get. It’s as good as new / untouched. Any other developments will be more adjoining sand dunes, such as Dumbarnie.
Ally
Well, I will say this, when most of this board were cheering on Trump in his efforts to develop Balmedie I made the point how his development was going to make it harder for everyone else. Mind you Mr Keiser and Mr Warnock didn't help themselves by mimicking a lot of Trump's methods and most importantly by their choice of site.
It is also over 20 years since Michael Bonnallack made his prediction that there would be no more links courses built and he has been proved wrong. I'm sure there will be more in the future but I doubt they will be achieved by the approach taken by Trump and to a large extent by the Embo developers.
Niall
Niall,
When talking about pure links land, I’m not sure he was too far off the mark.
Only ones I can think of are Sandy Hills, Mach Dunes and Askernish. The last one got by as it was on the site of a former course. The first one snuck-in through Ruddy’s determination as EU legislation was still being finalised.
Mach Dunes is the best example I can think of but it’s getting harder and harder.
Of course, now the UK is no longer tied by EU legislation, it becomes more possible, if unlikely.
-
Ally,
Contrary to popular belief it is likely that environmental laws will be tougher in the UK in the future than in the EU.
For anyone interested here is a link to the documents on the decision.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-decision-na-hld-086/ (https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-decision-na-hld-086/)
-
I find it highly ironic that the home of golf has become so unfriendly to the game. The Coul Links project could have been a home run. Oh well, the visitors will just have to be happy with their round at Royal Dornoch before heading south. I bet that there will be some great real estate deals in town.
-
Lou,
I’m not so sure the home of golf really needed this development on a macro level though? Surely what defines (or defined) the home of golf was simple, affordable golf for all at a local club. Scotland was perhaps the only country where golf was as much a game for the working class everyman as it was for the middle classes and gentry. Coul Links had nothing to do with why “the home of golf” was named the home of golf... it would have been great to see though. I for one was interested to see what C&C would do with a virgin links site.
Jon,
Thanks for that link. I didn’t see anything referencing that UK planning would become harder than EU legislation for golf courses in protected environments. But I maybe didn’t look deep enough? Either way, if that is in fact true then it will almost definitely be the death knell for any new links development.
-
Makes me wonder as to the way to develop future links courses in Scotland and the rest of GB&I.
Faux links?
Buy-out an existing lessor links course where the members would welcome the money and then re-develop it?
Atb
-
Ally/David,
I tend to think the differential between "pristine links" and what is over the fence isn't as big as it is portrayed. It is really down to how it was used. When you think of most of the early links courses in the UK they were actively used for grazing before and after the courses were laid out. I'm not sure they were any different in that respect to Dumbarnie which was a golf course back in the day as well. Even Mach Dunes had cattle on it before it became a golf course.
Lou,
I think you are wrong to base a country's attitude to golf based on one planning application. Indeed I would think the planning regime in this country probably makes it much harder to redevelop a golf course for some other use than it would be in the US or many other countries. Golf courses are valued both for themselves and as an important green space. That doesn't mean you should get consent to bulldoze an important environmental site though.
Niall
-
Niall,
My definition has nothing to do with grazing but has all to do with whether the land has been turned in to arable, farming land via plough.
Dumbarnie, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart were all the latter.
-
Makes me wonder as to the way to develop future links courses in Scotland and the rest of GB&I.
Faux links?
Buy-out an existing lessor links course where the members would welcome the money and then re-develop it?
Atb
I think we will see the latter happening in the years ahead. Possibly even members being bought out totally, courses largely obliterated and the land used as a canvas. Maybe that’s an extreme but it’s a possibility
-
Makes me wonder as to the way to develop future links courses in Scotland and the rest of GB&I.
Faux links?
Buy-out an existing lessor links course where the members would welcome the money and then re-develop it?
Atb
I think we will see the latter happening in the years ahead. Possibly even members being bought out totally, courses largely obliterated and the land used as a canvas. Maybe that’s an extreme but it’s a possibility
Well in theory this is exactly what is happening at St.Patricks though the courses before were so minimal, I consider this a completely (and perhaps the last) new site.
Narin & Portnoo is the closest current example of the total obliteration of an existing course. Although much of the general routing remains.
-
Ally,
my comment about environmental standards becoming harder are not to do with this application but with the fact that the UK is leaving the EU. Where as the EU is tied to the current system of payments to farmers based on land owned the UK is almost certainly going to abandon this system in favour of payments for certain types of land managements.
A good example would be management of waterways and rainwater flow management where farmers will be paid for introducing water retention measures. As such it might not be impossible to build new courses in dune systems but the challenge will be bigger.
Jon
-
Or, Was this just a mean reversion response to being “Trump-fooked” 10 years ago in Menie...?
Locals shot it down but Scottish govt approved it anyway.
Locals approved Coul now govt suddenly doesn’t want to look like a rubber stamp for US capital so they hit the flush button.
From what I hear this was a political decision not an economic or ecological one. The Reporters essentially rejected the “Opposition’s” arguments but in the end used “uncertainty” as a reason for refusal.
This is from a resident of Embo and it summarizes it nicely:
“I have read one or two people saying they have won yesterday.
No one has won with this decision on Coul links, the losers are the next generation looking to gain employment, the people wanting to stay in the area but cannot due to lack of opportunities.
Never mind the benefits to the Highlands as a whole.
I 'remember the feeling in 2018 when over 100 members of our community came together in less than 24 hours notice when highland council approved the golf course. So special.
Coul links itself is being killed through invasive species, very soon there will be nothing left.
I look forward to hearing the plan from not coul and these other conservation groups about how they will maintain and look after coul. Encouraging tourism and employment opportunities, something that would have happened if the golf course had gone ahead.”
-
I wonder what use will be made of the land at Coul now from now on?
Sympathy to for the folks who have been working on the project in some capacity but who’s jobs are presumably now in jeopardy.
Atb
-
Niall,
My definition has nothing to do with grazing but has all to do with whether the land has been turned in to arable, farming land via plough.
Dumbarnie, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart were all the latter.
Ally
My definition of links also has nothing to do with grazing either but the point I'm making is that links courses such as North Berwick, Troon, Carnoustie, Muirfield (the clue is in the name) and Turnberry were all basically fields for grazing. Dumbarnie too back in the day. And being fields there is a good chance that at some point they were tilled to try and produce a better grass crop for grazing.
So what makes them links isn't to do with how they are used and what the vegetation is on top, although the vegetation will obviously depend on the nature of the land, but is more to do with the nature of the soil and how they were formed.
My guess is that going forward there will be more Mach Dunes and Dumbarnies and what's more given that there is a move towards more "wilding" of farmland that you'd imagine if golf can prove it's environmental/ecological benefits in terms of bio-diversity then you'd imagine developers would be pushing at an open door.
Niall
-
Or, Was this just a mean reversion response to being “Trump-fooked” 10 years ago in Menie...?
Locals shot it down but Scottish govt approved it anyway.
Ian
FWIW, in my view the decision at Govt level ie Alex Salmond, to approve the Balmedie development was a shocker and abuse of power. It made Scotland look like a third world country. Even though Salmond isn't around anymore (and in any case an extremely dodgy planning decision is the least of his problems right now) I still wouldn't trust this government to act in a responsible and proper manner. So yes, the fact that they have reached this decision probably does have a bit to do with the reaction to their previous approval of Balmedie as well as following their own planning policy.
Niall
-
Niall,
you are correct about the Balmedie decision. Can you imagine the outrage were the UK government doing such backroom deals. The whole reason for it being called in is because the SNP are beholden to the Green party in Scotland the same as Theresa May was to the DUP and look at how that was seen by the SNP. The whole thing stinks and I do wonder how much further it can be allowed to continue before there is lasting damage.
Jon
-
I wonder what use will be made of the land at Coul now from now on?
Sympathy to for the folks who have been working on the project in some capacity but who’s jobs are presumably now in jeopardy.
Atb
The family that owns it rents it to a very small farm operation and cattle graze the land to the west of the proposed course.
Otherwise, it's been unmanaged for years and parts are rotting away.
The developers pledged 50,000 pounds per year to maintain the wild areas of the property.
It remains unseen what the conservationists (who opposed the course so passionately) will do or not do.
My guess is that you will never see them again as they will be chasing the next trophy instead of actually preserving the environment.
The most immediate near-term consequence may be a postponement of the redevelopment and renovation of the largest hotel in town. I heard it was bought - on speculation - by a London-based investor who anticipated Coul's approval.
He was going to spend $5M+ on the hotel which has incredible bones, lies on the first fairway of RDGC yet has the smell of institutional obsolescence when you walk in.
How many jobs is that right there? I dont know....ask the f**king environmentalists who are safely hiding behind their keyboards in their kitchens sending congratulatory Facebook messages to each other.
It's not like golf is really a part of the Scottish economy or anything.... :'(
-
I wonder what use will be made of the land at Coul now from now on?
Sympathy to for the folks who have been working on the project in some capacity but who’s jobs are presumably now in jeopardy.
Atb
The family that owns it rents it to a very small farm operation and cattle graze the land to the west of the proposed course.
Otherwise, it's been unmanaged for years and parts are rotting away.
The developers pledged 50,000 pounds per year to maintain the wild areas of the property.
It remains unseen what the conservationists (who opposed the course so passionately) will do or not do.
My guess is that you will never see them again as they will be chasing the next trophy instead of actually preserving the environment.
The most immediate near-term consequence may be a postponement of the redevelopment and renovation of the largest hotel in town. I heard it was bought - on speculation - by a London-based investor who anticipated Coul's approval.
He was going to spend $5M+ on the hotel which has incredible bones, lies on the first fairway of RDGC yet has the smell of institutional obsolescence when you walk in.
How many jobs is that right there? I dont know....ask the f**king environmentalists who are safely hiding behind their keyboards in their kitchens sending congratulatory Facebook messages to each other.
It's not like golf is really a part of the Scottish economy or anything.... :'(
Ian,
I do feel for the locals, and the economic benefit certainly would have been significant.
I was personally rooting for the development, but I was having a conversation with another Ian from this board. I appreciate that during the proceedings, the opposition said they would likely invest more in the property, so we'll see if that happens. But assuming it doesn't, I think it's ok to let nature be nature, and let the site get on with being...nothing. Nature doesn't always need to have a purpose, and sometimes, it's good just to let nature take its course. Without getting too Lion King-esq, I would say that its the circle of life. Some things die, and others are reborn. And it's magical. Nature need not serve us. But we must conserve her.
-
Niall,
My definition has nothing to do with grazing but has all to do with whether the land has been turned in to arable, farming land via plough.
Dumbarnie, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart were all the latter.
Ally
My definition of links also has nothing to do with grazing either but the point I'm making is that links courses such as North Berwick, Troon, Carnoustie, Muirfield (the clue is in the name) and Turnberry were all basically fields for grazing. Dumbarnie too back in the day. And being fields there is a good chance that at some point they were tilled to try and produce a better grass crop for grazing.
So what makes them links isn't to do with how they are used and what the vegetation is on top, although the vegetation will obviously depend on the nature of the land, but is more to do with the nature of the soil and how they were formed.
My guess is that going forward there will be more Mach Dunes and Dumbarnies and what's more given that there is a move towards more "wilding" of farmland that you'd imagine if golf can prove it's environmental/ecological benefits in terms of bio-diversity then you'd imagine developers would be pushing at an open door.
Niall
Ok point taken that some of our old links were used for different purposes before golf was played on them. But the difference is that undulations did not have to be changed in order to then play golf on them. Grazing was not plough in most cases. Mach Dunes is of this type - undulations created by nature. Therefore in golf terms, what I would classify virgin links land.
Kingsbarns and Dumbarnie were of a different type. Any semblance of links land was long time lost.
-
Not sure if this was addressed earlier in the thread...
Was there any consideration/due diligence on the type of projects Mike K has done in the past? Seems like his past efforts have been thoughtful in getting something natural in the space, minimalizing the disturbance and structures, and overall being tasteful. Or was it a case of pigeonholing him as another bloody yank type deal?
-
Usually the higher up the chain of command or democratic political structure an issue is passed for resolution the more likely the decision is likely to be ‘no’ or fudged and then probably only after a long period of procrastination.
Atb
-
Lou,
I’m not so sure the home of golf really needed this development on a macro level though? Surely what defines (or defined) the home of golf was simple, affordable golf for all at a local club. Scotland was perhaps the only country where golf was as much a game for the working class everyman as it was for the middle classes and gentry. Coul Links had nothing to do with why “the home of golf” was named the home of golf... it would have been great to see though. I for one was interested to see what C&C would do with a virgin links site.
Am I the only who is bothered when some people think that they are qualified to deem others' "needs"? I might understand this line of thinking if Coul Links was to be built of public land and the principals were seeking government incentives. CL was to be on private property, a site which is degraded in many respects and declining due to neglect and the passage of time. The funds for the project were coming from outside the area (American money does spend in Scotland, not?), normally a good thing given that investment capital is tight locally.
As to what makes Scotland the home of golf, it is much more than the £180 green fee at TOC or the £200+ annual dues at Golspie and Brora. The game remains largely affordable for the locals, but what really feeds the kitty are the many thousands of visitor rounds at the much higher rates. For me, when I think of Scotland as the home of golf, it is a combination of many things: history, tradition, wide variety of courses, the uniqueness of the links, the people, how the game is played, even enduring the ever-changing weather.
We do seem to suffer on this site from poor memory or an inclination to rewrite history. Trump Balmedie had wide local support but was turned down by a local government entity on the strength and activism of Martin Ford, the chairman of the relevant committee who cast the tie-breaking vote against the project. The feds had every right to review the decision, and, in my opinion acted responsibly.
Jon W is incorrect in his assessment that the CL decision was consistent as the feds this time rejected strong local support including the government's. In effect, in CL, the feds overruled local preferences wheres in Balmedie it prevented a small group of local government officials (8 to 7) from disenfranchising its constituents to the detriment not only of the local economy, but of the nation as well.
No doubt in my mind that the CL decision was influenced by the political fallout played out in the media over the Trump course. Ian is on point on his comments. The aging population in Dornoch will bear the consequences of political cowardice. B & B owners who are seeking to sell and retire more peacefully will either have to hold on to their properties or incur a large discount. Young people who might wish to remain in the village will have fewer opportunities. As the diaspora to larger cities continues here like in many parts of Spain, much of the vitality will go with it. A community of services-intensive retirees with a marked propensity toward thrift does not suggest a bright future.
Last but not least, that some of us think it is desirable for government to disallow the use of someone's property without compensation for the sake of doing nothing/let nature take its toll is discouraging. How much of a leap is there for the same government to say to doctors: "you must provide x number of hours each month without pay to the local clinic as a means to retain your license"? To golf operators: "you must provide x rounds free to 'needy' golfers". To local home owners: "you must provide your spare room rent free to a 'needy' tenant". Your straight A son or daughter: "you must give 15 points on your test score to a kid with a D or C average".
Me, I hope that the CL property owners import a very large herd of goats to the site. Whatever little "scientific interest" exits there would be enhanced as a result. ::)
And while on the topic of shooting oneself in the foot, how about the Highland Council withdrawing the consultation on the proposed RDGC clubhouse over a public complaint on the use of the term "fair market rent"? Does Pogo's "we have met the enemy and he is us" apply? ???
-
Lou,
I guess my only point - confirmed somewhat by your lost post - is that what makes Scotland known as “The Home of Golf” is defined slightly differently by you than it is by me.
Coul Links would have strengthened your position whilst detracting from mine.
That’s not to say that I didn’t want it to happen.
-
Lou,
I am afraid your assertions in paragraph 4 are so far off the mark it is well..... The overwhelming majority of the population in the area of Balmedie(as well as the rest of Scotland) was against this project. And where is the benefit to the local and national economy?
Jon
-
Jon,
Back when Balmedie was being debated, I dined every night for a week on a ship with two ladies from Aberdeenshire, both former bowlers on the national team, one an avid golfer. The golfer, with a son working in the oil business, was strongly for the development, the other not so much, but both thought it was important for the area as the North Sea oil depletion was already costing jobs. They noted widespread local support and there is at least one very long thread on this site referencing articles and polls confirming this opinion.
BTW, I think Trump Balmedie is a great links and an outstanding walk. The folks there were outstanding. I even had a nice conversation with a local octogenarian who walked the site regularly long before the course was built. He said he hadn't played golf in years, but enjoyed his afternoon tea and biscuits in the clubhouse. He also said that most of the hoopla was bull and that the site has been greatly improved as a result of the course being built. I look forward to maybe returning this summer.
-
We do seem to suffer on this site from poor memory or an inclination to rewrite history. Trump Balmedie had wide local support but was turned down by a local government entity on the strength and activism of Martin Ford, the chairman of the relevant committee who cast the tie-breaking vote against the project. The feds had every right to review the decision, and, in my opinion acted responsibly.
The above is a very harsh indictment of a freely elected Council, part of whose function is to act as the Local Planning Authority. That is grass roots democracy at its core and all was above board. Polls? Can you cite the polls, the methods and their accuracy? You aren't often a take it face value sort of chap. I have zero faith in so called local polls and you should as well. The mistake in this case was for the government to over-ride local government, especially when it was a possibility that certain politcians were in cahoots with Trump. The result may be a great course, but miles short of what was promised in exchange for the sacrifice of a very unusual bit of land. Honestly, if the region is depending on the mostly small wage and small number of jobs resulting from the Trump deal than the shit has already hit the fan. Golf is a wonderful game, but it isn't the employment saviour of Scotland.
As for Coul Links, again, I think the decision should have been left in the hands of local government. Although, imo the site in question isn't nearly as important as Balmeadie.
Ciao
-
Was there any consideration/due diligence on the type of projects Mike K has done in the past? Seems like his past efforts have been thoughtful in getting something natural in the space, minimalizing the disturbance and structures, and overall being tasteful. Or was it a case of pigeonholing him as another bloody yank type deal?
That's a good question. Mikes partner in this deal was Todd Warnock and he did all the heavy lifting. I believe he tried to differentiate Keiser from Trump and early on they made some concessions and they always tried to be good neighbors.
I'm sure Mike is disappointed but he's probably more disappointed for Todd and Bill Coore who really wanted this project.
-
Not harsh at all Sean. Though I tend to believe that most political decisions should be made at the level closest to the matter, there is little reason to think that the local politicians are better angels than those at state and federal levels. I do have a pretty good memory about these things and unless Ran has killed the long thread, the information is there for someone with better search skills than mine to pull out. What you state about polls has merit. However, tied together with other information and common sense, and guarding against selective perception and confirmation bias, polls can be useful.
I suppose that the best poll was the 7-7 stalemate at the local authority broken by its chair, a highly partisan Green Party politician. We had this battle before, as I recall. I think it is necessary to have an appeal process, especially when the issue is so divisive on a political level. This was not the case with Coul Links and I think that the feds, in light of all the media crap they got on Trump, made what we know in sports as a make-up call.
As to what was sacrificed at Balmedie, we could not disagree more. Like Coul Links, the site had been degraded through years of misuse and as hunting grounds. The superintendent noted the thousands of shotgun shells laying around and areas torn up ostensibly by other recreational uses, vehicular as I recall.
I do have a question for you, if it is so imperative that the dunes be allowed to be moved by the wind, a central issue at Balmedie if memory serves, how do we rationalize the herculean efforts to stabilize the shoreline from erosion by similar forces of nature? I gaze at those "destroyed" dunes framing Trump's fairways and see glorious beauty. Not so much looking south where the second course will be built.
-
Hyperbole now, Lou,
Those glorious dunes where the second Trump course will be built are a fantastic mix of blow-outs, dune slacks and different dune species.
They are a playground for kids and bathers alike. I’d hate to see them turned in to a golf course.
Kalen, Joel: I can be disappointed for Todd Warnock who obviously had his heart set on this. But it’s a stretch to be too disappointed for either Mike Keiser or Bill Coore, both of whom have developed plenty of golf courses on much of the greatest land on earth.
-
Lou,
Your concerns for the economy of Dornoch seem unfounded. I can't be too disappointed for the London property developer whose investment in the hotel now looks like a mistake. But those bed and breakfasts do great business off the back of the existing supply of golf in the area an will continue to do so.. maybe there'll be fewer super rich American golf tourists than might have been seen but I wonder if even that is true. RDGC has done well as a golf tourist magnet for the last 20 years, I see no reason to believe it no longer will.
FWIW, I can't recall a single Fife resident talking about the economic impact on the area of Dumbarnie.
An conversations with a couple of wealthy Aberdonian women on a boat is not a representative opinion poll. We are all guilty of believing personal anecdotes to be more important reflections of reality than they are.
-
Lou,
my experience from talking to many people whilst in the area around Aberdeen and those I met from the area elsewhere in Scotland was the vast majority did not want this development at Balmedie. If I were making a judgement as to the popularity of the project I would want to base it on a broader poll than a couple of ladies on a cruise. What is also of note is that the man who was most against the project was voted Scot of the year by his fellow countryfolk.
In Scotland it is not all about the money.
Mark,
I think the hope with Coul Links was it would encourage more people to stay in Dornoch and the area around it rather than in Inverness and doing the day trip. At the moment apart from at the club not too much spend occurs in the area.Jon
-
Here is something else to consider:
If Coul links had been built and sucessfull it would only have taken away traffic and revenue from other areas.
Only so much in the pot and as another thread say's Scotland is sinking fast. It might be the multitude of not so good courses going under but it would raise the bar.
Scotland does not really need any new golf courses.
-
Not harsh at all Sean. Though I tend to believe that most political decisions should be made at the level closest to the matter, there is little reason to think that the local politicians are better angels than those at state and federal levels. I do have a pretty good memory about these things and unless Ran has killed the long thread, the information is there for someone with better search skills than mine to pull out. What you state about polls has merit. However, tied together with other information and common sense, and guarding against selective perception and confirmation bias, polls can be useful.
I suppose that the best poll was the 7-7 stalemate at the local authority broken by its chair, a highly partisan Green Party politician. We had this battle before, as I recall. I think it is necessary to have an appeal process, especially when the issue is so divisive on a political level. This was not the case with Coul Links and I think that the feds, in light of all the media crap they got on Trump, made what we know in sports as a make-up call.
As to what was sacrificed at Balmedie, we could not disagree more. Like Coul Links, the site had been degraded through years of misuse and as hunting grounds. The superintendent noted the thousands of shotgun shells laying around and areas torn up ostensibly by other recreational uses, vehicular as I recall.
I do have a question for you, if it is so imperative that the dunes be allowed to be moved by the wind, a central issue at Balmedie if memory serves, how do we rationalize the herculean efforts to stabilize the shoreline from erosion by similar forces of nature? I gaze at those "destroyed" dunes framing Trump's fairways and see glorious beauty. Not so much looking south where the second course will be built.
Sweet Lou
Polls for local issues in the case of Trump is really about pr for his cause . Trump is not to be trusted with any such type of info because he make up the results anyway. Polls in these sorts of situations are a joke. Hell, they are often not great when run by big firms for national issues.
We can agree to disagree about the value of Balmedie as a piece of land.
I disagree with party politics at local level, but that's life. That said, there was a presumption against development for the Balmedie property. If anything, the Chair was voting for what was enacted by special protection of the land. His vote made complete sense in terms of planning regulations and the development plan which certainly didn't call for housing in such an innapropriate location. In retrospect, the Chair was imo absolutely correct because the economic case for devopment hasn't been half of what was promised. But then a local economist made that case at the time. Plus, it is traditional for a casting vote to be on the side of status quo. I know the Chairmen I have dealt with have always voted this way. Essentially the belief is the case has not been made for change if its a tie.
BTW... I think Martin Ford was a Lib Dem. Hate the Green Peace Party much?
Ciao
-
I think the hope with Coul Links was it would encourage more people to stay in Dornoch and the area around it rather than in Inverness and doing the day trip. At the moment apart from at the club not too much spend occurs in the area.Jon
Could not this be accomplished by the upgrading of the Struie course? Robin Hiseman appears to have had ambitious plans for the Struie which never came to full fruition.
https://www.top100golfcourses.com/golf-course/royal-dornoch-struie (https://www.top100golfcourses.com/golf-course/royal-dornoch-struie)
-
I think the hope with Coul Links was it would encourage more people to stay in Dornoch and the area around it rather than in Inverness and doing the day trip. At the moment apart from at the club not too much spend occurs in the area.Jon
Could not this be accomplished by the upgrading of the Struie course? Robin Hiseman appears to have had ambitious plans for the Struie which never came to full fruition.
https://www.top100golfcourses.com/golf-course/royal-dornoch-struie (https://www.top100golfcourses.com/golf-course/royal-dornoch-struie)
Given they've got the ££££ for a new Clubhouse you'd think they could find a way to also spend some £££ on upgrading the Struie. One location with two courses - the current Championship and an upgraded Struie - ought to mean not just more greenfee money but also more folks staying overnight nearby to play both courses.
atb
-
I agree totally Duncan but somehow this seems not to be such a priority. I would also doubt that it would have the same pull factor that Coul Links would have had.
-
Lou,
The summary of the ruling indicates that they did consider the economic benefits but decided against the project anyway.
"Overall Summary of Findings
26. In terms of sustainable development, the reporters conclude that the proposal is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy’s (SPP) strong support for economic growth, rural development, growing communities and tourism, a key growth sector in the Scottish economy. However, because of the potential significant adverse effects on protected habitats and species at Coul Links, the reporters consider that the proposed development runs contrary to SPP’s emphasis on protecting natural heritage sites and world-class environmental assets. Therefore the reporters do not consider that it would contribute to sustainable development. Overall the reporters consider that the proposed development is contrary to the development plan, as the likely detriment to natural heritage is not outweighed by the socio-economic benefits of the proposal. Scottish Ministers agree with these findings.
27. Para 212 of SPP sets out that development that affects a SSSI should only be permitted where the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; or where any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporters findings that the local and regional socio-economic benefits of the development do not justify the adverse effects on the qualities of designation of the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar."
Just a reminder that Trump has created relatively few jobs at Balmedie - 77 staff, 41 in food, beverage and accommodation,10 in golf operations, 15 in grounds, and 11 in administration. No hotel and no housing so far. Coul would likely have been less in the way of socio-economic benefits than Trump Balmedie.
As to whether there would have been economic benefit in the Dornoch area, that may well have been true. But, would that have been at the expense of other areas of Scotland. Or, did you think that Coul would have generated net new golf tourism to Scotland on its own accord.
If you had seen Balmedie from before the course, you would know that it is an entirely different ecological site. I don't recall Coul looking anything like this when you and I looked over the fence a couple of years ago. And this is a view of one of the smaller moving dunes at Balmedie.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2892/10568145516_b15bb599cb_c.jpg)
-
I agree totally Duncan but somehow this seems not to be such a priority. I would also doubt that it would have the same pull factor that Coul Links would have had.
What was the view of Royal Dornoch to the prospect of the new course on their doorstep?
If they saw it as an opportunity why not develop the Struie themselves to fulfil the same purpose?
If they saw it as competition and are secretly pleased to see it fail that’s another story altogether.
-
I agree totally Duncan but somehow this seems not to be such a priority. I would also doubt that it would have the same pull factor that Coul Links would have had.
What was the view of Royal Dornoch to the prospect of the new course on their doorstep?
If they saw it as an opportunity why not develop the Struie themselves to fulfil the same purpose?
If they saw it as competition and are secretly pleased to see it fail that’s another story altogether.
I'd be surprised if RDGC took an official position on the matter not that their opinion matters.
Dornoch is in the curious position of being a local club and an international destination club. It must be difficult to balance the two.
Ciao
-
Sean
IIRC the "club" were supportive although whether the GM and Club Captain had a remit to speak for the membership of the club, I do not know.
Niall
-
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that a new course in the area would necessarily default to taking away from money spent elsewhere.
Its quite possible there are some groups who skip the area due to just having the one course, and would then consider traveling there with an overnight stay and do so in additive fashion.
Its also plausible some would forgo rounds in a place like St. Andrews due to over-crowding/inability to get a tee time, and now choose to spend more time in a remote area like this...actually playing golf.
-
Here is something else to consider:
If Coul links had been built and sucessfull it would only have taken away traffic and revenue from other areas.
Only so much in the pot and as another thread say's Scotland is sinking fast. It might be the multitude of not so good courses going under but it would raise the bar.
Scotland does not really need any new golf courses.
These are just assumptions and we all know what "ASSuME" means...;-)
Questions:
1. When Sand Valley opened did it takeaway golf revenue from Kohler or Erin Hills in Wisconsin or did it make Wisconsin a more compelling golf destination over Michigan or northern Minnesota or Pinehurst - all which have seen millions invested recently?
2. Would Coul have taken golf revenue away from other "hub locations" (Ayrshire, etc.)? Yes, perhaps, that was also the goal. Other areas or "hubs" have seen multi-million $$ in outside investment in the last 10 years. Dornoch was losing hotel revenue YOY and the developers sought to reverse that.
What's wrong with playing a bit of offense in a competitive market?
The situation was simple: Perry Golf vans (as an example) ferried the tourist players up to Dornoch from Inverness (or wherever). They let them off in front of the pro shop and met them 5 hours later with box lunches or meals prepared elsewhere.
So, these 12 golfers spent a bit of money at RDGC, but ZERO in the town.
No restaurants, no hotels...squat. RDGC driving revenue for themselves, but not for the town. With Coul, the idea was also simple:
- perhaps these golfers would stay 1-2 nights. Eat dinner at local restaurants, stay in local hotels, buy souvenirs in the shops as they played another round at RDGC, one or two at Coul and one at Brora, Tain, Golspie or Skibo (gulp$).
- RDGC does around 12,000 visitor rounds per year last i checked. Great for the club, not as great for the town. If those vistors stayed in the area to play more, then the economic benefit would flow through.
Keiser has a well published track record of making his courses global destinations.
-
IF COULS brought more people to Scotland then I would agree it is good.
The Golf tourist market in Scotland is primarily driven to a few destination areas. The Dornoch area is certainly not in the top 2 and probably just outside fifth.
The Americans come to Fife, East Lothians, Ayrshire on their first three goes.
The amount that may go very North is much slimmer and they tend to want old not new.
Overall I don't see new business. Anything generated would be theft from another zone.
With the current situation in the UK of over-supply I am more tended to agree with the planning decision on economic grounds.
Just my opinion....
-
"The amount that may go very North is much slimmer and they tend to want old not new."
Adrian -
I do not agree with your statement. There is no doubt (in my mind at least ;) ) the creation of Castle Stuart has helped increase golf tourism in the Highlands significantly. I expect the manager of the Kingsmills Hotel in Inverness would corroborate that.
As far as old vs. new, the success of Kingsbarns answers that question pretty definitively.
DT
-
I am not saying no one plays new courses.
My main point is MORE Scottish golf business wont be generated.
The main draws are still the big ones. If Couls drew golf business it would be stealing it from another area. I don;t see an American really coming to Scotland because of Couls.
Would Couls have been good for the very North? yes
-
US links seekers have many choices in addition to Scotland. It's a fallacy to think that the proposed development would merely have poached from other destinations in Scotland.
-
US links seekers have many choices in addition to Scotland. It's a fallacy to think that the proposed development would merely have poached from other destinations in Scotland.
I disagree. Its fairly common that golfers come to the UK or anywhere else for any other leisure purpose have a set number of days they are willing to stay. Sure, some are persuaded to stay longer than the initial plan. But it's a bit of dream to think most golfers are adding days to play a course rather than making hard choices to fit the alloted days. Hence the reason you get psycho trips with guys spending half their time behind a windshield.
Ciao
-
Sean -
I didn't explain my point well. I don't think groups start with, "where do we go in Scotland?," especially if they've been there before. The Highlands are competing for that group with Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Devon, Cornwall, etc. I think the proposed development would have made it more likely that tourists stayed in Dornoch, or stayed longer in Inverness, and made it more attractive for a group that is looking to drop anchor and avoid the psycho road trips. Whether that increase would be for good or ill, and whether the environmental cost is acceptable, is for the citizens to decide, not me. But I think it's a fallacy to think the hypothetical "lost dollars/pounds" stay in Scotland.
-
More grist for the mill:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2037685/councillor-challenges-opponents-to-coul-links-to-provide-an-economic-alternative/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2037685/councillor-challenges-opponents-to-coul-links-to-provide-an-economic-alternative/)
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/coul-links-golf-course-developers-stunned-by-planning-refusal-and-say-decision-was-politically-motivated-192397/ (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/coul-links-golf-course-developers-stunned-by-planning-refusal-and-say-decision-was-politically-motivated-192397/)
-
Bernie is making a valid point here as I am in the middle of figuring out of what to do this summer. Bandon is in play for Americans looking for a links experience, most consumers of golf don’t really care about our definition here of true links golf – they just want the experience. I am in the middle of the US and it is just as easy to fly into SNA with US customs vs. getting to Bandon. Cabot is now in play for Nova Scotia to escape the summer heat. Throw in Coul Links and Inverness is easy threw Schiphol and to me preferable to the hoards in the summer in East Lothian and St. Andrews.
IMHO – Coul would have enhanced the pull of Scotland. Either way, life goes on.
-
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that a new course in the area would necessarily default to taking away from money spent elsewhere.
Its quite possible there are some groups who skip the area due to just having the one course, and would then consider traveling there with an overnight stay and do so in additive fashion.
Its also plausible some would forgo rounds in a place like St. Andrews due to over-crowding/inability to get a tee time, and now choose to spend more time in a remote area like this...actually playing golf.
My group had planned on a 5 day stay at Dornoch based on the new course at CL. Those plans have gone. The decision will cost the area.
The most painful part about this decision is that the site will not be left natural. It will be degraded further. I would have valued the decision better if it provided funds to convert this into a Natural Park and buy it back from its owners. Politicians...
-
IF COULS brought more people to Scotland then I would agree it is good.
The Golf tourist market in Scotland is primarily driven to a few destination areas. The Dornoch area is certainly not in the top 2 and probably just outside fifth.
The Americans come to Fife, East Lothians, Ayrshire on their first three goes.
The amount that may go very North is much slimmer and they tend to want old not new.
Overall I don't see new business. Anything generated would be theft from another zone.
With the current situation in the UK of over-supply I am more tended to agree with the planning decision on economic grounds.
Just my opinion....
If you think SCO does not complete with other countries, you are wrong. I am talking just one group, but this decision just changed our planning in favor of a different country. And yes, we have a 2021, 2023, 2025 plan in place. 2023 just changed.
-
Here's a suggestion for the Councillor, why not extend the caravan park and develop chalets and family accommodation at affordable rates. That way, rather than hit and run golfers rushing round the country to play Open rota type courses, you will get families and groups spending time in the community and spending money in shops, cafes, pubs etc. The beauty of this cunning plan is you don't need to bulldoze a SSSI/RAMSAR site to achieve that. But then I suspect the local Councillor is doing exactly what he's accusing the government of doing, and that is playing politics.
Niall
-
The most painful part about this decision is that the site will not be left natural. It will be degraded further. I would have valued the decision better if it provided funds to convert this into a Natural Park and buy it back from its owners. Politicians...
Marcos
How on earth can building an 18 hole golf course be less "degrading" of nature than leaving it to it's own devices ? ???
Niall
-
Marcos
Another question - you weren't tempted by Dumbarnie ?
Niall
-
Here's a suggestion for the Councillor, why not extend the caravan park and develop chalets and family accommodation at affordable rates. That way, rather than hit and run golfers rushing round the country to play Open rota type courses, you will get families and groups spending time in the community and spending money in shops, cafes, pubs etc. The beauty of this cunning plan is you don't need to bulldoze a SSSI/RAMSAR site to achieve that. But then I suspect the local Councillor is doing exactly what he's accusing the government of doing, and that is playing politics.
Niall
Niall,
The same reasoning can be used here as well. Building more caravan parks and chalets will just take away from other areas and won't add anything net new...
-
The most painful part about this decision is that the site will not be left natural. It will be degraded further. I would have valued the decision better if it provided funds to convert this into a Natural Park and buy it back from its owners. Politicians...
Marcos
How on earth can building an 18 hole golf course be less "degrading" of nature than leaving it to it's own devices ? ???
Niall
Cows. Hunting. ATV´s. Thousands of examples around the world.
-
If the caravan plan were all that cunning, someone would have committed their own capital to it already, perhaps to capture larger numbers of the touring lepidopterists. I read the Green fellow's message to the locals as simpler: "Learn to code."
-
Here's a suggestion for the Councillor, why not extend the caravan park and develop chalets and family accommodation at affordable rates. That way, rather than hit and run golfers rushing round the country to play Open rota type courses, you will get families and groups spending time in the community and spending money in shops, cafes, pubs etc. The beauty of this cunning plan is you don't need to bulldoze a SSSI/RAMSAR site to achieve that. But then I suspect the local Councillor is doing exactly what he's accusing the government of doing, and that is playing politics.
Niall
Are not many of these Caravan Parks on dunesland/coast as well? Do these get approved easier than a golf course?
-
Did some quick googling...
Number of golf courses in Scotland? ~550
Number of Caravan parks/camps in Scotland? 627
Yes, that's exactly what Scotland needs is more caravan and camp sites...that'll bring em in! ::) ::)
-
Can you have a truly top shelf links without a caravan park? I assume the developers included it in the plans.
-
"Can you have a truly top shelf links without a caravan park? I assume the developers included it in the plans."
Bernie B. -
There is already a large caravan park in Embo. ;)
DT
-
IF COULS brought more people to Scotland then I would agree it is good.
The Golf tourist market in Scotland is primarily driven to a few destination areas. The Dornoch area is certainly not in the top 2 and probably just outside fifth.
The Americans come to Fife, East Lothians, Ayrshire on their first three goes.
The amount that may go very North is much slimmer and they tend to want old not new.
Overall I don't see new business. Anything generated would be theft from another zone.
With the current situation in the UK of over-supply I am more tended to agree with the planning decision on economic grounds.
Just my opinion....
If you think SCO does not complete with other countries, you are wrong. I am talking just one group, but this decision just changed our planning in favor of a different country. And yes, we have a 2021, 2023, 2025 plan in place. 2023 just changed.
So you cancel your plans in favour of golfing in Scotland because there will be no Couls golf course really so you will miss Dornoch, Brora, Cruden, Boat, Castle Stuart, plus a host of other good courses there won't be much of a following on that one.
-
Adrian,
For those on a somewhat tight schedule Dornoch to....
Cruden Bay - 3.25 hours away
Boat of Garten - 1.5 hours away
Castle Stuart - 1 hour away
And double that for the full round trip time cost, pretty big schedule hit for one course....
-
Dornoch 5 minutes away
Golspie 10 minutes away
Tain 10 minutes away
Brora 20 minutes away
Fortrose & Rosemarkie 45 minutes away
Niall,
to answer your question on how a development can improve the area I suggest you read the history of the Fleetwood SSSI and the proposed development. That will answer you query.
Jon
-
I am undecided on this. But what bugs me is that Trump got his way and spoiled it for all others. It's a horrible precedent to set, because future developers are now discouraged to play fair.
Ulrich
-
Dornoch 5 minutes away
Golspie 10 minutes away
Tain 10 minutes away
Brora 20 minutes away
Fortrose & Rosemarkie 45 minutes away
...
Tarbat 20 minutes away. 😊
-
I am undecided on this. But what bugs me is that Trump got his way and spoiled it for all others. It's a horrible precedent to set, because future developers are now discouraged to play fair.
Ulrich
Yet another anecdote to again confirm that “Everything Trump Touches Dies”... ;D
It would not at all surprise me if, given his investment at Turnberry and Aberdeen, Trump greased some officials along the way. Trump sees a Keiser as a competitor and knows his courses are ranked higher than his. That pisses him off and he may not have wanted to see one built in Scotland to leap over his.
So, he may have had a hand in it.
I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENED....
Just sayin it wouldn’t surprise me.
-
Makes perfect sense when you think about it. Not deranged at all. Trump organization very tight with the Green Party. Send a note to Adam Schiff. Should be looked into.
-
And now the Scottish Greens are claiming that Trump may have financed his Scottish and Irish golf resorts through money laundering ;D It will be interesting to see if the Scottish Government decide to investigate this claim.
-
I don't know what I don't know about Scottish politics or the Coul permission process, but if I form a hypothesis (and it is just a guess) that there is some parliamentary reason the SNP are forced to tolerate and even mollify these fringe elements, the Coul "calling in" and reversal process makes more sense to me.
-
I don't know what I don't know about Scottish politics or the Coul permission process, but if I form a hypothesis (and it is just a guess) that there is some parliamentary reason the SNP are forced to tolerate and even mollify these fringe elements, the Coul "calling in" and reversal process makes more sense to me.
Bernie,
the SNP are a minority government who are beholden to the Green Party to get most things passed. As such they are more than happy to do the Greens bidding in matters which they have no real interest in. As for this investigation into Trump I doubt the SNP will want it to progress anywhere for fear of what it might reveal.
Jon
-
Did some quick googling...
Number of golf courses in Scotland? ~550
Number of Caravan parks/camps in Scotland? 627
Yes, that's exactly what Scotland needs is more caravan and camp sites...that'll bring em in! ::) ::)
Kalen
Not surprisingly, given the demographics of this discussion group, there is a tendency to look at things through the prism of the overseas/US golfer when by far the biggest percentage of visitor golfers are UK based. As a generalisation, US golfers spend a lot more per head on their trip than UK golfers which is not surprising given the cost/effort in getting here. I also suspect a high percentage of US visitors maybe visit only once or twice. Is it any wonder therefore that they try to fit in as much as possible, touring around playing all the top/best courses. That means their visit to a specific area tends to be fleeting.
It's not hard to imagine that a high percentage of customers for Embo would have been overseas players and therefore wouldn't have been hanging around too much. Given the prime justification for this development was the economic benefit to the area (and not just to the developers) then that benefit is limited.
The benefit of caravans/chalet accommodation is that it is affordable and encourages longer stays in the area and therefore more money spent in shops, restaurants, cafes etc. as well as (affordable) golf clubs. The increase of villa/house lets on AirBnB in recent years shows the demand. And the real beauty is that they don't "need" to be built on environmentally sensitive sites.
Niall
-
Here's a suggestion for the Councillor, why not extend the caravan park and develop chalets and family accommodation at affordable rates. That way, rather than hit and run golfers rushing round the country to play Open rota type courses, you will get families and groups spending time in the community and spending money in shops, cafes, pubs etc. The beauty of this cunning plan is you don't need to bulldoze a SSSI/RAMSAR site to achieve that. But then I suspect the local Councillor is doing exactly what he's accusing the government of doing, and that is playing politics.
Niall
Are not many of these Caravan Parks on dunesland/coast as well? Do these get approved easier than a golf course?
Marcos
A lot of caravan sites are on the coast and a number of them are on links land. Most of them I'd suggest are fairly historical and probably developed on farm/links land. It's maybe a mute point as to whether they would get planning consent today for those specific sites although for a I suspect they would for probably most if not all.
The point being that I doubt the sites were that environmentally sensitive. The proposed development at Embo was knocked back, not because of the proposed use, but because of the environmental sensitivity of the site.
Niall
-
NIall,
I was only trying to ask the question, that if Scotland has enough golf courses, does it also mean they have enough caravan parks?Although I don't know if they are in high demand or sit half empty most of the time.
P.S. Seems like they are a UK thing, as the US and Canada, covering a far larger swath of area only have 500 total KOA sites...
-
Kalen,
in order for a course to be considered to be a 'true' links it must have a caravan park bordering it. This is what makes this decision all the more bizarre and unexpected after the developer went to such trouble to ensure using an existing caravan park rather than imposing a new one on to the foreshore.
It is why Balmedie or Ardfin will never be considered as proper links experiences. In fact it is probably the biggest factor preventing Bandon from offering a true links experience. You just can't properly appreciate links golf if you don't appreciate a good caravan park.
Jon
-
NIall,
I was only trying to ask the question, that if Scotland has enough golf courses, does it also mean they have enough caravan parks?Although I don't know if they are in high demand or sit half empty most of the time.
P.S. Seems like they are a UK thing, as the US and Canada, covering a far larger swath of area only have 500 total KOA sites...
I think that number is a bit misleading, as KOA parks are a pretty limited subset of places people "vacation" in housing that is either mobile or semi-mobile.
I've been to a number of the caravan parks that are in the area of links golf courses because they are just about the only place in Scotland where you can reliably find coin-operated laundry facilities. FWIW, all of the ones I've been in are filled to capacity during the busy season. I've also asked about renting one of these places for a golf trip and found that B&B lodging was a much better deal for us.
In addition, my wife and I live full-time in a 40-foot motor home, so I have been to more than a handful of KOA parks, and other similar parks that aren't affiliated with KOA and I can tell you without reservation that Scottish caravan parks do not resemble a KOA.
What they do resemble is the place in Mesa, AZ, where my wife and I are parked right now. It's an Arizona RV resort that has most sites occupied by what we call "park models." They arrive on wheels, but they are installed like the mobile homes in a typical mobile home park. Likewise, the majority of caravan parks I've visited are full of more-or-less permanently installed lodging that is more like a mobile home than a caravan (what we call RVs).
For what it's worth, the "resort" I am in has 1,700 spaces, and within 2-3 miles there are roughly a dozen similar parks ranging in size from 200 sites to 2,000 sites. The city of Mesa has almost 40 such parks.
So the question you asked about whether Scotland has enough caravan parks is difficult to answer.
-
To be clear I'm not suggesting a caravan park or such like on Embo. That land should be left well alone but what I was responding to was the Councillors request for alternative ideas to a golf course development that would be economically beneficial.
Ken/Kalen,
No idea what a KOA park is but in Scotland/UK caravan parks tend to be split between sites for touring caravans and motor homes and sites for static caravans which was more what I was referring to. The static caravans tend to be owned and site leased but there has also been a move towards more being available to rent and I see things going that way more in the future.
Niall
-
Strong words.
http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/local/20200302_fsga/hopkins_col.html?utm_source=florida&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dm-030220 (http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/local/20200302_fsga/hopkins_col.html?utm_source=florida&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dm-030220)
-
Caravans in the north of Scotland! Hardy folk indeed. Reminds me of the Billy Connolly gag about Scotland having only two seasons .... July and winter. Thank God for the effects of the gulf stream.
Atb
-
Caravans in the north of Scotland! Hardy folk indeed. Reminds me of the Billy Connolly gag about Scotland having only two seasons .... July and winter. Thank God for the effects of the gulf stream.
Atb
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gulf-stream-slowing-down-is-bad-news-for-ireland-1.3476747
Soon July and Winter may be more true than you wish.
-
IF COULS brought more people to Scotland then I would agree it is good.
The Golf tourist market in Scotland is primarily driven to a few destination areas. The Dornoch area is certainly not in the top 2 and probably just outside fifth.
The Americans come to Fife, East Lothians, Ayrshire on their first three goes.
The amount that may go very North is much slimmer and they tend to want old not new.
Overall I don't see new business. Anything generated would be theft from another zone.
With the current situation in the UK of over-supply I am more tended to agree with the planning decision on economic grounds.
Just my opinion....
If you think SCO does not complete with other countries, you are wrong. I am talking just one group, but this decision just changed our planning in favor of a different country. And yes, we have a 2021, 2023, 2025 plan in place. 2023 just changed.
So you cancel your plans in favour of golfing in Scotland because there will be no Couls golf course really so you will miss Dornoch, Brora, Cruden, Boat, Castle Stuart, plus a host of other good courses there won't be much of a following on that one.
Played them all. Excellent courses. Will go back some day. Priority will be given to courses outside Scotland we have not played.
-
Here's a suggestion for the Councillor, why not extend the caravan park and develop chalets and family accommodation at affordable rates. That way, rather than hit and run golfers rushing round the country to play Open rota type courses, you will get families and groups spending time in the community and spending money in shops, cafes, pubs etc. The beauty of this cunning plan is you don't need to bulldoze a SSSI/RAMSAR site to achieve that. But then I suspect the local Councillor is doing exactly what he's accusing the government of doing, and that is playing politics.
Niall
Are not many of these Caravan Parks on dunesland/coast as well? Do these get approved easier than a golf course?
Marcos
A lot of caravan sites are on the coast and a number of them are on links land. Most of them I'd suggest are fairly historical and probably developed on farm/links land. It's maybe a mute point as to whether they would get planning consent today for those specific sites although for a I suspect they would for probably most if not all.
The point being that I doubt the sites were that environmentally sensitive. The proposed development at Embo was knocked back, not because of the proposed use, but because of the environmental sensitivity of the site.
Niall
Niall, I dont have specific proof for Scotland, but I am pretty sure many sit on sites that are as environmentally sensitive as Coul Links. But because the proposed use is caravan parks or low cost housing, then nobody sets out to find the environmental sensitivity.
The government does not, housing is votes. The greens do not, low cost housing is also close to their hearts. So the area is not sensitive because there is no grass roots effort to look for the sensitivity.
I have no doubt as well that several courses would get permission denied to extend a couple of holes into the areas where caravan parks exist, if these did not exist.
I am also pretty sure that had Mike Keiser never proposed building on this area, cattle would have continued to destroy it in a more severe manner than the golf course, without any green party/politician saying much.
-
in order for a course to be considered to be a 'true' links it must have a caravan park bordering it. This is what makes this decision all the more bizarre and unexpected after the developer went to such trouble to ensure using an existing caravan park rather than imposing a new one on to the foreshore.
It is why Balmedie or Ardfin will never be considered as proper links experiences. In fact it is probably the biggest factor preventing Bandon from offering a true links experience. You just can't properly appreciate links golf if you don't appreciate a good caravan park.
There actually IS a place at Bandon Dunes designated for RV [Recreational Vehicle = caravan] parking and use. It was suggested as part of the master plan by Howard McKee, because so many people travel up and down the Pacific Coast Highway in RV's. However, it is located back by the maintenance facility for Bandon and Pacific Dunes, not right out beside the golf courses.
-
in order for a course to be considered to be a 'true' links it must have a caravan park bordering it. This is what makes this decision all the more bizarre and unexpected after the developer went to such trouble to ensure using an existing caravan park rather than imposing a new one on to the foreshore.
It is why Balmedie or Ardfin will never be considered as proper links experiences. In fact it is probably the biggest factor preventing Bandon from offering a true links experience. You just can't properly appreciate links golf if you don't appreciate a good caravan park.
There actually IS a place at Bandon Dunes designated for RV [Recreational Vehicle = caravan] parking and use. It was suggested as part of the master plan by Howard McKee, because so many people travel up and down the Pacific Coast Highway in RV's. However, it is located back by the maintenance facility for Bandon and Pacific Dunes, not right out beside the golf courses.
;D ;D ;D
-
Us Yanks have standards to adhere too. Can't left the riff raff be front and center! ;D
-
Niall, I dont have specific proof for Scotland, but I am pretty sure many sit on sites that are as environmentally sensitive as Coul Links. But because the proposed use is caravan parks or low cost housing, then nobody sets out to find the environmental sensitivity.
The government does not, housing is votes. The greens do not, low cost housing is also close to their hearts. So the area is not sensitive because there is no grass roots effort to look for the sensitivity.
I have no doubt as well that several courses would get permission denied to extend a couple of holes into the areas where caravan parks exist, if these did not exist.
I am also pretty sure that had Mike Keiser never proposed building on this area, cattle would have continued to destroy it in a more severe manner than the golf course, without any green party/politician saying much.
Worth noting that many of these caravan sites originated before and after WW2 either as wooden family owned chalets and then developed later into fixed caravan sites run as businesses including larger holiday camp style facilities. This was back in the days before folks flew off to sunny climates for their holidays.
The locations of such sites were usually on dune land because it’s near the seashore for beach activities and because dune land was cheap being unusable for crop farming and difficult/expensive to build solid structure housing etc on.
The difficulty of building solid structure housing suitable for the GB climate and the necessary roadways and associated facilities is important in relation to dune land. Indeed, it’s the reason solid buildings never really developed within dune areas keeping instead to rocky or firmer footed areas nearby. Dune systems also have a habit of shifting and coastlines changing.
As the area at Coul intended for golf is essentially dune land I would imagine that the chances of solid structure housing ever being built on it is unlikely. And with more and more folks flying off to various parts of the world for their holidays etc I doubt there’ll be much demand for more caravans. Indeed many caravan sites and holiday camps in GB are seemingly in financial difficulty. And some of these caravan sites/holiday camps already have basic golf facilities within them, ie a golfing precedent, and as such may be potentially suitable to be taken over and redeveloped as say, um, links golf courses).
Atb
-
Niall, I dont have specific proof for Scotland, but I am pretty sure many sit on sites that are as environmentally sensitive as Coul Links. But because the proposed use is caravan parks or low cost housing, then nobody sets out to find the environmental sensitivity.
The government does not, housing is votes. The greens do not, low cost housing is also close to their hearts. So the area is not sensitive because there is no grass roots effort to look for the sensitivity.
I have no doubt as well that several courses would get permission denied to extend a couple of holes into the areas where caravan parks exist, if these did not exist.
I am also pretty sure that had Mike Keiser never proposed building on this area, cattle would have continued to destroy it in a more severe manner than the golf course, without any green party/politician saying much.
Worth noting that many of these caravan sites originated before and after WW2 either as wooden family owned chalets and then developed later into fixed caravan sites run as businesses including larger holiday camp style facilities. This was back in the days before folks flew off to sunny climates for their holidays.
The locations of such sites were usually on dune land because it’s near the seashore for beach activities and because dune land was cheap being unusable for crop farming and difficult/expensive to build solid structure housing etc on.
The difficulty of building solid structure housing suitable for the GB climate and the necessary roadways and associated facilities is important in relation to dune land. Indeed, it’s the reason solid buildings never really developed within dune areas keeping instead to rocky or firmer footed areas nearby. Dune systems also have a habit of shifting and coastlines changing.
As the area at Coul intended for golf is essentially dune land I would imagine that the chances of solid structure housing ever being built on it is unlikely. And with more and more folks flying off to various parts of the world for their holidays etc I doubt there’ll be much demand for more caravans. Indeed many caravan sites and holiday camps in GB are seemingly in financial difficulty. And some of these caravan sites/holiday camps already have basic golf facilities within them, ie a golfing precedent, and as such may be potentially suitable to be taken over and redeveloped as say, um, links golf courses).
Atb
Apropos of nothing at all, I remember hearing a story back in the 70s, that before all the development on the Spanish Costas, the old fathers used to bequeath all the good farming land to the favoured sons and the idiot wastrels got given the beaches.
Probably apocryphal, but hilarious nonetheless!
;D
F.
-
... Indeed many caravan sites and holiday camps in GB are seemingly in financial difficulty. And some of these caravan sites/holiday camps already have basic golf facilities within them, ie a golfing precedent, and as such may be potentially suitable to be taken over and redeveloped as say, um, links golf courses).
Atb
So MK needs to start buying up caravan parks. He can keep some of the fixed caravans as on course housing ala Perranporth.
-
... Indeed many caravan sites and holiday camps in GB are seemingly in financial difficulty. And some of these caravan sites/holiday camps already have basic golf facilities within them, ie a golfing precedent, and as such may be potentially suitable to be taken over and redeveloped as say, um, links golf courses).
Atb
So MK needs to start buying up caravan parks. He can keep some of the fixed caravans as on course housing ala Perranporth.
It wouldn't hurt to look into it. Current and ex-MoD sites too.
atb
-
Strong words.
http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/local/20200302_fsga/hopkins_col.html?utm_source=florida&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dm-030220 (http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/local/20200302_fsga/hopkins_col.html?utm_source=florida&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dm-030220)
I hadn't realised that John Hopkins had become a spin doctor ?! :(
Frankly Mr Warnock is being disingenuous in blaming Trump. The Balmedie decision was basically an abuse of power by a single politician and should never have been granted. The Embo decision was spot on and if Todd Warnock was truly surprised at the outcome then he either had piss poor consultants who didn't explain planning policy or he wasn't listening.
Niall
-
Niall -
If the Planning Committee of the Highlands & Islands Council voted 17 to 1 in favor of the Coul Links project (as well as it being endorsed by the Dornoch Council and Visit Scotland), it would appear Todd Warnock was not the only one getting bad advice.
DT
-
I hadn't realised that John Hopkins had become a spin doctor ?! :(
Frankly Mr Warnock is being disingenuous in blaming Trump. The Balmedie decision was basically an abuse of power by a single politician and should never have been granted. The Embo decision was spot on and if Todd Warnock was truly surprised at the outcome then he either had piss poor consultants who didn't explain planning policy or he wasn't listening.
There are lots of financial pressures on semi-retired golf writers in these cutthroat days for journalists.
-
Niall -
If the Planning Committee of the Highlands & Islands Council voted 17 to 1 in favor of the Coul Links project (as well as it being endorsed by the Dornoch Council and Visit Scotland), it would appear Todd Warnock was not the only one getting bad advice.
DT
David
You'll find that local councillors are politicians - there's a surprise ! And like most politicians they do what is expedient to them, and often that means going with those that shout loudest on contentious applications. Otherwise they happily tend to go with officers recommendations.
National politicians should be above all that but sadly Alex Salmond couldn't help himself. That however shouldn't hide the fact planning policy clearly pointed to a refusal of the application at Balmedie as it also did for the Embo application. That the second decision differed from the first shouldn't be seen as a mistake since as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
If the developers consultants were worth a toss they'd have explained that, and I'm sure they did. I suspect that the developers were gambling on the Trump gambit of drumming up as much support as possible and turning it into a popularity contest rather than a planning application. That was always going to be a gamble so how they could be shocked that they didn't get consent is beyond me.
Niall
-
Niall,
As I see it, seems this was a missed opportunity because the proposal appeared to be best case scenario.
- Proven developer in Mike K with a well established track record of doing projects like this and getting it right.
- Proven course designers also with a lengthy resume of building natural, minimal impact, high quality golf courses
- Near unanimous buy in from the local and regional leadership
- Very high approval % from the local and regional citizens
- Developer willing to commit to conservation efforts in the immediate area.
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
-
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
More positive economic impact to lessen the blow of the environmental impact. Trump's (obviously for any who cared to seek out alternate opinions) falsified numbers won the day for him. If the Coul project has those sort of economic numbers things may have turned out differently. It's sort of catch 22. Make the project environmentally reasonable and it will likely fail the economic impact test. You know the rest.
I think many are missing the planning big picture. The system worked if the presumption was for the protection of the land...which in this case it is. Most on this thread are looking at this case bass ackwards. That said, I still think the matter should have been decided by the local planning authority. If there is no national impact, let the local authority decide and the locals have to live with the decision.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I presumed an improvement would not include telling lies like Trump did when he grossly overstated the financial impact.
As for the environmental issue, seemed like the project was the best solution in both getting use of the land with the best financial impact and providing reasonable protection vs letting livestock have thier run on it. Besides, its not like a golf course is a giant structural eyesore, do golf courses really offend the senses that much? In most cases they seem to be supplemental in respect to the natural beauty, but i may be biased there. ;)
-
Niall,
As I see it, seems this was a missed opportunity because the proposal appeared to be best case scenario.
- Proven developer in Mike K with a well established track record of doing projects like this and getting it right.
- Proven course designers also with a lengthy resume of building natural, minimal impact, high quality golf courses
- Near unanimous buy in from the local and regional leadership
- Very high approval % from the local and regional citizens
- Developer willing to commit to conservation efforts in the immediate area.
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
None of that over-rides the rules though. The planning policies offer guidance what you can do and what you can't. The rationale is that once you have over-riden a rule it can be used in another application as 'case law'. There are a few tricks you can do but this application missed those.
-
Niall,
As I see it, seems this was a missed opportunity because the proposal appeared to be best case scenario.
- Proven developer in Mike K with a well established track record of doing projects like this and getting it right.
- Proven course designers also with a lengthy resume of building natural, minimal impact, high quality golf courses
- Near unanimous buy in from the local and regional leadership
- Very high approval % from the local and regional citizens
- Developer willing to commit to conservation efforts in the immediate area.
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
None of that over-rides the rules though. The planning policies offer guidance what you can do and what you can't. The rationale is that once you have over-riden a rule it can be used in another application as 'case law'. There are a few tricks you can do but this application missed those.
Adrian,
At the risk of sounding cliche, I won't retort with the "rules were made to be broken" shtick.
But they should be balanced, and regularly evaluated. I agree with the environmentalist movement in general, but sounds like they've had a bit of a over-reaction knee jerk on this one, especially given how thoughtful this one appears to be and the near unanimous buy-in at the local and regional level. Seems they are setting a dubious precedent with a fair amount of potential for unintended consequences...over a few dozen acres of land.
-
Niall,
As I see it, seems this was a missed opportunity because the proposal appeared to be best case scenario.
- Proven developer in Mike K with a well established track record of doing projects like this and getting it right.
- Proven course designers also with a lengthy resume of building natural, minimal impact, high quality golf courses
- Near unanimous buy in from the local and regional leadership
- Very high approval % from the local and regional citizens
- Developer willing to commit to conservation efforts in the immediate area.
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
Good summary. Kalen. I would add:
1. The town in which the course was to be built invested their own capital in the project.
2. Promise to not build homes, lodging or another course.
I think something that may have been considered was to pull the routing west a bit off as much of the SSSI portion as possible. Dont know if that would have mattered in the end.
What also was lost in all of this was the plan to build a real driving range and practice area across the road (west) of the course on current cattle grazing land. RDGC/Coul players/members/teachers/pros/students would have all had access to it.
Further insult was that the second Trump course and housing plans was announced while the Scottish govt was considering Coul.
I just hope that those who so passionately opposed the project will now equally direct their passions at truly preserving the site. For if they do not, they will have openly raised their hands - including some on this site -and invited all to call them overt and opportunistic hypocrites.
-
Ian,
If they pulled the course west (completely) off the SSSI then it would have absolutely made a difference. The trouble is you have a weaker course and in the end, it’s really difficult to accept that for most developers and architects.
I remember Mike Wood (GCA and environmentalist) offered up an alternative routing at Balmedie that still used a lot of dune land, just not the mobile and unusual dunes. Clearly not accepted as a possible solution
Best example was probably at Doonbeg where they had to exclude 55 acres of the best land due to SAC flora and fauna.
-
A question for Adrian & Niall -
Are the elected local/regional/national governments in Scotland obliged by law to accept the judgements of their planning staffs of civil servants at face value and being the final word? Do they have the legal authority to alter/amend or even reject those judgements?
-
Lou,
I am afraid your assertions in paragraph 4 are so far off the mark it is well..... The overwhelming majority of the population in the area of Balmedie(as well as the rest of Scotland) was against this project. And where is the benefit to the local and national economy?
Jon
My apologies for the delay. I am trying to go on a long trip and the events of the last couple of weeks haven't helped.
If you have time, please peruse the several threads on TI-B, most which contain mentions on widespread local support. There is even a comment in one where you note that local support is strong (I found it last week, but can't locate the thread right now- I think it was dated before 2010). A thread titled "No Trump ?" has several references (replies 17,18,20,28,39,41,46).
Of course, this is all moot now. TI-B is fantastic. The second course and plans for 550 luxury homes do not suggest that the project has been abandoned. "Destruction" of the dunes system is hyperbola at the highest level. Mr. Ford has maximized his "Green" credentials. And with the Coul Links decision, Scottish politicians, self-appointed environmental activists, and anti-growth/(other) people suck types can take solace that they can still stop "the rich" from building their playgrounds. Of course, we know from this site that 50, 100, 200 jobs mean nothing.
-
I would seriously be somewhat empathetic to the opposing view here save for one annoying little fact:
GOLF TOURISM IS THE #1 F**KING "INDUSTRY" IN THE COUNTRY....for f**k's sake....!
That's like:
1. Gary Indiana in the 1970's voting down a new steel mill.
2. London, England voting against Indian food and fish n chip restaurants.
3. Amsterdam cracking down on coffee shops and the red light district.
4. Russia telling a new Vodka distillery to get stuffed.
5. Canada saying you can't cut down these trees for timber or use this river to generate power for the US northeast.
I know, I know...let's not kill Mother Earth.
But, come on, the site at Coul was dying and NOT ONE SINGLE person who opposed the project gave a rat's ass about Coul prior to 2015.
-
Lou,
The summary of the ruling indicates that they did consider the economic benefits but decided against the project anyway.
"Overall Summary of Findings
26. In terms of sustainable development, the reporters conclude that the proposal is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy’s (SPP) strong support for economic growth, rural development, growing communities and tourism, a key growth sector in the Scottish economy. However, because of the potential significant adverse effects on protected habitats and species at Coul Links, the reporters consider that the proposed development runs contrary to SPP’s emphasis on protecting natural heritage sites and world-class environmental assets. Therefore the reporters do not consider that it would contribute to sustainable development. Overall the reporters consider that the proposed development is contrary to the development plan, as the likely detriment to natural heritage is not outweighed by the socio-economic benefits of the proposal. Scottish Ministers agree with these findings.
27. Para 212 of SPP sets out that development that affects a SSSI should only be permitted where the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; or where any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporters findings that the local and regional socio-economic benefits of the development do not justify the adverse effects on the qualities of designation of the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar."
Just a reminder that Trump has created relatively few jobs at Balmedie - 77 staff, 41 in food, beverage and accommodation,10 in golf operations, 15 in grounds, and 11 in administration. No hotel and no housing so far. Coul would likely have been less in the way of socio-economic benefits than Trump Balmedie.
As to whether there would have been economic benefit in the Dornoch area, that may well have been true. But, would that have been at the expense of other areas of Scotland. Or, did you think that Coul would have generated net new golf tourism to Scotland on its own accord.
If you had seen Balmedie from before the course, you would know that it is an entirely different ecological site. I don't recall Coul looking anything like this when you and I looked over the fence a couple of years ago. And this is a view of one of the smaller moving dunes at Balmedie.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2892/10568145516_b15bb599cb_c.jpg)
It is impossible to do a proper cost/benefit analysis when the no-growth environmentalist side can set the said costs and benefits to whatever arbitrary levels will support their conclusion. The precautionary principle is being widely applied beyond what was previously known as "global warming" and now positioned as the inarguable "climate change".
We will disagree on whether the course "destroyed" the dunes. I found the whole area highly appealing and look forward to returning when I have more time. BTW, I can't remember of ever being treated with greater courtesy. There were a number of non-golfing tourists looking at the property, getting their pictures taken, and having tea and biscuits in the restaurant. Not everyone has the highly negative opinion of its owner or the club as you and many others do.
Re: Coul Links, my several hours on the site changed my first impression from the road, but only moderately. If it is an important site of scientific interest, then most of coastal Scotland is as well.
The site is a mess of debris, neglect, weeds and other invasive vegetation. It was nearly devoid of people and but for a few birds including one grouse, and a small deer, one sees multiples of walkers and wildlife each round at Royal Dornoch.
Given their work at Trinity Forest, a site that was perhaps as unattractive, I was looking forward to C & C's transformation of CL. Though with not much in elevation changes, the land probably has enough movement and easy to mold material that these experts could build an entertaining links. I don't know how or if they planned to bring the sea into view, a great attribute of RD, but perhaps this wasn't that important.
I am very disappointed with the decision so I can understand Todd W's "despair". It will definitely mean that I will stay fewer nights in the future, as having a second course which approaches RD in quality and interest was important to me.
-
A question for Adrian & Niall -
Are the elected local/regional/national governments in Scotland obliged by law to accept the judgements of their planning staffs of civil servants at face value and being the final word? Do they have the legal authority to alter/amend or even reject those judgements?
I must assume that these are rhetorical questions. Of course they have the authority to do as they did in both cases. Their survival is also subject to public opinion which, as you know, can be molded with the assistance of the dominant media and cultural organs.
The CL decision was highly political, but the national consequences are probably little. Some can blame Trump, but he had nothing to do with the lack of backbone at the federal level. Too bad, many, many people will lose a little from this decision; a considerable number will lose a lot. There should be some really good prices for real estate in Dornoch. If I was only 20 years younger!
-
There actually IS a place at Bandon Dunes designated for RV [Recreational Vehicle = caravan] parking and use. It was suggested as part of the master plan by Howard McKee, because so many people travel up and down the Pacific Coast Highway in RV's. However, it is located back by the maintenance facility for Bandon and Pacific Dunes, not right out beside the golf courses.
We pulled into Bandon in a RV and they directed us to the RV parking lot and sent over a golf car for us. It worked out perfectly.
-
A question for Adrian & Niall -
Are the elected local/regional/national governments in Scotland obliged by law to accept the judgements of their planning staffs of civil servants at face value and being the final word? Do they have the legal authority to alter/amend or even reject those judgements?
David
Unless an application is delegated to a case officer, which is very common for small applications, the local authority will have some mechanism whereby elected members make the decision. Case officers make recommendations. Even for delegated cases it is possible for the local council member to request an application is considered by what is usually a planning committee comprised of elected members.
Ciao
-
If they pulled the course west (completely) off the SSSI then it would have absolutely made a difference. The trouble is you have a weaker course and in the end, it’s really difficult to accept that for most developers and architects.
I remember Mike Wood (GCA and environmentalist) offered up an alternative routing at Balmedie that still used a lot of dune land, just not the mobile and unusual dunes. Clearly not accepted as a possible solution
Best example was probably at Doonbeg where they had to exclude 55 acres of the best land due to SAC flora and fauna.
Ally's got this.
Trump's course could have been built while avoiding the area of mobile dunes that was considered so sensitive. It might have been even better had he tried to use all of the best land for one course. But, he made the argument that he had to build in the mobile dunes in order to make room for two courses, in order to maximize the purported economic benefits to the community.
My guess is that Mr. Trump would have happily compromised and settled for one course, if asked -- he's a negotiator, after all -- but HE WAS NEVER ASKED. Instead, the planners rejected the proposal, and then the government overruled them and gave him the green light for 36 holes, without negotiating that point.
My sense is that because of that history, the planners at Coul were predisposed to reject the proposed course for its impact on the SSSI. They signaled as much with their comments on the plan, and from what I've heard, they were upset when the plan came back with lots of verbiage but no real changes to the footprint.
I have not followed this whole saga very closely, so I have no idea how early in the process the planners' "red lines" were clearly expressed. I know that it sucks to have to keep stepping backwards from your ideal design because of further planning input you didn't expect, so usually, I try my hardest to get all of the red lines on paper before I start getting attached to particular golf holes.
It's possible that, if that approach had been tried from the beginning, the architect and developer would have decided that the project that would be allowed wasn't worth doing, and saved themselves a lot of time and headaches. Or, they might have succeeded in negotiating with the planners on certain points, and wound up with a plan acceptable to both sides. But when you put a plan in for approval that the planners have objected to, you can't be too surprised when they say no.
-
A question for Adrian & Niall -
Are the elected local/regional/national governments in Scotland obliged by law to accept the judgements of their planning staffs of civil servants at face value and being the final word? Do they have the legal authority to alter/amend or even reject those judgements?
Planning law is often too one dimensional. The rules don't always make sense to a particular project and have been set far more generally. The planning dept does not have a specialist golf department and that does mean that sometimes you have to really understand the PPGs and what they mean, very early you can realise one bullet is going to beat you and you can't dodge that bullet. Planning officers themselves can mis-interpret those guidelines, even the planning fee varies from council to council as they bracket applications differently. I have had two opinions on an access and the assistant said NO and his boss said YES.
If you put in an application for a new 9 holes or a driving range it would likely be deemed small and would be determined by a case officer and how he sees the application v planning law. If the case officers call is agreed by the 'planning committee' the application gets determined by that case officer under delegated powers, usually you will know this and be informed there is not a problem but it is never in tablets of stone until you get that tick. If the application has lots of objections or some PPGs are broken but mitigated or maybe unmitigated the stronger case for the application to be determined by that planning committee. If the PPGs are serious and unmitigated the application will fail but if they are almost mitigated and the level of knowledge is not enough at that level to determine the balance they go to expert help which is outside the region.
Working in land designated SSSI is very difficult, but there are ways you can work. The key would be not moving soil. You have to understand the rules of a site of special scientific interest and obviously work around that, extremely frustrating for a golf course architect when the best golf land is the bit you cant use.
You have a right of appeal, whereby a minister (higher expert) will look at the case and cast his finger in your favour or against and there are methods where you can find a solution by mediation or the 'judge' will give you some guidance what could be accepted. Sometimes you can be awarded costs as well if it is felt that the decision was wrong.
The appeal is once again strictly tried against those planning permission guidelines and the decisions become 'new' planning law and can be used by others when they make applications, just like case law.
It is that reason why some things are not granted....it just opens the door so they have to think of other impacts.
If Trump did a good/bad job or stated things that would happen that did not should not impact the ultimate decision. It is very common in planning applications to over state the amount of jobs created or economic plusses.
-
Adrian -
Thanks very much for your thorough answer to my question. I appreciate it.
DT
-
Adrian
Presumably that advice is for England because there is much of what you say that isn't the way things work in Scotland.
To generalise and without going into too much detail, with certain exceptions planning officers report to the Planning Committee which is made up of elected Councillors. They make a recommendation to the Committee based on the application and how it relates to the Local Development plan. In the vast majority of occasions the Committee goes with the planning officers recommendation and either approves or rejects the application.
If rejected, the applicant can appeal. The appeal is to the Scottish Ministers (ie. the relevant government politician), who then appoints a Reporter to consider the appeal. The Reporter is basically an experienced planning official who deals with appeals. The Reporter then reports his findings to the Scottish Minister who then makes his decision. The Scottish Minister is not bound by the Reporters findings in the same way the Planning Committee weren't bound by the planning officers recommendations.
In instances where an application has been approved at Planning Committee and that application is contrary to the planning guidance (Local Development Plan, Structure Plan, PPG) and it is important enough an issue, then the Scottish Minister can "call-in" in the application for final determination, and that is what happened at Embo. That usually only happens where their is a national interest such as in this situation ie. SSSI, Ramsar designation.
Having now been turned down by Scottish Ministers they can appeal to the Court of Session but only on restricted grounds.
Niall
-
Tom
I think you will find that Trump was asked to move his course by the planning officers but he refused and they had to consider his application as he presented it. The planning committee could of course have granted consent subject to conditions and one of those conditions could have been to build the course on less sensitive land but not sure how competent that would have been if the red line boundary of the application didn't include that less sensitive land.
When all's said and done, the Council basically blinked first.
Niall
-
Niall,
As I see it, seems this was a missed opportunity because the proposal appeared to be best case scenario.
- Proven developer in Mike K with a well established track record of doing projects like this and getting it right.
- Proven course designers also with a lengthy resume of building natural, minimal impact, high quality golf courses
- Near unanimous buy in from the local and regional leadership
- Very high approval % from the local and regional citizens
- Developer willing to commit to conservation efforts in the immediate area.
Not that it was perfect, but i'm not sure how the proposal could have been improved....and yet still turned down.
Kalen
The issue here is not the personality of the developer or the capability of the architect, it is that the area they looked to develop was of such a sensitive nature. The planning guidance more or less said "F*ck off and don't even think about it !!". And yet they gave it a go.
What you and others don't seem to grasp is that the land is best left alone. Overlaying it with 60 or 70 acres of finely manicured lawn is akin to planting conifers everywhere. Imagine trying to build a golf course at Yosemite and saying we need to knock down 150 acres of redwoods but don't worry you've got plenty of others, and we'll be very nice about what grass we use.
Niall
-
Niall,
I've been to Yosemite as well as most of the other National Parks in the Western Part of the US and they are all very unique to not just the US, but the world. Granted, I've only seen this area in pictures, but comparing that piece of land to a one-of-a-kind amazing valley like Yosemite seems beyond absurd.
P.S. Would you agree with Lou's assessment:
"Re: Coul Links, my several hours on the site changed my first impression from the road, but only moderately. If it is an important site of scientific interest, then most of coastal Scotland is as well."
Ian also claims that place was basically ignored prior to 2015, exactly how special can it be?
-
Tom
I think you will find that Trump was asked to move his course by the planning officers but he refused and they had to consider his application as he presented it. The planning committee could of course have granted consent subject to conditions and one of those conditions could have been to build the course on less sensitive land but not sure how competent that would have been if the red line boundary of the application didn't include that less sensitive land.
When all's said and done, the Council basically blinked first.
Niall
Niall,
FYI the council refused planning. It was the Scottish Government that overruled them and passed the plan.
As for your picture of the planning system. There is an assumption against allowing development in a SSSI but this is far from the [size=0.85em]"F*ck off and don't even think about it !!" that. that you claim. Indeed by following the planning process they were successful in getting it through planning. The action of the SG was purely political and not to do with planning law which is as it is intended to be.[/font][/size][/font]
[/size][/color][size=0.85em][/size][/color]
[/size][/color][size=0.85em]Jon[/font][/size][/font]
-
Kalen
Sadly I've not been to Yosemite and that is my loss. But from what I understand the scenery and the landscape is quite spectacular as is the flora and fauna. The flora and fauna at Embo might not be as spectacular, at least in a visual sense but it has been assessed by people with the skillset and experience as being important and if not unique, rare enough to protect. It is maybe unfortunate for areas such as this that what makes them special isn't so visually obvious as a huge redwood tree as that would make them easier to defend.
And with all due respect to my good friend Lou, and I do mean the respect bit BTW, he's not really qualified to make that judgement and neither am I for that matter. That is why it is left to those that are qualified to judge. I'm content to accept that judgement. That's why we have the planning system.
With regards the assertion that "the place was ignored until 2015" that patently is not true. I can't say off hand how long the site has had it's SSSI and Ramsar designation but it is well before 2015. The area was also subject to a lease from one of the conservation bodies if I remember correctly. What I think you should also realise is that the land is protected not so much by ownership but by its planning designation. That I think is the real problem here, folk in the US seem to be conflating how things work over there to how they work here.
Finally Ian made another assertion about the golf industry and its importance to Scotland. He said it was the no.1 industry in the country. Golf is a small but significant part of the tourism sector in this country and while tourism is an important and well developed sector of the economy contributing 5% of GDP, saying golf is the no. 1 industry in the country is like saying I'm the best golfer in the world.
Niall (8 handicap)
-
Jon
The Trump application was refused at the planning committee when the chairman cast the deciding vote to refuse the application. Clearly the chairman was against the project but it is also convention for the chairman to come down on the side of "status quo" when a vote is tied.
All decisions made by the planning committee require to be ratified by the full Council ie. all the Councillors. A majority of Councillors made it known that they were going to vote against the Planning Committee decision and that is when the Government stepped in so even though technically the application wasn't approved at the planning committee it was likely to have been supported at the full Council. Frankly I'm not sure of the procedure there, whether they send it back to Planning to reconsider or whether they can make the decision for them.
Niall
-
Niall
I am not sure you are correct regarding the Aberdeen application. My understanding is the planning committee had delegated powers to make planning decisions on behalf of the Council, which is very common for local planning authorities. I could be wrong though.
Ciao
-
Niall
Yes I was talking about the English planning method but Scotland is very much the same, the broad principles of working in sensitive areas are identical.
You can have an army of tanks and guns versus the council but you won't beat the 'pea shooter' if they have the law on their side.
There is still the feeling on these pages from some that good guys with track records can over-ride the law. Getting planning is about ticking the boxes, if you can tick them and your name is Adolf Hitler you get planning.
-
Adrian
Agreed. It does appear there is a different way of doing things between UK and US. Neither is necessarily right or wrong but it's frustrating when some folk are unable or unwilling to respect the difference.
Niall
-
Jon
The Trump application was refused at the planning committee when the chairman cast the deciding vote to refuse the application. Clearly the chairman was against the project but it is also convention for the chairman to come down on the side of "status quo" when a vote is tied.
All decisions made by the planning committee require to be ratified by the full Council ie. all the Councillors. A majority of Councillors made it known that they were going to vote against the Planning Committee decision and that is when the Government stepped in so even though technically the application wasn't approved at the planning committee it was likely to have been supported at the full Council. Frankly I'm not sure of the procedure there, whether they send it back to Planning to reconsider or whether they can make the decision for them.
Niall
But at the end of the day the council rejected the application regardless of by how many. As you point out yourself the main council never voted on it. It is a stretch to say the least to call that blinking. On the reverse side with Coul the application went through the correct planning procedure following the 'law' and was passed unanimously so to suggest getting a planning application approved in a SSSI is also clearly wrong.
Jon
-
Niall,
I think part of the confusion is what "protected" means here in the US, especially when it comes to National Parks. They are actively monitored and maintained with strict rules and fines/arrests for the worst offenders vs what appears to be the "Set it and Forget it" UK model.
So the disconnect is the claim that the land is critically important, but seemingly little to no follow up or resources devoted to actually protecting its physical integrity on a semi-regular basis.
-
Kalen
Protecting land often means doing nothing to it and letting it find its own way.
One thing for the UK which has gone general for all golf courses is the banning of a lot more pesticides and insectides....basically a lot of golf courses won't be able to be kept in as good a condition.
-
Kalen
Protecting land often means doing nothing to it and letting it find its own way.
One thing for the UK which has gone general for all golf courses is the banning of a lot more pesticides and insectides....basically a lot of golf courses won't be able to be kept in as good a condition.
I think there's also some differences, too, in the US and how "private property" is handled.
Coul has been owned by the same family for literally hundreds of years.
I have walked the property for at least 10 hours. Have never been aware of any "conservation" occurring there, but I may have missed it.
In a CRAZY coincidence, I was a Chicago store yesterday with my wife and we engaged the store manager in pleasant conversation.
Turned out it was one Ben Crenshaw's daughters.
Go figure...
-
Ian
In your ten hours on site, if you didn't obliterate the existing flora and fauna by building a golf course on top of it then you were indeed conserving the site :)
Jon
When the planning officers advised/suggested to Trump that he redesign his proposed course away from the sensitive areas, he declined. When the planning committee refused the application he didn't make a move, he waited. From what I recall not even a tweet. The councillors as a whole got into a tizzy and were preparing/plotting to overturn the planning committee decision as I said and I strongly suspect overtures were made to the Scottish Government to call it in which they did. All the time Trump sat and waited.
As I said the Council blinked first.
Niall
-
Adrian
Agreed. It does appear there is a different way of doing things between UK and US. Neither is necessarily right or wrong but it's frustrating when some folk are unable or unwilling to respect the difference.
Niall
The main difference is that in the USA, outside of National Parks or state parks or whatever, there is nothing similar to an SSSI designation. We have laws to protect wetlands and to protect endangered species and so forth, but there is no official map of areas which are off limits to development because of those -- each project is treated on a case by case basis when proposed.
-
Niall
To be fair, UK planning is far from black and white. New Local Plans and updates are always in the pipeline. Interpretation of regulations are often different depending on a current planning committee members and case officers. Plus, loads of local authorities want to avoid appeals because they are under-staffed as it is. Even pressure points from government seem to change fairly often. Its a bloody nightmare trying to keep up.
Ciao
-
Niall,
You speak of respect, which I think is key here. At some point in time, your federal government rendered the Coul Links site essentially useless to its owners. To the best of my knowledge, no compensation was paid for the taking of their rights. Adding insult to injury, the government did nothing to protect the land from dumping, contamination, and the ongoing degradation over the many years of neglect.
My POV is philosophical as well as practical. If the collective does not respect the individual, why would the individual not reciprocate? I can understand why a society does not protect unpopular minority interests. But you are right, though I accept its ability to do so, I can't respect it.
The practical side, the result, is what we see in similar regimes here in the US, the out migration of working people and the slow loss of vitality. A society which does not respect private property rights is doomed to mediocrity and decay; the tragedy of the commons on a grand scale.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-50124333 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-50124333)
-
Ian
In your ten hours on site, if you didn't obliterate the existing flora and fauna by building a golf course on top of it then you were indeed conserving the site :)
Jon
When the planning officers advised/suggested to Trump that he redesign his proposed course away from the sensitive areas, he declined. When the planning committee refused the application he didn't make a move, he waited. From what I recall not even a tweet. The councillors as a whole got into a tizzy and were preparing/plotting to overturn the planning committee decision as I said and I strongly suspect overtures were made to the Scottish Government to call it in which they did. All the time Trump sat and waited.
As I said the Council blinked first.
Niall
Niall,
suspect is not definite proof. If a majority of the councillors were going to pass the application then why would they secretly ask the SG to call it in? Where is the solid evidence to back up the claim you make?
It is much more likely that the SG called in the application due to pressure from Trump.
Jon
-
Jon,
I'm speaking from memory and haven't kept any press cuttings if that is what you mean. Similarly it didn't get to full Council for ratification because the SG had already called it in. So on that count I have no hard evidence to show you but if you care to some digging of articles from the time there was more than enough comment from Councillors to back up what I'm saying.
One other thing, when have you ever known a planning decision to be called-in when the application had already been rejected by the local planning committee because it contravened planning regs ? I can't recall another instance and neither can any planner I've spoken to.
Niall
-
Adrian
Agreed. It does appear there is a different way of doing things between UK and US. Neither is necessarily right or wrong but it's frustrating when some folk are unable or unwilling to respect the difference.
Niall
I think the systems are very similar.
Kalen
"Protected" land in the UK under the guise of all sorts of labels which originated from different sources in planning terms simply means there is an assumption against most types of development. Tom is incorrect above when he stated above the Trump application made planners predisposed against planning of that sort. Planners are already predisposed against planning of that type. Council Members are a different matter. They are decision makers, not planners. On many occasion I have watched Members vote against case officer recommendation. From a planner PoV this decision often leads directly to planners worrying about an appeal. So the wording and justification for the decision is extremely important.
Ciao
-
Having briefly looked through the thread. From experience planning is a murky area there are always contrasting interpretations from different planning departments and having inexperienced people (local councillors with no planning or architecture/design experience) representing planning committees plus different interpretations at personal, local and national levels. It is like a game that to have to adapt to others/other rules to enable to get it approved.
I have got planning for a 18 hole golf course in a SSSI however compared with Coul it was a lot easier to achieve as the site was not that sensitive compared with Coul and there was very little objections whereas Coul had many objections some from a National Association level. The question I have is how much the planning consultant and golf course designer communicate with the planners early on what can be done, what can't be done and what is required for me that is the key. It could have been a case of a bull in a China Shop thinking that they can get planning based on Trump Aberdeen precedent.
For Trump Aberdeen whatever agreement between Trump and then then First Minister to get it approved whether it was a really sensitive site or not does not smell right to me.
Going back to Coul - I wonder if there were alternative routings considered away from the sensitive areas to enable the client to produce a golf course in this area to generate potential income for the town. There is always a fine balance between commercial reality and nature in this respect. The objectors got their way in which the planning application was done in the right procedure all the way up to ministerial level unlike the another course.
The planning system in the UK however good or bad it is does lack consistency overall as there are many different interpretations of the rules. It is not a perfect system and we don't live in a perfect world either!
-
Ben,
If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?
BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party. That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval. The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.
CL had local popular support and formal planning approval. Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact. The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.
This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection. It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless. As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.
BTW, best of luck on your new project. I hope to play it some day.
-
Ben,
If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?
BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party. That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval. The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.
CL had local popular support and formal planning approval. Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact. The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.
This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection. It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless. As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.
BTW, best of luck on your new project. I hope to play it some day.
Sweet Lou
Your second paragraph says it all. You seem to lack an understanding of what happened or at the very minimum continue to focus on irrelevant issues.
What does the party affiliation of the Planning Comm Chair matter? Besides, and this has already been made clear, the Chair was not a member of the Green Party at the time of this application.
The second comm as you call it was the decision making body for Trump's application. That Planning Comm did not approve the application...which according to planning regulations was a very reasonable and understandable result. There is really nothing more to it except for the government's bumbling interference which got the decision completely wrong because it trusted Trump to deliver on his grossly exaggerated figures. People say that if a deal sounds to good to be true it probably is.
Ciao
-
Ben,
If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?
BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party. That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval. The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.
Lou, that is not what I'm saying at all. The Balmedie decision was wrong because the various planning policies and designations pointed to a straight refusal. It was a no brainer. The fact that Salmond gave it the OK was pure hubris on his part. The similarities with Embo are that again the various planning policies and designation pointed towards a straight refusal.
CL had local popular support and formal planning approval. Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact. The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.Both Embo and Balmedie had national implications because of the nature of the sites. The (proposed) developments themselves were not of national importance no matter the outlandish claims made by Trump.
This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection. It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless. As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.As above, the Balmedie decision was an abuse of power in my view and just plain wrong, and just because the Embo decision is inconsistent with that doesn't mean the decision wasn't correct. I suspect the Embo developers were gambling on some sort of precedent having been set.
BTW, best of luck on your new project. I hope to play it some day.
-
Ben,
If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?
BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party. That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval. The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.
CL had local popular support and formal planning approval. Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact. The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.
This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection. It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless. As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.
BTW, best of luck on your new project. I hope to play it some day.
Lou,
I have not been to Coul Links however SSSI in the UK and NI is briefly explained via a wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest)
The golf course I have worked on in a SSSI has been opened for play for over 12 years (with a few in-house changes without my input ::) ::) )
The two SSSI sites are contrasting the one I worked on was on farmland on the shore of a huge man made lake not 50 years old which was near a nature reserve which made the surrounding areas by the lake an SSSI - compare this with Coul which has 100 years plus of natural sandy dunes with loads of flora and fauna. This is one inconsistency of interpreting SSSI's
The other inconsistency is planning - we do a lot of work with planners architecture and golf course wise however the local planning committee (who are non qualified planners but councillors representing the local people which is political and local/national planning policies can be 'thrown out of the window'). For example I had a 11 unit apartment block which the design evolved and lots of dialogue with the local planner to solve a number of issues and was recommended approval by the planners and it barely got through the planning committee by 1 vote (5-4)
Planning can go to several levels - local, mayoral, national/government/minster and then prime or first minister level Coul Links was refused at minister level and Trump Aberdeen was approved at first minster level which I had reservations about plus the then first minister is currently undergoing a major court case which has been in the national news ::) ::) .
I echo Niall's response which both CL and TA were carried out in due diligence from a planning standpoint however one was rather corrupt.
The other downfall is the client and designer probably didn't go down the right route and thought that they could get planning a la the 'Trump way'. The best route in theory would have been constant communication with planners and other steering groups to get their support/on their side rather than enemies that they are not to impede the most sensitive areas and build around it plus follow local and national policies. It is a game and it is all about ticking the right boxes which if refused would more likely to get approved through the appeal process.
-
Ben
Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees rather than saying to hell with all that, let's just fight it ? Yes, it's helpful if you can avoid objections from the neighbours but stirring things up the way Trump did at Balmedie and the way the Embo developers did, so as to turn it into a popularity contest rather than a planning application is surely not how the process is meant to go, is it not ?
Niall
-
Ben
Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees rather than saying to hell with all that, let's just fight it ? Yes, it's helpful if you can avoid objections from the neighbours but stirring things up the way Trump did at Balmedie and the way the Embo developers did, so as to turn it into a popularity contest rather than a planning application is surely not how the process is meant to go, is it not ?
Niall
Niall,
To turn it into a popularity contest (or bullying in other respects) is not the right way that the process is meant to go. There needs to be an element of fairness from all angles and respecting the current rules whether you like it or not.
From certain angles it seems a lack of understanding of the process from the client/designer or they were badly advised. For me it is important to discuss with the planners and other potential steering groups early on to enable that all parameters are understood, that it is within the rules and has 'outside' support.
Planners do get nervous if there were a number of objections even more from national organisations. So at times they do advise and ask for alternatives to get around a potential problem/valid objection.
Certain parts of the proposed golf course at Coul was in a rather sensitive 'red flag' areas not the whole site surely they should have respected that these are no go areas and built around it whether it is a better golf course or not. The first thing i would have done in principle is it acceptable that a golf course can be on this site then secondly which areas it can it be built on and the no go areas.
The Planning system is not perfect I have seen the good and the bad sides of it.
Cheers
Ben
-
Being that I don't seem to understand the process or the relevant issues, I am retiring from this discussion. Mind you that I've spent some 20 years of my life dealing with these very similar issues and have actually spent several hours at each site. Hopefully I'll get to see what happens in Balmedie over the next 10 years and, God willing, my fears for Dornoch and the surrounding area prove to be unfounded. For sure, things will go on.
-
Being that I don't seem to understand the process or the relevant issues, I am retiring from this discussion. Mind you that I've spent some 20 years of my life dealing with these very similar issues and have actually spent several hours at each site. Hopefully I'll get to see what happens in Balmedie over the next 10 years and, God willing, my fears for Dornoch and the surrounding area prove to be unfounded. For sure, things will go on.
Q.E.D....+1... ;)
-
Coul Links is part of the Loch Fleet SSSI. If you wanted to know what is sensitive about it you could look at the designation by Googling "loch fleet scotland sssi designation".
It's been designated as an SSSI since at least 1985 and was subject to a 25 year management agreement between the owners, Cambusmore Estates and the SWT, that expired in 2010 and was not renewed. Cambusmore Estates appears to provide a couple of self-catering houses in the area and some outdoors activities. They tout their proximity to the Loch Fleet NNR.
The planning process doesn't look that complicated and it seems that various political bodies have the ability to over-ride the planning process. That doesn't seem so unusual.
The final rejection of the proposed golf course included the following statement:
"Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporters findings that the local and regional socio-economic benefits of the development do not justify the adverse effects on the qualities of designation of the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar."
This could be read to suggest that there is some level of socio-economic benefits that would justify the adverse effects. Perhaps they should have included Trumpian features such as a hotel and 650 homes.
-
Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees
Niall
Niall,
I wonder if you have followed the Coul Links project closely as this is just what the developers did. They followed ALL the planning procedures correctly and this resulted in the application being PASSED unanimously by the council.
The reason that the one body found against the application was a technical one where they were obliged to find against it but if you read there statement to the planning it actually is positive not negative. The fact that they found against the project is also not a reason to say it should have been rejected as if that were the case there would be no need for planning committees in the first place.
I have good knowledge and practical experience of the workings of the Scottish planning system in relation to golf course applications and in my opinion you are off the mark here.
Lou,
you are correct about the popular feeling being positive for the Balmedie project early on in the planning process but this was definitely not the case as it developed. For my own part, I was always pro the project but against building it in the shifting dune system which has proven to be a grave error on the part of the SG and in particular Alex Salmond though he certainly has more pressing problems at the moment.
I am and have never been a fan of Donald Trump but do believe in the future he will be recognised as someone who did a lot to further the game.
Jon
-
Niall,
I wonder if you have followed the Coul Links project closely as this is just what the developers did. They followed ALL the planning procedures correctly and this resulted in the application being PASSED unanimously by the council.
That’s not what I said. I said “Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees”. Yes every applicant must submit the information as requested and follow the procedure as set by law and I’m sure the Embo developers did that or the application wouldn’t have passed through the system, but that is not what I referred to.
I referred to actually taking cognisance of the planning policy and guidelines, taking on board the advice and comments from planners and statutory consultees and then shaping the application accordingly. As I alluded to before, a cursory glance at the development plan and the designation of the land they were looking to develop should have told them all they needed to know. If they had taken heed of that then it would have saved everyone a lot of grief but instead they tried to bulldoze their way through. And yes I have been following this application fairly closely.
Niall
-
Niall,
the developers did take note of the guidance and planning policy (which does not exclude the possibility of developments in a SSSI). They also worked with and took on the advice and comments of the planners and various consultees which did shape the application that was passed. There was no bulldozing as you put it.
The reason the SG overturned the decision had nothing to do with the application it was purely about Holyrood politics.
Jon
-
Jon, Niall -
Trying to understand this better. What role if any do the planning policy and guidelines give to MSP Finnie in the official approval process as it relates to balancing economic and environmental concerns? And is the percentage of the Highlands vote MSP Finnie received in the last election publicly available? I don't follow the whole "list MSP" concept very well, so please excuse me if the second is an ignorant question.
-
Bernie,
As far as I understand it and simply put MSPs are elected through two methods. Some stand under their own name in a constituency and are directly elected by the voters. In addition to this the voter picks a party to vote for and depending on the % a party wins it gets to pick X number of people it wishes to send to Holyrood.
Mr. Finnie is a Green Party MSP and is a list MSP hence my comments that he was not elected by the people. The Green Party have 6 MSPs and if I am not mistaken all of them are list MSPs.
At the last election the Scottish National Party was the largest party but lost it's majority requiring the support of other parties to govern. They entered a loose arrangement with the Greens but this leaves them in a situation of having to do favours for the Green Party in return for support in parliament. Coul Links was one such favour and I very much doubt the SNP would have called it in otherwise.
Next year the SNP can expect to suffer a loss of support in the Constituency containing Embo/Dornoch where as it will have no effect on the Green Party. I guess this is the price to paid for being in hoc to a party with nothing to lose.
Mr. Finnie objected to the Coul Links project on principle and I have no problem in that. He has no role in the process of the planning application and had Green Party not held the balance of power I doubt very much if the SNP would have called it in.
I do wonder about the suitability of a political system that allows an unelected politician to over rule the decision of the locally elected politicians. It does not matter what he does he will always be returned by the Green Party to Holyrood and so he has absolutely no accountability to the electorate.
Jon
-
Local Member of Scottish Parliment apologizes for not being able to do more:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/msp-gail-ross-apologises-for-not-being-able-to-do-more-over-coul-links-193394/
-
From Twitter:
Robert J Vasilak
@RJVasilakGolf
More from M-Keiser: He's all but given up on Coul Links, but he’s negotiating to build an 18-h, Coore & Crenshaw track, supported by a no-frills clubhouse, on property south of Dornoch. “I’m hopeful about it,” he said. “The landowner is eager to do a Bandon-type project.”
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
-
Is Nicola's most likely successor a golfer?
atb
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead
Adam,
I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben
I think it is an extreme interpretation to put all that on C&C. I'm not saying it's your interpretation, I'm just saying that someone is coming up with that line. For a start C&C can only design to the brief they are given which in the case of Embo included the SSSI. Do we know whether C&C's client has expressed an interest in developing the adjacent land or that the landowner would allow that land to be developed ? And if so, were C&C asked whether they would be interested in designing a course on that land ? There's an awful lot of if's and but's in there to just blame C&C straight off the bat.
As an aside, this same Councillor has been endeavouring to resurrect the development using the same protected piece of land more or less since it was turned down at Scottish Minister level. I think it more likely therefore that he is just trying to invent a reason why it needs to be built on the SSSI.
Niall
-
Ben
I think it is an extreme interpretation to put all that on C&C. I'm not saying it's your interpretation, I'm just saying that someone is coming up with that line. For a start C&C can only design to the brief they are given which in the case of Embo included the SSSI. Do we know whether C&C's client has expressed an interest in developing the adjacent land or that the landowner would allow that land to be developed ? And if so, were C&C asked whether they would be interested in designing a course on that land ? There's an awful lot of if's and but's in there to just blame C&C straight off the bat.
As an aside, this same Councillor has been endeavouring to resurrect the development using the same protected piece of land more or less since it was turned down at Scottish Minister level. I think it more likely therefore that he is just trying to invent a reason why it needs to be built on the SSSI.
Niall
Bang on Niall! ;D
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead
Adam,
I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......
Cheers
Ben
I don't know what you are talking about Ben. The project is dead.
-
The next question is where is the property "south of Dornoch" that M. Keiser is now looking at? Maybe the abandoned Castlecraig course at Nigg?
https://www.forgottengreens.com/forgotten-greens/ross-cromarty-aultbea/castlecraig-nigg/ (https://www.forgottengreens.com/forgotten-greens/ross-cromarty-aultbea/castlecraig-nigg/)
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead
Adam,
I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......
Ben:
I've had problems with you before, but I am really offended by this. You don't know shit about Bill Coore's ethics.
If I was working for Mike Keiser and he asked me to look at Coul Links, it would be implicit that he wanted me to design a world-class course, and to push the boundaries enough to be sure it would get there. And if we couldn't get permits to build that, that would be okay. The point of the exercise is not to build a golf course in Scotland . . . it is to build something great, and if it can't be done, you move on.
In looking at such a scenario, I would have to make value judgments whether the expected restrictions / setbacks / etc. might be relaxed . . . whether they are really based on science or just politics. There's some of both.
DIGRESSION
To provide an example: for the new resort project in New Zealand, I asked to put the first green on a natural site, the back of which is 145m from the mean high water mark. The local council wanted us to stay 200m back from the shore, we asked for 100m . . . and they drew a red line at 150m, irrespective of the topography or the ecology or anything but politics, IMHO. [They were unwilling to make further compromise, in part, because they let Bill Coore get down to 100m in certain spots. :D ]
Of course, I can build my green so the back edge is outside the 150m line, but it will cause me to tear up and reshape a lot more ground than putting it right in the place where it fits naturally. Unfortunately, none of the discussion was about that.
BACK TO SCOTLAND
I don't know any of the details of Coul Links, or what the environmental issues were. I have heard from a local that the plan was rejected because it wasn't modified to respond to the planning authority's feedback. Was that about 150m vs 145, or something more substantial? I can only guess that whatever it was, Bill felt that changing the plan significantly would make it fall short of Mike's goals for the course, and Mike told him not to compromise that, and now they are back to square one. It happens. For you to make assumptions about Bill Coore's character, from that, tells me that you have not had many clients.
-
The next question is where is the property "south of Dornoch" that M. Keiser is now looking at? Maybe the abandoned Castlecraig course at Nigg?
https://www.forgottengreens.com/forgotten-greens/ross-cromarty-aultbea/castlecraig-nigg/ (https://www.forgottengreens.com/forgotten-greens/ross-cromarty-aultbea/castlecraig-nigg/)
I suspect the property south of Dornoch is the one I looked at in January of this year. I did not think it would pass Mr. Keiser's high standard, but maybe another architect is smarter than me, or maybe Mr. Keiser just really wants to build something near Dornoch.
The good news is, if he does pursue it, the permitting should be a lot simpler.
-
This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?
NEWS 30 October 2020
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........
Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead
Adam,
I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......
Ben:
I've had problems with you before, but I am really offended by this. You don't know shit about Bill Coore's ethics.
If I was working for Mike Keiser and he asked me to look at Coul Links, it would be implicit that he wanted me to design a world-class course, and to push the boundaries enough to be sure it would get there. And if we couldn't get permits to build that, that would be okay. The point of the exercise is not to build a golf course in Scotland . . . it is to build something great, and if it can't be done, you move on.
In looking at such a scenario, I would have to make value judgments whether the expected restrictions / setbacks / etc. might be relaxed . . . whether they are really based on science or just politics. There's some of both.
DIGRESSION
To provide an example: for the new resort project in New Zealand, I asked to put the first green on a natural site, the back of which is 145m from the mean high water mark. The local council wanted us to stay 200m back from the shore, we asked for 100m . . . and they drew a red line at 150m, irrespective of the topography or the ecology or anything but politics, IMHO. [They were unwilling to make further compromise, in part, because they let Bill Coore get down to 100m in certain spots. :D ]
Of course, I can build my green so the back edge is outside the 150m line, but it will cause me to tear up and reshape a lot more ground than putting it right in the place where it fits naturally. Unfortunately, none of the discussion was about that.
BACK TO SCOTLAND
I don't know any of the details of Coul Links, or what the environmental issues were. I have heard from a local that the plan was rejected because it wasn't modified to respond to the planning authority's feedback. Was that about 150m vs 145, or something more substantial? I can only guess that whatever it was, Bill felt that changing the plan significantly would make it fall short of Mike's goals for the course, and Mike told him not to compromise that, and now they are back to square one. It happens. For you to make assumptions about Bill Coore's character, from that, tells me that you have not had many clients.
Tom,
Niall's response hit the spot - I did not ask the original question - the Northern Times did you should be offended by their reporter. I am questioning whether it is true which is the difference and if it is true then it smells of real arrogance from the designer.
Bill Coore is one of the most natural golf course architects.
I also have had problems with you as well. Sometimes you don't see things that others do and I won't diverge in further details. You have your way and I have mine.
Ben
-
Ben, either you are being disingenuous or you are a worse writer than previously demonstrated. The technique you demonstrated is not new to those of us engaged in argument for a living. You started with a speculative article with a near defamatory premise. You asked whether it was true. Each following post left off the question and proceeded as if the speculative premise were true. By the end, the dubious nature of the underlying premise was buried and the derogatory comments were emphasized. Those of us who know the parties involved believe the suggested behavior is far outside the norm for those involved. You were called out for your statement. The reply was "I was only asking a question" and then you attacked the individual who raised the issue. Sorry but that doesn't pass the smell test. This doesn't have anything to do with the wisdom of the decision on this project or the Trump project. It has to do with evaluating the arguments we make and our willingness to impugn other people's motives and/or character.
-
Great advice. I wish we could all follow it in all facets of life, whether we sympathize with a POV or are strong partisans.
BTW, having been around Ben a bit, what he wrote was only mildly offensive compared to what at times appears on this site. Even if it was Mike Keiser who passed on the project if he had to change it materially, it does not mean in any way that he does not care about the environment. Both (Bill Coore, the other) have nothing to prove to anyone.
Tom Doak,
Can you confirm David Tepper's possible location?
I am assuming that you've seen the Coul Links site. Did you believe it was that exceptional for a links?
-
Lou: I've never been on the site for Coul Links, so I really can't answer your question.
The site David mentioned is the one I visited in January, but I don't know for sure if that's where they are talking about.
-
Thanks Tom. Can you share your thoughts on the site you toured in January? Looks on Google more like a Royal Cromer site on a cliff along the sea than a links such as RD or Brora.
-
I have walked some of the Coul Links site. The topography would allow for creativity. On some of the land I walked, the water table seemed high. There is a significant dune running most of the way up the beach on the East side of the site which could limit sea views.
The potential for golf would be good - not exceptional - in my amateur view.
The beach is very straight there so it wouldn’t necessarily have the charm of the RDGC serpentine routing.
My guess on the new site, based on a Google Earth look, would be the low undeveloped land directly South of Dornoch on the Dornoch Firth. East of Tain and North of Inver.
-
John,
East of Tain and North of Inver...
Sounds like a great beginning for an historical adventure novel.
-
John,
East of Tain and North of Inver...
Sounds like a great beginning for an historical adventure novel.
And who better to write it. " East of Tain, North of Inverness: A Tartan Elegy"
-
While the coatsline there on Google Maps aerial photos looks perfect and romantic as East of Tain, north of Inver (a small village not the city of Inverness) may sound, it wouldnt be for golfers... That area is part of the RAF's bombing range, and while they may only drop practice ordnance there rather than live bombs, that would make a round of golf a little bit challenging? ;)
When I played Tain several years ago, there were jets coming in overhead and practice bombing that area, which was a great experience even if a little distracting. The famous 617 "Dambusters" squadron were based at nearby Lossiemouth at the time so I assume it was them using the range.
Cheers,
James
-
While the coatsline there on Google Maps aerial photos looks perfect and romantic as East of Tain, north of Inver (a small village not the city of Inverness) may sound, it wouldnt be for golfers... That area is part of the RAF's bombing range, and while they may only drop practice ordnance there rather than live bombs, that would make a round of golf a little bit challenging? ;)
When I played Tain several years ago, there were jets coming in overhead and practice bombing that area, which was a great experience even if a little distracting. The famous 617 "Dambusters" squadron were based at nearby Lossiemouth at the time so I assume it was them using the range.
Cheers,
James
Yes the roar of the jets over Lossiemouth is thrilling, and deafening. Sometimes they seem just a few hundred feet overhead. Have experienced them overhead at Tain too. Had no idea they were dropping stuff.
-
James I thought that location sounded a bit too close for comfort to the bombing range!
-
James,
I think you might be the one to ask about this. Alongside the road from Tain to Portmahomack there are numerous structures that were used for army training exercises. I have been told or read that these date from WWII and D-Day exercises. Is that, to your knowledge, correct?
-
Steve,
My understanding is that its virtually always been a bombing range and they built an airfield there in the second world war to facilitate its use as a bombing range. It was both RAF and FAA that used it and there was a torpedo training school there (there is a dummy torpedo in the Tarbat Discovery Centre next to Portmahomak GC). The airfield closed after the war and I believe most of the structure there related to the use as an airfield.
That's not to say they weren't used as training for Operation Overlord by the Army, but I find lots of old military structures tend to pick up these previous suggested uses as its more interesting than saying they peeled spuds in that one over there... ;)
However if the RAF was to stop using the area as a bombing range, there are probably some interesting landforms created that would make interesting features for a gold course. Just dont dig too deep with either the digger or sand wedge :o
Cheers,
James
-
Read somewhere online that the RAF/MoD area east of Tain covers over 2,500 acres! Some might be muddy, tidal unusable seashore but 2,500 acres is still a pretty big area by U.K. standards.
But then the MoD does own a enormous amount of land in the U.K. much of it potentially prime golfing land. I wonder if/when someone will make them an offer they can’t refuse?
Atb
-
The best remaining area of prime duneland in Scotland sits within the Culbin Forest, east of Nairn. An immense dune system was forested after WW2. You could fit several Bandon size resorts in there. It has 9 miles of coastline.
-
Robin -
https://forestryandland.gov.scot/visit/culbin
The question is how available a portion of that land might be for development of a golf course?
DT
-
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2842054/controversial-golf-course-plans-could-be-back-on-as-campaign-group-calls-refusal-grave-disservice-to-area/ (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2842054/controversial-golf-course-plans-could-be-back-on-as-campaign-group-calls-refusal-grave-disservice-to-area/)
Controversial golf course plans could be back on as campaign group calls refusal ‘grave disservice’ to area
by Calum Petrie
January 26, 2021
Controversial plans for a luxury golf course at an important nature site in Sutherland could be back on, after a new community group said it was looking to “develop a conversation once again”.
A bitter, three-year battle was seemingly resolved in February 2020 when the Scottish Government refused to back the creation of a luxury golf course development at Coul Links near Embo.
However, the newly-launched Communities for Coul (C4C) said they were “united in the belief that their area was dealt a grave disservice” when the Scottish Government threw the plans out, after it had been approved by 16 votes to one by Highland Council.
C4C, a group of people from the towns and villages of the Dornoch Firth coast, has launched a website as part of a larger campaign to raise the possibility of a “world class” – yet “environmentally sensitive” – golf course at Coul Links.
A four-week public inquiry in 2019 heard that the site of the proposed development had one of the most complex dune systems in Scotland, with relatively low levels of human impact and was an important habitat for rare birds.
Highland Council had granted consent in 2018 against the advice of its own planning officers after developer Todd Warnock – backed by many locals – claimed it would provide a much-needed economic boost for the area.
However, after calling the issue in, the Scottish Government decided last year against the proposal, which was opposed by several nature groups.
New community-led planning application
With the support of local residents, C4C aims to put forward a new community-led planning application for a golf course to be built at Coul Links.
C4C chairman Gordon Sutherland said: “The creation of a new world class golf course at Coul Links should be viewed as a catalyst.
“Firstly for creating many, much-needed, local jobs and building the economic prosperity of the towns and villages of the Dornoch Firth seaboard, some of which have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic.
“And secondly, for providing the funds to protect almost all of the important environment at Coul Links which, currently, is being progressively lost to invasive species.”
He added that without the new golf course, “both the depopulation and the ageing demographic of our area will continue”.
The group claims that a “solid majority” of local people support the development of a golf course at Coul Links.
It cites the fact that of the 90,000 who signed the online petition against the development, less than 0.15% live within the IV25 postcode.
Mr Sutherland said: “We recognise the environmental importance of Coul Links, but believe the best way to protect the site is to obtain planning permission to sensitively create a world class golf course (using just over 1% of the Loch Fleet SSSI), and ensure that the developers implement a viable and fully funded Environmental Management Plan, as well as climate change mitigation schemes.”
‘Social and economic benefits are needed now more than ever’
Among the statements in support of a new golf course on the C4C website, Sarah MacKenzie from Tain said that, as a mother, she was worried about the future prospects for the “Covid Generation” without developments such as these.
“Having another world class golf course would be very exciting however it’s the so-much-more important part that really grips my interest,” she said.
“The social and economic benefits that the successful implementation of this project would have are needed now more than ever.”
The Communities for Coul website can be visited at https://www.communities4coul.scot/ (https://www.communities4coul.scot/)
-
Thanks Brian. Any good news is welcome at this point.... so .....
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/7c/68/7d/7c687debe61f4b5aca1f1465811bbd05.jpg)
-
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/2842054/controversial-golf-course-plans-could-be-back-on-as-campaign-group-calls-refusal-grave-disservice-to-area/
-
Thanks Brian. Any good news is welcome at this point.... so .....
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/7c/68/7d/7c687debe61f4b5aca1f1465811bbd05.jpg)
Good news my arse. Hopefully it will die a death fairly soon.
Niall
-
Thanks Brian. Any good news is welcome at this point.... so .....
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/7c/68/7d/7c687debe61f4b5aca1f1465811bbd05.jpg)
Good news my arse. Hopefully it will die a death fairly soon.
Niall
Careful, Niall...Mr. Schley will challenge your intentions then retreat back to his safe space...;-)
-
Local pressure groups are all very well, but typically they don't pay many bills... the only question that matters is what the potential investors think of all this.
-
Local pressure groups are all very well, but typically they don't pay many bills... the only question that matters is what the potential investors think of all this.
I think if the investors saw daylight to the project being approved by the Scottish Govt, or at least not called in again upon resubmission, then logically there could be interest. They put some work into the project - just ask Chris Haspell.
From what I have heard, the "American guys" just have zee-ro appetite for a new fight.
There may be a two year period before Coul can be resubmitted. So that would mean March, 2022 - 25 months after Could was rejected.
I guess everyone is still waiting for the envornmental objection crew to actually do what they said in their spirited defense and address the rotting state of the site with some sort of plan. That was one of the pillars of their pleas.
Oh, yeah....COVID. "Out of an abundance of caution, we hereby have decided to punt on our commitments."
Works every time. I admit to using COVID as excuse to getting out of shit, too.... ;D
-
Local pressure groups are all very well, but typically they don't pay many bills... the only question that matters is what the potential investors think of all this.
I think if the investors saw daylight to the project being approved by the Scottish Govt, or at least not called in again upon resubmission, then logically there could be interest. They put some work into the project - just ask Chris Haspell.
Chris is a close friend, and I'm well aware of how much work went into it. However, from what I hear, the situation has changed since the planning app was rejected by the Scottish government, and I believe there is more that just a lack of appetite for a fight.
I could be wrong. But I have seen no sign that the investors are, well... invested in this campaign.
-
This is getting interesting:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/investors-will-back-coul-links-hotel-226276/
-
Show me the money, as a man once said...
-
Indeed David. He is leveraging the situation of the pandemic with his ready to go hotel financing to get the course built.
He continued: “We are in the process of working with local architects to finalise the design and will be submitting a planning application for the first phase of the project imminently. However, we will not start any form of construction until Coul Links Golf Course is approved.
-
And more interesting. At least the locals don't seem to have given up. In the RDGC member email from Neil Hampton today.
https://www.communities4coul.scot/
-
Yes very interesting link from Neil provided. Was struck by the study from the Golf Tourism Development Group.
And visiting golfers who stay overnight spend more, on average, than almost any other type of tourist. In 2016, the VisitScotland/Scottish Enterprise Scotland Golf Visitor Survey found that the average spend for a golfer staying overnight, excluding those on a package trip, was £245.18 per person per night. Visitors from overseas tended to spend the most, averaging £338.49 per night, with those visiting from North America spending considerably more (£405.27 per night) than visitors from Europe (£257.18). The full survey can be found here. (https://www.visitscotland.org/binaries/content/assets/dot-org/pdf/research-papers/golf-visitor-survey-2016.pdf)
-
Also on the C4C site they mention what is next if they get planning approval. Does anyone recall or perhaps it is in this thread somewhere of those other 2 developers who showed interested apart from the Keiser group?
If planning permission is granted Mike Keiser, Todd Warnock and Bill Coore (of the renowned golf course Architects Coore & Crenshaw), collectively the developers behind the original golf course application, were not the only party interested in Coul Links. Two other golf course developers, both fronted by multi-Major winning golfers, also expressed firm interest in creating a world class golf course at Coul Links.
Therefore, if Communities for Coul is successful and planning permission is finally granted, we will invite developers with the skill and sensitivity to create the world class golf course this special site warrants to submit appropriate tenders.
-
Be careful what you wish for...
-
John Barron Golf Group?
-
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/lease-agreement-reached-over-coul-links-227593/
-
John Barron Golf Group?
:):):):)
Atb