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
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 ......
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.
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.
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.