News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Archerfield
« on: February 11, 2005, 12:43:43 AM »
From todays Scotsman :
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=155572005



You won't see the trees for the woods

ALAN RODEN AND JACKIE KEMP


WITH one sweeping fairway stretching for a quarter of a mile along the banks of the Firth of Forth, it promises to be one of Scotland’s most attractive golf courses.

Tourists from the United States are expected to flock to the Duke of Hamilton’s Archerfield estate to play the course and stay in exclusive course-side lodges.

But the prospect of the beautiful greens and fairways appearing along the East Lothian coastline has not been greeted with universal approval.

For the woodland from which they will be created is home to hundreds of deer, badgers, buzzards and otters.

A deal has been signed which will see up to 10,000 trees chopped down to make way for the course, which is the third to be created in the grounds of the historic estate.

The 40 hectares of Scots pines and sycamores, including some which are more than 300 years old, would disappear in a bid to attract wealthy American golfers to the region.

Felling has already started at Archerfield, and the directors of the Duke of Hamilton’s holding company, Hamilton Kinneil, made a final decision on Tuesday to sign over the lease of the woods for 99 years to Renaissance Golf Design, a US-backed firm, and Tom Doak, the course designer.

In place of the woodland, he wants to build a state-of-the-art golf course which will have no members, but 20 golf lodges will be built to accommodate tourists from the US.

Mr Doak already has outline planning permission from East Lothian Council as an "enabling development" to fund a restoration of the historic landscape of Archerfield House and its grounds.

The neighbouring £55 million Archerfield Links, which is owned by Edinburgh pub tycoon Kevin Doyle and has two high-quality 18-hole layouts, also occupies the estate.

The Gleneagles-style redevelopment of the 540-acre land between Gullane and North Berwick will eventually include a five-star hotel, a spa, 50 holiday cottages and 100 luxury homes, and is expected to create more than 500 jobs.

Bill Nimmo, chairman of the Gullane and Dirleton History Society, said he has walked through the woodland every Sunday for 15 years.

"It’s a very secluded area and is an attractive place to walk," he said.

"Outline planning permission has already gone through, a deal has been signed, and the whole thing could now slip through without any more consultation."

Local residents said the new development will be the 21st golf course along the East Lothian coast.

Members of Archerfield Links are being asked to pay a one-off £15,000 fee on top of an annual charge of £1000. More than 100 people have so far signed up.

And the development has also fallen foul of environmentalists, including South of Scotland Green MSP Chris Ballance.

He said he was "concerned" about the loss of an "important habitat for bio-diversity".

The seclusion of the Archerfield estate has meant that wildlife has flourished, with the woods being home to deer, badgers, buzzards, fulmars, otters and butterflies.

John Ellis, chairman of the Edinburgh and Lothians Badger Group, said: "We have had people down there to monitor where the badgers’ setts are.

This doesn’t sound very environmentally-friendly to me."

Despite the protests, the plan is likely to get the final go-ahead after Scottish National Heritage came out in support of the proposals. Spokesman Alan Leitch said: "Archerfield is not a particularly interesting wood."

Mr Doak, the course designer, added that his minimalist approach will do as little damage as possible to the environment.

Fraser Niven, chief executive of Hamilton Kinneil, said the existing Archerfield Links development by Caledonian Heritable was funding the restoration of Archerfield House and the aim of the golf course development was to "restore the historic landscape and have a positive effect on the local economy".

Marc Haring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2005, 02:56:00 AM »
Difficult to comment on this one without seeing the site but that picture of the woodland does seem to suggest many immature and densely planted trees which would result in environmental limitations. Usually the construction of a golf course- provided there is enough acreage- will result in the creation of many more wildlife habitats than existed before. For example rough meadow or grassland is vastly superior to woodland when it comes to wildlife. I would suggest therefore that the article does not tell the whole story. These days a golf course will not get planning permission without an extensive environmental impact study, which will have to conclude a positive outcome.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2005, 06:45:51 AM »
The Scotsman picked that story up from the local East Lothian paper which ran it while we were in Scotland last week.  There are several facts in it which are incorrect ... not least of which is that they have my company as owning the land lease, which is not true.

Basically, the story is about a few locals (who have been trespassing on the land for years) objecting to the idea of further development in the area, even though planning permission for a golf course was granted some time ago.  The local paper article featured a map and lists of neighboring courses to prove that there was already too much golf in the area.

I don't think any of this will change what we can do on the site, but we'll have to wait and see ... which is one reason I haven't been talking about this project yet.

Andy Levett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2005, 09:53:46 AM »
Basically, the story is about a few locals (who have been trespassing on the land for years) objecting to the idea of further development in the area, even though planning permission for a golf course was granted some time ago.

Best of luck with the course,  but there isn't a law of trespass in Scotland.
A recent attempt to introduce one in limited form was shot down in flames:
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/02/02/newsstory6776826t0.asp


Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2005, 12:11:16 PM »
Andy,

Was there one at the time of the Highland Clearances or was Sutherland just outing his crofters?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2005, 08:44:51 AM »
Really, there's no such thing as trespassing?  I knew it was legal to walk around Muirfield but I didn't realize that was why.  I stand corrected.

However, there is still such a thing as private ownership of land over there, isn't there?

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2005, 10:15:57 AM »
Clarification on this whole Scottish trespass law thing:

"Trespass
It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. Trespassers may also be asked to leave the property, and if they do not comply, may be forcibly removed.

Furthermore certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass."

Which as far as I can gather is a long-winded way of saying that while there is no law concerning actually being on someone's property, they can still sue your ass off if they can prove you've caused damage.

Yours (from the edge of the field)
FBD.

The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Andy Levett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2005, 02:12:51 PM »
Hmm... I suppose it depends what side of the fence you're on (literally as well as metaphorically).
There's more um... 'clarification' here:
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/trespass.html
The key paragraph seems to be this:
Mr Blackshaw cited Tom Johnston, Secretary of State for Scotland in 1942, as having defined what he believed to be the true position.
Any member of the public is at liberty to walk over any land in Scotland provided he does so without damage to crops or fences and does not commit a breach of the various Poaching Acts. This applies to the whole country with the exception of private gardens or grounds which form the curtilage of a dwelling house or other private residence.

So, for example, if people started picnicking on the lawn of Archerfield House, you could probably get the police to move them on. But if they were walking through the woods you would have to take your chances in the civil courts, who may in any case decide the woods, though on 'your' land are not 'grounds which form the curtilage of a dwelling'
(Walking from North Berwick to Gullane this summer I noticed the other Archerfield development dealt with the issue by putting up a chain link fence around the perimeter of the property)

Anyway, the only reason I mentioned it was to save Tom getting a hard time if he used the word trespass outside this site.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2005, 02:23:24 PM by Andy Levett »

peter_p

Re:Archerfield
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2005, 06:32:41 PM »
The project is temporarily out on a limb according to The Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=434732005

"Thousands of trees facing the chop on the Duke of Hamilton's land in East Lothian have been granted a stay of execution.
"The woods are due to be felled to make way for the 10 million pound golf complex featuring an 18 hole course (Archerfield) by top American designer Tom Doak. At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the Forestry Commission won an order preventing the tree-clearing until planning has been completed.
"The decision could leave developers with a huge bill. But Judge Lord Hardie ruled the cost did not outweigh the need to protect the trees until the East Lothian Council planners finish considering details of the proposed course.
"The ruling means that the Forestry Commission could try to persuade planners to save at least some of the woods in what has been designated an area of 'great landscape value.'
...
"The local authority has already granted outline planning permission and there were no objections earlier this year when some trees were cut down."

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2005, 06:45:27 PM »
We've had our share of troubles in this neighborhood -- we were supposed to build the Archerfield Estates courses years ago, too -- but I'm less concerned about the future of this project.  There is a list of "reserved zoning matters" which has to be completed for the final permit, but as far as I know, no scope to add conditions to the list.

The developers should have the reserved matters settled by early June, and then we'll see if there is a reversal of course.

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2005, 06:56:59 PM »
Tom, Are these two different projects? The Archerfield project I walked two years ago was really not good. It was very close to Muirfield being just to the east of it. I would love to hear you are changing it up.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2005, 08:28:31 PM »
John,

No, this is a new golf course BETWEEN Archerfield Estates and Muirfield.  There's more ground in there than you'd think, although we're pretty close to bridging the gap.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2005, 08:34:11 PM »
Can I go out on a limb here and predict that the name of this course will not be Archerfield?  JC

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2005, 08:37:32 PM »
The name (if it gets built) will be The Renaissance Club at Archerfield.

Maybe that's why The Scotsman thought I was going to be the owner, but of course I'm not.

After working next to National Golf Links, moving next to Muirfield will be a piece of cake.  Now all I've got to do is convince the Pebble Beach Company to knock down a few houses around Cypress Point and turn me loose there.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Archerfield
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2005, 11:13:40 PM »
I haven't read the trespassing stuff above, but back in 1985 my college roomate and I were in the neighborhood, so we parked the car on the long entrance road and walked out onto an empty Muirfield on a glorious summer day.

We made it about halfway down the 18th fairway before a gentleman from the club came rushing down saying essentially, "you can't be here...leave NOW".

We drove down the road and played an incredible evening round at North Berwick, but I did get a few great snaps of Muirfield for our troubles.  

I wish I had heard the Tom Paul "lost dog" story before I made that trip.   ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re:Archerfield
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2005, 11:15:22 PM »
by the way, what the hell is a "fulmar"?

Steve_Roths

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2005, 11:46:40 PM »
T.Doak-

If you could knock Fazio out of the last course at Pebble you could compete in the Cypress area.  Also, is this Archerfield the same area where John Ashworth's Fidra golf course was planned?  I had read somewhere that the two of you were working on something that fell through years ago.  

Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2005, 03:17:28 AM »
Mike
A 'Fulmar' is a type of Seagull .

Or a "Rat with Wings" as we Scots call them .

Brian

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2005, 07:05:39 AM »
Steve:

It's considered unethical for an architect to even discuss a job which is already under contract to another architect, so my chances at Pebble Beach are slim and none.  Too bad ... if they hadn't made that decision so long ago, I know that a lot of the Pebble Beach executives are big fans of Pacific Dunes.

The land that we had planned with John Ashworth was what is now Archerfield Estates.  John had also laid out some holes himself on the Duke's property, but they could never work out an agreement to develop it ... there are a couple of holes on our plan which are similar to what I remember of John's, but there are some parts of his plan which were off-limits to us.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2005, 10:57:26 AM »
1.  I hope Tom gets this course completed, because there are a lot of tired links courses in the UK which could do with a touch of his genius to put them back where they were 50 or 75 years ago and this might just be an eye-opener to the developers here who currently insist on pseudo-American courses (and I mean no offence to my many American friends who defend traditional golfing values far more vehemently than most 'traditional' Brits).

2.  The whole golf/environment issue is very emotive here, but there are very few well-reasoned arguments put forward one way or the other as far as golf is concerned.  It is abundantly clear that many golf courses are sterile to wildlife, others fecund.  It all depends on the type of golf course and its local situation with respect to the adjoining land for several miles around.  It is not a thing in isolation.  Witness the nation-wide protests over the Winchester By-Pass and Manchester Airport's 2nd runway and it is readily apparent just how much certain elements of our society are willing to risk, personally, in protest and defence of undeveloped land.  It only takes one emotive article in a particular journal at the right moment and half an acre of land becomes a battle ground, while 500 acres somewhere else are developed into a factory estate without the least resistance.

3.  While such courses as Hankley Common are doing great things for the Dartford warbler, Birkdale and Hoylake for the Natterjack toad and so on, our small birds are declining alarmingly.  Much of this is to do with modern housebuilding practices, changes in agricultural practices, the re-introduction of species such as the red kite, the urbanisation of foxes and badgers, the re-establishement of pole cats and pine martens and so on.  But, there is an urgent need for the conservation and re-introduction of corridors of hedgerows and trees which allow small birds and mammals some shelter during passage from one place to another.  Their various habitats need to be linked or they will fall foul of the rapidly increasing sparrow hawks and buzzards which have proliferated as the habitat for these smaller creatures has had such corridors removed.  They don't need forests, but they do need corridors, and we need our small birds and mammals.

4.  Build us an ecologically positive course, Tom, and you'll win even more friends than you will by building the top-ranked course in the country.

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2005, 12:43:30 PM »
OMG I think we have found another Democrat in a world full of R's. Mark, you said that very nicely.

Yancey_Beamer

Re:Archerfield
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2005, 04:07:40 PM »
Tom,
At least the article in The Scotsman referred to you as a top American designer.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2005, 03:38:03 PM »
I am bringing up this post as it is relevant to the article Geoff Walsh posted from today's (4/26) Scotsman about the tree cutting at the Archerfield project.

Eric Pevoto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Archerfield
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2005, 04:36:42 PM »
David,

Thanks for the search.  Missed it the first time around.  Sounds like a hot potato! :o
There's no home cooking these days.  It's all microwave.Bill Kittleman

Golf doesn't work for those that don't know what golf can be...Mike Nuzzo