"gloomy" report on Euro golf

[Duncan Cheslett]

Location is important as a UK rule if you draw a 20 minute time circle around your new course and can count 30,000 people inside your circle it works. You need to draw other golf course's circles as well and count the % of their ingrees into your circle.... dont be suprised if you have a minus figure! But don't build it unless you get to 30,000. There are not many left now..

Interesting...

I just drew a 20 minute circle round my course and found 300,000 people.

The trouble is I also found 20 other golf courses!

[Sean_A]

I am one of the first to blast the upper crust UK and Irish courses for significant over charging their unaccompied guest play. However we here in the US are learning from them and jumping on the program with far to many courses charging 150 to 500 dollars for guest play.

Tiger

Thats fat considering often times a GUEST is charged in the area of $100 to play on a not so famous not so great US course.  This isn't to say I like viistors fees reaching the heights they have these days, but we have only ourselves to blame for the queing up at big name places year after year regardless of what they charge.  Golfers are a strange lot with too much money for their own good.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Adrian,

I think were getting close to having kicked this one to death a couple of times and then been guilty of reviving it. I acknowledge you and Michaels first hand experience in relation to golf development which I don't have, having said that, Trump getting planning at Balmedie isn't going to lead to a rush of similar applications siting his development as an example IMHO, not that I think his way of doing things is one that I would want to follow.

I don't know if you've been following the Inchmarlo project, Nialll, but one of the things that interested me is that the application in that case specifically cited the Trump project as a precedent. Adrian is right on one key thing here: if an authority goes against the Local Plan and gives permission for a development, then others will use it for their own ends. And they're right to: planning law _should_ treat all applicants equally, so if a precedent is set, then.....

[Sean_A]

Adrian,

I think were getting close to having kicked this one to death a couple of times and then been guilty of reviving it. I acknowledge you and Michaels first hand experience in relation to golf development which I don't have, having said that, Trump getting planning at Balmedie isn't going to lead to a rush of similar applications siting his development as an example IMHO, not that I think his way of doing things is one that I would want to follow.

I don't know if you've been following the Inchmarlo project, Nialll, but one of the things that interested me is that the application in that case specifically cited the Trump project as a precedent. Adrian is right on one key thing here: if an authority goes against the Local Plan and gives permission for a development, then others will use it for their own ends. And they're right to: planning law _should_ treat all applicants equally, so if a precedent is set, then.....

Adam

You talk to any Planning Authority in England and they will tell you there is no such thing as precedence; each case is judged on its individual merits.  Its a neat trick to essentially side step many similar, but awkward comparisons. 

With the Localism Law (don't know what it will actually be called) coming down the pipe it will be interesting to see how much planning power is fragmented with parish councils getting into the act.  Personally, I think its madness as most PCs don't have enough expertise of planning regulation (it is a serious quagmire which is often set actually in law) to make well judged decisions nor do they have resources to fight off appeals (and large developers will know this).  Hopefully, this new law will find a way to give PCs a better voice in decision-making without leaving them out to dry, but it wouldn't surprise if the government did leave PCs out to dry.  Its a way to blame local authorities for spending tax money even if planning regulation is generated by government itself.  I have learned way more then I ever wanted to know about planning in England - all because of a Traveler Site just outside of our village...its a drag.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont know about Scotland but in England we have PPG. That is the guide for planning permission to what you can do and what you cant do, provided you tick the boxes you get permission, it does not matter who you are. If you dont tick the boxes then you have to try and meet that criteria, you can miss a couple of minor ones, you wont get past major ones though, if a planning authority allows a major one through they set a precedent....it is the basis of how UK law works in everything.

Parrish councils can recommend a refusal or acceptance of an application, local authorities the same, its the planning committee's that ultimately vote they can vote against or for, although it is very rare for a committee to vote in favour after the reports and recomendations are against. If you have recomendations and good reports from the prelim stage but the planning committee turn it down, you have a strong chance at appeal as the very people who recommended it would be the ones trying to defend the appeal. The Parish council dont form part of an appeal itself.

What forms the problem in yes/no is the misinterpretation of the PPGs, it can be pot luck which planning officer you get one can like something another may not.

[Adam Lawrence]

Sean - the issue with precedent is not that it necessarily influences the planning authority's thinking but that it provides potential grounds for applicants to take a decision to appeal. Equal treatment before the law is a pretty fundamental point, and if people see some applications getting approved and other, similar ones getting knocked back then the courts are going to get very busy with cases being reviewed. A system that invites people to challenge decisions, wasting time and money all round is probably not a good one.

[Bruce Katona]

Adrian & Niall: I found the back-and-forth on UK Planning Law and Procudure very interesting.  Here in the US, there is a planning concept called "an inherently beneficial use".  This means a use carrying this identification as "inherently beneficial" automatically allows the local planning baord/commission to hear and deal with an application of this nature.  To have theis use approved for planning, one must also prove through report or testimony that this use will "not impact the planning/zoning plan or be a detriment to the public good.  There are also mandates to have jurisdictions meet a set amount of affordable/workforce housing, govered by law and legislative action.

Difficult tasks, but not impossible to overcome.  Workforce or affordable housing are uses which meet the test and have been determined by law to be "inherently beneficial".  Hospitals, cell phone towers, group home (for special needs residents) and some others also carry this designation. Typically the local planning commission will go along with workforce/afordable housing if the local community can materially participate and live in the final product or if a reputable not-for-profit housing developer (like Habitat for Humanity) is a participant in building/managing the workforce housing.

The key to getting through the process is to have your project include an inherently beneficial use as a component and have the other proposed uses included as a means to supple and deliver the beneficial use as it typically is a severe negative to the project proforma.

This is just what I do on a daily basis.....many balls juggling and hopefully they all stay in the air.

[Niall C]

Niall,

which membership would you prefer a membership allowing you to play one course or one that allows you to play 5 courses for the same money? The problem is that many people these days do not want to be tied down to one club. Indeed, the whole belonging to a club is not a fashionable as it once was. Multi club memberships mean same splitting the membership with other courses but you might find acquiring new members more interesting.

Jon

Jon

I'm not sure how your model could work for the clubs but I would certainly be up for it, right upto the point that I couldn't get on my course at certain times because of the extra members wanting to play there. Presumably times on "away" courses would need to be limited or it wouldn't work. But even if you could get the arithmetic to work, eg. the overall pool of members was larger than before, I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Where is it being tried in the UK ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Adrian,

Clearly the arithmetic is different in different parts of the country but I think you could make it work in certain areas I know of. For instance agricultural land values up here, and why would you look at any other type of land ?, aren't nearly as high as you suggest they are for down south. Theres all sorts of deals that can be done to unlock development value using the golf club as the excuse/cover.

One thing I agree with you on is that any change will result in a re-profiling of the club membership. The hope is that you retain the core members and find a whole lot more new ones attracted by the new course.

Incidentally, interested to hear more on your Welsh project 

Adam,

I knew as soon as I typed my line about Balmedie that you would flag up Inchmarlo. Fair play to you but I still stand by the view that it isn't going to lead to a torrent of similar applications. I'm also not that versed in the question of precedent in the Scottish planning system to comment but there has been plenty of incidences of planning committees going against officials recommendations and the world hasn't stopped spinning. Try telling a politician about precedence when theirs votes on the line and he will look at you as though you were daft. Irrespective of potential precedents being set, political expediency will win out in my view.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

as I already said, I think many people are not interested in having a fixed course. Maybe a model of five courses in the deal and having 10 rounds at each and then reduced rates thereafter. If it costs £750 a year this would work out at £15 a round.

You would not have a main course. I do not know of anywhere doing this model but I know of many clubs saying they are struggling.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - The theory is great but ... I think what happens is that the 5 clubs lets say A, B C, D and E all equally agree at the outset, but club A finds that its members dont play D or E, for a veriety of reasons, lets say its not quite as good...conversely clubs D and E play course A quite a lot... a year on club A looks at it the rounds anaylsis and sees it has received 3000 rounds from D but only 150 of As members played D.

Its a case of not all golf courses are equal, or at least not the same equal in everyones eyes. I think another problem is that it can open back doors and create problems if the membership fees are not the same.

[jeffwarne]

I am one of the first to blast the upper crust UK and Irish courses for significant over charging their unaccompied guest play. However we here in the US are learning from them and jumping on the program with far to many courses charging 150 to 500 dollars for guest play.

How do you define "overcharging"?
I always found it great that UK/Irish clubs could be played with a phone call.(try calling Shinny or NGLA in July)
and yes fees have gone up dramatically.
Wouldn't it make sense if you wanted to supplement your budget with an extra 2 hundred thousand euros/pounds to do it with say 1500 rounds rather than 3000?
If you could?
Keeps more times open for your members, reduces wear and tear on the course thus reducing cost, and allows the people that really want to play the courses to play them. And allows members who escort their guests to perceive a significant value with vastly reduced rates.

I had a member who wanted to send 4 friends to our club and I quoted him the
unaccompanied price.
He said "That's outrageous"
 I then reminded him that based on the 30 rounds he played the year before,each of  his rounds cost 3 times what the unaccompanied rate was.
He replied-"you're absolutely right-let them pay for it themselves"

Sometimes it's cheaper to go a la carte

[Tim Nugent]

Here's a couple things to ponder over there in the UK.

 1) think outside the box.  Let's say you own a course that has a couple of unused acres.  Now you know there is no way your PC will allow any development on them, how can you still use them and benefit financially?  Well, how about selling off the land in 6'x10' plots?  Yep, a cemetary!  They are green space (in perpetutity), there will always be a need, they don't change the terrain and they don't put any burden on schools, infrastructure etc.  At 1,000 pnds/plot, that would be almost 1.5mil. (didn't that club say they paid 1.6m for their lease?). Besides, think of all those members that would love to "be on the course" forever

2) as we say in Chicago, "if you can't beat them, replace them with your own".  Planning Commissions usually don't get a much attention, either if they are elected or appointed.  Just elect your own members (or "friends" of members). Of course some pre-planning must occur, say 5-10 yrs out, but hey, things take time.

Having lived through several tough periods, I wouldn't worry too much.  In areas that allow development, if it becomes financially viable, the market will rule.  Sure, some lesser value courses will close and others will strengthen as a result.  Again, the market will rule.  We have seen this happen in good times as well as bad.  In areas where there are obsticles to development, again some might close, but an equilibrium will eventually occur and you may see those failed courses being picked up and rebuilt into something the market wants.  The ebb and flow of the numbers of golfers is much more elastic than that of courses.  Given that it can take 5- 10+ yrs to develop a course from scratch, it is usually more expedient to take on a failed property, because all the permitting is already in place. Plus a good deal of the infrastructure is already in place.  Don't fret when the market exerts it's will. She can be a cruel mistress but in the end, it will all work out. (my only caeateis that Government has a way of over riding the marketplace and pick winners and losers.)

[Niall C]

Niall,

as I already said, I think many people are not interested in having a fixed course. Maybe a model of five courses in the deal and having 10 rounds at each and then reduced rates thereafter. If it costs £750 a year this would work out at £15 a round.

You would not have a main course. I do not know of anywhere doing this model but I know of many clubs saying they are struggling.

Jon

Jon

I think Adrian has addressed the problems of the scheme quite well. I'm not saying that it wouldn't work in certain situations but it seems to me that what you would have is not a "club". You would have a membership of sorts but not really a club. I think that is quite important for a lot of people.

Don't clubs group themsleves together to provide weekly passes ? Is there not one for the Highlands or is that my imagination ?

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Nial - I think the opposite is more likely to be true, heres my reasoning. Planning authorities are made up by naturally cautious people, people who have decided to work for a body that gives good pensions, long holidays, financial stability....these people can take two weeks before they decide whether to buy a can of coke. They very often have very strong political views and often they are centered on green issues and socialism. Golf smells of wealthand successfull people and I think they dont like that smell.

Having worked a few years back for a major regulator in the U.S., I can attest to these sentiments.  People are drawn to "public service" for numerous reasons, relatively few which have much to do with service or providing for the public.  As the career employees with the agency often reminded me when I proposed something that made business sense, one "Oh Shit" can offset 20 or 30 "Attaboys".

So, the best policy is nearly Always to avoid action that deviates from the norm, which is facilitated by following the voluminous, finely-detailed procedures  in the decades-old operating manual to the letter.  And when this often-bizarre guide didn't provide "The Answer", the smart move is to hire a high profile consultant, feed him the desired course of action (or lack of), and make sure his "independent" report and action plan recommends precisely what you wanted to do from the beginning.  Should this process lead to disaster, the good public servant can cite that the procedures were followed religiously, and then shift the blame to the highly-paid hired "experts" who should have known better.  And we wonder why most average people can't afford to live in the more desirable areas not to say anything about playing golf on the golf courses we see reviewed on this wonderful site.

As to Tom Doak's comments, they so remind me of Governor Brown in CA who pretty much stopped the state's then outstanding freeway system plan during his initial terms, believing instead that Californians should live in densely populated areas, recreate in common green space, and use public transit and bicycles as the primary means of mobility.  Those who live in SoCal, are accustomed to six hour rounds, and sitting on the 5 or the 405 for much of their lives can attest to how well his ideas have worked out for that great state.  On the other hand, they did just re-elect Mr. Brown, again.  Oh, and I wouldn't mind having a place on Crystal Downs, or Riviera, or LACC, or CPC, or Pasatiempo, or ........  But that's just me.    

         

[Bruce Katona]

Tim: Actually the "lots" (plots) are 6'x8' (2m x 3M) will work.  At 48 sf per plot that yields about 900 "units"/acre.  Say the terrain is not quite level or you would like a bit more room, the yield would be about 700 plots/acre.  Plots run (here in NJ) about $600-$1,500 so if you average $900 per plot @ 700 plots/acre, it nets $630,000.

I proposed this exit strategy once as a cemetary was a permitted use......we got pretty far with the idea and then someone else came along to uy and develop the land for housing.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

yes you are correct but I didn't say it was the perfect answer and it would need some work on it. However, what have you suggested?

Niall,

some people do want to belong to a club but obviously for many clubs not enough. I will ask you the same as Adrian what is your solution?

Jon

[Sean_A]

Multi-club memberships have been around a while now and have worked fine.  This model tends to be the corporate club (not member owned) and the courses are far enough apart that courses aren't stepping on each other's toes.  I recall going on a junket with Clubcorp (or some such name) members to El Saler when they owned it (may still do).  It was an unbelievable deal for a bunch of guys who were members of The Warwickshire.  This idea can work, but often times these corporate clubs have serious issues for serious golfers: societies on weekends, too many visitors on weekends, dull courses often times with drainage issues (because built on poor land), not very welcoming as a traditional club, very expensive dues because often times there is a health spa/gym associated with the club and very expensive food/drinks.  Its not for me, but this model suits a lot of people. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - I think as Sean points out, schemes, deals, reciprocals with other clubs can work very well from a distance. We have an arrangement with a neigbouring club which works well, we swap 100 rounds each, I would say they use it more, equally we had another with a club and we used it but they did not, they have stopped it now, they felt the same people were using it. I have just agreed a reciprocal arrangement with Dainton Park some 120 miles away in South Devon and I would like to have an arrangement with a course at Bournemouth, the Kent coast and South Wales, perhaps even Oxfordshire way....somewhere an hour plus away. I look at this as a nice treat for our members and a nice treat for their members and in this world I think looking after the membership is important, its a reason for belonging. Slightly O/T I have a pair of season tickets for Bath Rugby and if Cardiff made the premiership I would buy a pair of those....again its a lovely treat.

I think the theory of a multi-club membership with 4 or 5 local's is great but in the practice the use would get a bit dis-jointed. A possible is that each club part of the scheme allows a reduced price, then the club can select its price to more fit the market place. There is a big market for golfers who want to belong at £100 per year and pay a reduced green fee per round and perhaps you could deal with other 4 or 5 clubs and all agree say £20, £18, £18, £15, £12 rates..... there are pitfalls too though, nothing is easy.

[Niall C]

Jon

Whats my solution ? Good question.

In terms of clubs surviving I think its about curtailing their off-course costs and at the same time improving the product (ie. the golf). That might not bring in more members but it should help towards balancing the books. I really do think its time for clubs to get back to basics and stop trying to imitate country clubs in the states which have far bigger budgets (I would presume). Clearly I'm referring to average members clubs in the UK with that statement.

For commercial concerns, I would imagine that it might be the same formula. I don't know anyone who pays money to go play somewhere because they can get a nice burger in the clubhouse afterwards so if the food side isn't washing its face cut it out.

As for the design and construction side of the business, I wouldn't like to comment as their are people on here who might take offence at any half baked suggestion I was to come up with.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

yes I think you are correct and many players would be interested in the pay a low membership rate and a reduced greenfee. Reciprocal arrangement are all good and well but if they don't bring any money in then they won't help the finance.

Niall,

you are thinking along the same lines as me ingeneral. Back to basics and reduce the costs.

Jon