[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,

here in Scotland it is very unusual for the national government to step in in such a case. The site destroyed by the construction of the golf course was one of only 6 to be found in Britain and protecting it should have been any planning authorities priority. Furthermore the area was used by many people for recreation. As such it should have been obvious that its use as an exclusive golf resort was not compatible with public access. I wonder how Donald will react when he discovers that anyone can just roam across his course and he has no right to stop them?

Although there were many people who wanted the project it is wrong to say it was the majority. At Least as many people were against it. I hope that the project succeeds but if Donald carries on as he is at the moment then he will find many of the locals can be very tough to deal with.

Jon

[RDecker]

It's amazing that with a head as swelled as his is he still manages to fit it up his own arse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I'm not familiar with the land, but is it substantively different from the land where Prestwick, Troon, Western Gailes and other seaside courses are located ?

If not, how is it substantively different ?

Thanks

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

Have you read the report from Scottish Heritage regarding the property that I linked on page 1 of this thread? It gives a thorough description of the nature of the property. Here is another link to the report:

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/232.pdf

DT 

[DMoriarty]

It's amazing that with a head as swelled as his is he still manages to fit it up his own arse.

Come on now, Lou's head isn't that swelled.

[Tom_Doak]

The site destroyed by the construction of the golf course was one of only 6 to be found in Britain and protecting it should have been any planning authorities priority. Furthermore the area was used by many people for recreation. As such it should have been obvious that its use as an exclusive golf resort was not compatible with public access.

Jon

If you go any further I may have to take Mr. Trump's side in this!

It amazes me that people in Scotland believe that dunes should be "off limits" to golf course development.  Surely there must have been a plan that could have allowed a golf course to exist [dunes are the natural habitat of golf, after all], while protecting the Natural interest of the site?

The problem with the planning process is that by first pulling the issue off the table -- and then going back and approving it, without further study -- the government allowed the original plan to stand, without input as to sensitive areas.

I recognize that there are sites that should NOT be developed as golf courses.  I don't know enough to be sure whether this was such a site, or not; and I honestly don't know how anyone else here could know for sure, either.  It's such a large site that I suspect it could have been figured out to where both parties would have been happy with the result.  Unfortunately, such compromise seems impossible in the real world nowadays.  Most people just see black or white on such issues, so the result is determined by money and power. 

[Chris DeNigris]

How anyone in this DG could look at this kind of property and come to the conclusion that there could be any better use for the site than a world class golf course..is utterly beyond me. I might not be wild about the mega-hotel and the condos...but to think that there are some on this site that feel the site wouldn't be enhanced by golf is... strange.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm 100% with TDs sentiments on this one.

I'm having a hard time seeing how dunesy links land would be that unique that it would be unfit to build on...especially in the UK of all places?  Take a look at Google Maps and follow the coast line up and down and the entire place is littered with golf courses.  St. Andrews of all places is right on a prime piece of land right next to the ocean and they put what 6 courses there?  I don't get it.

Its not like they wanted to build it in a place like Yellowstone, or Yosemite, or Arches National Park which are all one of a kind places with nowhere else like it on earth.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That's what I was alluding to.

How different a site is this site from Prestwick, Troon, Western Gailes and others.

David Tepper,

I don't have the time, presently, to read a 62 page report.
It's a simple question, how different is the Trump site from those other sites ?

And, as Tom Doak stated, with a sufficiently large site, why couldn't a golf course be accomodated ?

How have Troon, Prestwick, St Andrews, Turnberry, Western Gailes and others ruined those respective shorelines and dunes over the last few centuries ?

[Tom_Doak]

And, as Tom Doak stated, with a sufficiently large site, why couldn't a golf course be accomodated ?

Patrick:

Don't forget, though, that nutty Scottish government green-lighted him to build TWO 18-hole courses there.

I'm just speculating on this, but I would guess that Mr. Trump only planned two courses so that he could later compromise with the government, and still get permission to build the one that he wanted.  But the government botched the process so thoroughly that they just approved the two without asking him to compromise ... at which point, he couldn't go back and say he didn't really need to be in the dunes quite as much as they are!

So, today he is threatening NOT TO BUILD his second course and mega-hotel unless the government denies permits for a new wind farm that might compromise the view from his new course!

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

Sorry, I did not think you needed to be spoon fed!   Why don't you take 5 minutes to read the first 6 or 8 pages of the report, just to get a better feel for the situation?

Did you read Jon Wiggett's comments at the top of this page? Jon lives in Scotland and has recently finished building his own 9-hole golf course there pretty much by himself, so I presume he has some working knowledge of the issues involved.  

Jon wrote, "The site destroyed by the construction of the golf course was one of only 6 to be found in Britain and protecting it should have been any planning authorities priority."    

I suppose no one really knows how many similar sites have been destroyed along the coastline of Britain by golf course construction over the past 200 years. But, since only 6 were left, might not it have made some sense to let them exist in their natural state?

DT      
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick, Kalen & Chris,

it is amusing that when certain a person speaks, others jump shouting and whooping on to the band wagon.

Tom,

I agree with you wholeheartedly (shouting & a whooping) that sand dunes should not be off limits to golf developments. But had you bothered to find a bit more out about this area before posting you would have discovered that it was the fact the dunes were shifting is what made them a SSSI. By building the course they had to stabilise the dunes so destroying the very thing that was protected.

I appreciate that you are busy and so can not know everything about all things but maybe you should refrain from posting or qualify your comments before posting. Or do you back destroying important natural sites for a development that could have been built a mile north or south of this area?

Jon

[Sean_A]

How anyone in this DG could look at this kind of property and come to the conclusion that there could be any better use for the site than a world class golf course..is utterly beyond me. I might not be wild about the mega-hotel and the condos...but to think that there are some on this site that feel the site wouldn't be enhanced by golf is... strange.

Right, its not as if Scotland doesn't have enough great seaside courses.  One more will make all the difference 100 years from now.  

I guess the two camps will very rarely agree.  One side believes it important to protect certain areas just because they are interesting and somewhat rare (thats me - especially given the population density of the UK is).  The other side believes that land is for people to develop otherwise it has little use.  This sort of attitude is not uncommon.  These days more and more people question the value of art museums, music schools, humanities degrees, libraries etc.  Tom, it essentially is a black and white issue much of the time.  To bury a site like Trump's under a golf course should have required much more hard work on the part of the government to explain why the trade-off was beneficial.  Instead, the £1 billion PR gimmick was tossed around with mention of so many jobs (mostly crap pay which few Scots will take).  Its this sort of approach which really demonstrates what governments think about constituencies.   

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'll dip my toe in...

I can imagine that they may have spent close to £100m all in since the process began. Certainly not beyond the realms of possibility...

As for the environmental argument, I fall somewhere between the two camps. It is the shifting sands on the back nine that were the real rare stuff... There was a suggested routing proposed by architect / GEO man Mike Wood which utilised the land from the front nine with land further south and west (proposed land of second course) that would have avoided this land being touched... Alternatively, I suspect there may have been a chance to build an environmentally friendly "shifting" golf course by stabilising a lot less of the sand but still utilisng some of that northern area... but that would never have met the Client's brief I presume...

This was a unique site... But does that mean I think that we should ban building more golf courses on links land... Absolutely not...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I agree with you wholeheartedly (shouting & a whooping) that sand dunes should not be off limits to golf developments. But had you bothered to find a bit more out about this area before posting you would have discovered that it was the fact the dunes were shifting is what made them a SSSI. By building the course they had to stabilise the dunes so destroying the very thing that was protected.

I appreciate that you are busy and so can not know everything about all things but maybe you should refrain from posting or qualify your comments before posting. Or do you back destroying important natural sites for a development that could have been built a mile north or south of this area?

Jon

Thanks so much for that condescending post, Jon.

I will confess not to have read the 62-page report about a site where I didn't get the job, however, I am pretty familiar with the site, having worked with a topo map of it for a month or more.  If I recall correctly, the shifting sands constituted about 30-50 acres of a 500-acre site.  They could have built a great course in the dunes while leaving them alone -- the same way that Bill Coore did at Lost Farm, which also features shifting sands in areas to the northeast of the golf course he built.

But, as I pointed out, the government process of first denying the permits and then reconsidering and granting them WITHOUT NEGOTIATING THE DETAILS is what gave Mr. Trump permission to build in the shifting sands.  If they'd gone through a normal process of negotiation, instead of a black-or-white argument, he might well have agreed to avoid that part of the site in return for being able to develop the course he wanted.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I would be highly surprised if this application wasn't negotiated both at local and national level.  Wasn't it Trump playing hardball with all or nothing dictates when alternatives were suggested?  In any case, even if the shifting dunes were saved, much more space would have been needed for further shifting.  Also, it is hard to argue that the beauty of the site wouldn't be heavily compromised by the non-golf development.  So much has been said about the golf, but this application is really about a housing/hotel estate with the golf a secondary issue.  The only reason the golf took centre stage was because of the site. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

So much has been said about the golf, but this application is really about a housing/hotel estate with the golf a secondary issue.  The only reason the golf took centre stage was because of the site. 

Ciao

This is what gets so often forgotten.  This huge development has raised many questions and golf is having  PR disaster

Wind farms visible from great links courses like Deal, Sandwich, Hoylake and even Great Yarmouth do not spoil ones day.  You may not like them but they wouldn’t  stop you playing.  BUT would you buy a luxury home where they were always there? In these troubled times I believe that’s what really concerns Trump.


The Scottish economy is so weak, with Aberdeen is one of the few bright spots, that Salmon as a national politician felt he had to do ‘whatever it takes’ to attract overseas investment.  If it becomes an independent state with him as the leader, it doesn’t augur well for local democracy.


Many links courses are exposed and impossible to keep secure.  Thus they court local support to ensure mindless acts of vandalism are kept to a minimum.  I fear for this course and the damage that vandals might wreck on it.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

I agree with you wholeheartedly (shouting & a whooping) that sand dunes should not be off limits to golf developments. But had you bothered to find a bit more out about this area before posting you would have discovered that it was the fact the dunes were shifting is what made them a SSSI. By building the course they had to stabilise the dunes so destroying the very thing that was protected.

I appreciate that you are busy and so can not know everything about all things but maybe you should refrain from posting or qualify your comments before posting. Or do you back destroying important natural sites for a development that could have been built a mile north or south of this area?

Jon

Thanks so much for that condescending post, Jon.

I will confess not to have read the 62-page report about a site where I didn't get the job, however, I am pretty familiar with the site, having worked with a topo map of it for a month or more.  If I recall correctly, the shifting sands constituted about 30-50 acres of a 500-acre site.  They could have built a great course in the dunes while leaving them alone -- the same way that Bill Coore did at Lost Farm, which also features shifting sands in areas to the northeast of the golf course he built.

But, as I pointed out, the government process of first denying the permits and then reconsidering and granting them WITHOUT NEGOTIATING THE DETAILS is what gave Mr. Trump permission to build in the shifting sands.  If they'd gone through a normal process of negotiation, instead of a black-or-white argument, he might well have agreed to avoid that part of the site in return for being able to develop the course he wanted.

Tom,

The Scottish Executive would have had to negotiate but have obviously ridden shotgun over all the environmental issues. As you said it would have been possible to have routed a course leaving the shifting dunes alone but Donald Trump was hell bent on going through them.

My post that almost drove you to support Donald Trump was one stating that I was against the destruction of such unique SSSI. Could you please tell me why you are seemingly in support of such destruction.

Jon

[Chris DeNigris]

I guess I'm just not that understanding/impressed with the significance of the shiftiness of the dunes in question. In my handful of trips to the UK I've only gotten to experience what I assumed to be the firmly rooted, statiionary type dunes..and those are indeed amazing. Unless they were very subtly shifting and I completely missed it. I probably wouldn't have encountered too many of these amazing dunes if there had not been a unique and wonderful golf course built on it. Most of these fabulous courses were built a long time ago...and thankfully the limitations that are currently in place in most areas were not then or we would have significantly less to talk about here.

Just what are the tangible ramifications of affecting the shiftiness of these dunes by developing something in and around them? Are we putting some snails or special weeds in potential grave danger? What exactly happens in 10, 50 or 100 years? Or are we concerned with what might possibly happen in 2550?

For those that passionately defend the sanctity of the land here...how many times have you visited these dunes and walked amongst them? I'm assuming by the stong feelings of attachment that most have established a meaningful relationship with the property and that's what's resulting in such fierce defence. I wouldn't want to think that there might be some ulterior motives at play.

So Sean- are you the one that's been appointed to say when there's been enough golf courses built? I don't envy you, that's a tough job.

Maybe I'm just insensitive.

[Jud_T]

I'm just sorry they didn't wait till he built out the whole kit and kaboodle before they threw up the wind farm.  Now that would have made for a fine sequel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

No one on this site is better positioned to present the case for Bandon than you.
So, perhaps you can tell us how the Bandon project was perceived andd received by the people of Bandon and the surrounding area.
Thanks

From my limited perspective, the town and surrounding area appeared to be on the decline, with lumbering and other industries/businesses  reducing their activities or abandoning the area.

The introduction of the golf complex at Bandon seemed to revitalize or at least boost the local economy, and I have to believe that it continues to do so.

Somewhere, people have to decide, what's more important, dunes, bugs and trees or people.

By today's standards, would the island of Manhattan be permitted to be transformed into one of the centers of the world.

Have we gone too far with protectionism ?

Did Sandpines sound the death knell for the oblique dunes in Oregon ?

Could Prestwick, Troon, Western Gailes and Turnberry be built today ?

I'm less interested in what people in America have to say about this, less interested in what people in the UK have to say about this, less interested in what people in Scotland have to say about this, and MORE interested in what the local and surrounding townspeople have to say about this.

I'd rather have my local schoolboard decide the curriculum than some bureaucrat in Trenton or Washington DC.
Likewise, one would think that the locals should be in charge of their fate and the ones making the decisions that directly affect
their lives with respect to the Trump project.

And, I understand the "National Interest" argument, but in many cases having people in California opine/decide what people in New York should do, and vice versa, doesn't fly very well with me.

[David_Tepper]

"MORE interested in what the local and surrounding townspeople have to say about this."

Pat M. -

Have you read "Dream Golf," the book about the making of Bandon Dunes? The book reveals the very lengthy and gradual process Mike Keiser went thru to gain community support and regulatory approval for the Bandon project.

Your comments regarding decisions being made at the local level are ironic, especially given that the duly elected and appointed officials of the Aberdeen area, following the established regulations and procedures, decided that the Trump project was not in the best interest of the region. In this case, the decision of the locals was overridden by they national government, which is exactly the outcome you disapprove of!   

DT 

[Ally Mcintosh]

For those that have never investigated the environs of sand dunes past this discussion forum, it is pretty easy to familiarise yourself with the basics:

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/successn/primary2.htm

Simply put, all sand dunes move in their early stages (as they form). They then stabilise naturally. It is the extent of the shifting sands at Balmedie and because of that the speed of their movement that separates them from a normal dune system and made them so valuable. There really was a large amount of open sand on display prior to construction.

[Sean_A]

For those that have never investigated the environs of sand dunes past this discussion forum, it is pretty easy to familiarise yourself with the basics:

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/successn/primary2.htm

Simply put, all sand dunes move in their early stages (as they form). They then stabilise naturally. It is the extent of the shifting sands at Balmedie and because of that the speed of their movement that separates them from a normal dune system and made them so valuable. There really was a large amount of open sand on display prior to construction.

Ally

Yes, when I walked the dunes I was astonished to find shifting sands just as I did on the India/Pakistan border in Rajasthan.  Obviously the scale of the dunes in Scotland was nowhere near that in Rajasthan, but jeepers what a cool place it was.  

Back on the subject of negotiation, for sure Trump altered his plans I think after outline planning was approved but with a ton of conditions - from memory something like 50+ (this is negotiation!). 

It is also interesting to note that of the 200+ applications the Scottish Gov't called in between 1999 and 2007, the Menie estate application is the only one which was called in after a decision to refuse the application was made by a planning authority but before the authority issued the decision notice.  Very sneaky stuff indeed, but still undermining local government decisions. 

I wrote a long time ago that if the national government wanted this application approved they should have called it in when it was submitted and Salmon said he was for it.  Instead, the government went through the ruse of wanting local government to decide (and thus take all the heat either way) when in fact, this application was never going to be refused.  Its typical politician crap. 


Ciao  

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting how times change.  The original links courses were built there because the land wasn't much good for anything else; the sensible and god-fearing Scots would never have used productive farmland, for example, to create a field of play.  Today on the other hand, many/most of the new courses I play used to be productive farms; and meanwhile a few of us here and there fight to keep sand intact.  Mind you, I'd rather have farmland go to golf course than to parking lot and that public spaces/nature remain puiblic spaces -- but a bit of historical perspective is handy. 

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()