Should Golf Course Alterations be subject to Planning/Building Permit Procedure

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Following the Old Course changes fall out, I suggested that the proposed changes should have been subject to an Application for a Planning Permit – to be exact a Detailed Planning Permit or if you like a Building Warrant application.

My reasoning being that, the Planning Procedure exists as check the Laws of the land are being respected, and more importantly the Plans are available to the public so that Third Parties have an opportunity to examine their intention, before the Permit is given and the work begins.

A Golf Course is possibly a special case, where small changes by Owners and Club Committees are being done by the Greenkeepers all the time.

It has been suggested that “Nips and Tucks” don’t qualify for a Planning/Building Permit Application.
However a Course Renovation does usually fall under a Planning Procedure.

So where should the line be drawn?

Obviously many golf courses organisations would prefer to do what they want without the interference of anyone else, particularly the law.

However don’t they have a duty of information and disclosure to the Authorities and the
Public of their intentions, at the very least.

If the choose not to, are they acting with subterfuge and possibly illegally.
   
Everyone else has to respect the planning laws, why should golf courses be exempt?

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Generally, I think the answer is no.  All new courses are required to have a grading permit, but to require it of existing courses could be silly if the scope of work is small ... you don't need towns regulating regular maintenance-type work.

The scope of the alterations is not large enough in area to warrant a grading permit.  There are no erosion issues in what they're doing.  The issues there can and should have been addressed by the Links Trust, but apparently they need a new name to more accurately reflect their role.

[Ben Klaas]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The governmental side of permitting is tedious and overly cumbersome (much like dealing with greens committees).  If a course impacts wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas, I understand.  I also understand if you are impacting a body of water or an aquifer because the public interest is at stake.  99% of the renovations are on private land with zero impact to anyone other than the golfers and members themselves.  What public interest would be protected by having additional governmental interference?  City, County, and Federal agencies need to look at protecting macro issues.  I don't think having to explain why a membership is expanding a greenside bunker is one of them.

[JNagle]

Hope that such a thing would never happen.  Having a background with planning, development and the entire permitting process I can say that design philosophies and aesthetic appeal falls more into the likes and dislikes of those serving on various boards and not necessarily a written code.  Many planning commissions and boards are filled with elected officials, planners or volunteers who have an agenda regardless of what a land development or zoning ordinance says.  Once I left that industry for golf full-time I was thankful that I would rarely have to deal with such boards on an extended basis.  The problem now is that too many officials see a golf renovation project as an opportunity to make a few $$$$ from clubs through stormwater management fees, impact fees, drainage installation oversight..............  It is becoming a headache for some renovation projects where it should not.

[Ian Andrew]

The majority of Canadian projects are, most people don't realize that they are.
It's only complicated when it get near the ocean or below the flood line in a valley system.
If you don't have a permit in either case you can be charged.

[Niall C]

John

Where do you draw the line ? Would you need a permit to cut the grass, do some hollowtining or even re-build a bunker ? Where exactly would the limit be.

When you look at the amount of earth being shifted at TOC on this project, it really doesn't appear to be an awful lot so if you legislate to catch something like this then routine winter changes to your average members course could be caught up in needing a permit as well with the ongoing cost and uncertainty to the club.

Then you have to ask yourself, whats being judged ? Is it whether the work is good from a strategic point of view, or an environmental POV, or even from a safety POV ? The ask yourself who is going to judge it. Do you really think that the average local authority is stacked with budding golf course architectural experts ?

Niall

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Niall,

Indeed, where that grey line is the difficult answer.

The point I’m really making is - through a Permit process the alterations have to be made public – thus giving the opportunity for third parties to make their objections.

With houses, the smallest of changes to the façade of a building require a planning permit. It’s routine, and usually the changes get permission without much fuss.

The Permit Application, through the Plans defines in advance what will happen. If an excavator machine turns up on a golf course with no detailed description of the works and no permit, who knows what’s going to be done?

That’s why gas companies have helicopters flying up and down their gas lines, just checking there are no rogue excavators about to unwittingly cut off a transnational energy supply.

The Permit authority doesn’t necessarily have to check the historical significance or strategic value of a golf course alteration, but a third party, like an Alister MacKenzie Society, or a James Braid Society, or Historic Scotland or anyone, can have the opportunity to present their case and be heard.

I’ve worked with many different different planning authorities and all kinds of environmental organisations, and sure, it can be frustrating not getting your own way, but I’ve learned, and particularly my clients, that early dialogue with interested third parties can achieve quicker results than subterfuge. A compromise can always be found.

However if the information isn’t out there then interested parties will always feel they are being ignored, leading to discontent and opposition.

[James Boon]

John,

To answer your question, it clearly depends upon the exact content and extent of the works, but taking the currently topical example at The Old Course, from what I can tell, I can't see why it would need planning consent? Afterall, when the work is completed it will still be a golf course and the appearance of it to all but us GCA geeks will still be very much as it was before.

Now if the course was to be listed / protected as per the other current discussion, then such works would need approval, but for say Listed Golf Course Consent rather than Planning Approval, and that therefore wouldn't be as onerous from the point of view of the notifications and consultations etc.

I do have to deal with the planning process on a regular basis, but related more to buildings than the landscape. I was hoping that one of my colleagues who is a landscape architect, would have been in the office today as I was going to ask him to what extent of earthworks a planning application would be required, and yet he was out at meetings. Hypothetically, if the proposed works included raising or lowering the existing ground level by say a couple of metres, then perhaps there is some policy in place that suggests that at this point an application is required? When I've had a chance to discuss it with my colleague I'll post again.

Cheers,

James

[Niall C]

John

I'm currently working with a local authority until I can get a proper job and I see first hand, on a day to day basis, how perverse a result the consultation process can bring. Think of it as the Committee looking to design a horse and coming up with a camel.

Niall

[James Boon]

With houses, the smallest of changes to the façade of a building require a planning permit. It’s routine, and usually the changes get permission without much fuss.

John,

The "smallest changes to a house facade" aren't necessarily subject to the planning process. If you have a listed building or are in a conservation area, that may well be the case, but there are many things that you can do without approval, all within permitted development rights.

Just to cover my arse, you should always consult the local planning authority before carrying out works on your house etc etc blah blah   

Cheers,

James

[Jeff Taylor]

"thus giving the opportunity for third parties to make their objections."

Depends on their "interest". Does anyone get an objection?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC-S,

Yikes,

Another layer of governmental bureaucracy that would only stifle creativity.

Heavens no.

[Terry Lavin]

NFW

[John Chilver-Stainer]

UAN

[Mike_Young]

The Permit authority doesn’t necessarily have to check the historical significance or strategic value of a golf course alteration, but a third party, like an Alister MacKenzie Society, or a James Braid Society, or Historic Scotland or anyone, can have the opportunity to present their case and be heard.

JOHN,
YOU ARE JOKING..RIGHT?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

OK Mike we know you don't like the Dead Guy's Societys!!!

[Mike_Young]

OK Mike we know you don't like the Dead Guy's Societys!!!

come on John.
It would be like letting the NY Yankees Fan club in the dugout.....

[jeffwarne]

OK Mike we know you don't like the Dead Guy's Societys!!!

come on John.
It would be like letting the NY Yankees Fan club in the dugout.....

or parents making a LL lineup

[jeffwarne]

If a course sucked would you have to get permission to alter it?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

While there about it you could send the referees and linesmen on a long vacation