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.