[Sean_A]

MClutterbuck

Possibly the most ridiculous post since............... god knows when.

Feeling sorry for a billionaire and his millionaire business partner because their planning application got called in, something which was almost a foregone conclusion by the way, is just bizarre. As for long processes, they also help to ensure sure that the right decisions are made. It's not all about money, or golf, which golf tourists don't always appreciate or want to appreciate as it doesn't usually suit there interests.

Niall

Efficient processes ensure that the right decisions are made. Long processes sometimes ensure the right projects are NOT made.

As someone who is responsible for responding to planning applications I can say consultation time is very welcome.  If anything, more time would be nice...3 weeks to respond on complicated applications is asking a lot.  Hence one reason we see apps called in, it can be a delay tactic to gain more time...I will try to use all day long if I am convinced there will be strong objections. Its incredible who comes out of the woodwork for certain apps.

Ciao   

[Lou_Duran]

MClutterbuck

Always happy to enlighten.

What I was incredulous at and thought ridiculous was the idea that two wealthy blokes who are currently going through a planning process that which was always likely to be lengthy and involved due to its nature, and who therefore probably anticipated it, should require or even want sympathy. I still am.

Your other comments re wealth etc are another discussion which I don't have time for at this moment but the projected wealth creation element is the nub of the issue and the only reason this application has got this far. That's where maybe there should be more discussion.

Niall

Yes Mr. Niall C, but are you always so willing to be enlightened?

The reality is that class warfare is most often in play.   And while the rich may not deserve our sympathy, we all should demand fairness, if for no other than the selfish reason that it could involve us as well.    Do we sheepishly accept government's intrusion into a bathroom remodel (reference Bob Huntley's attempt thwarted by the regulatory overreach of the California Coastal Commission though his home was over five miles from the ocean)?

The Coul Links project is on private property.  The SSI designation is as much political as scientific, in effect a taking of private property by essentially prohibiting its owners from enjoying its use.  The site in question has not been maintained and, reportedly, has been degraded considerably by previous uses and neglect.  Further, the owners- not terribly wealthy from all appearances- as much as the developer (Mike Keiser) stand to finally reap some reward.

Whether the project will generate positive economic activity beyond its construction and stabilization phases might be of interest, but not, IMO, relevant to the base case- a fallow, not very attractive tract with extremely limited use under the present regulatory burden beyond the minds of a very small number of professional interveners.   And yes, the societal value placed on the debatable survival of an insect (in my part of the world, they seem to be quite mobile as I learned when a former neighbor treated for termites without telling me and the little bastards invaded my home), is in the realm of politics much more than science.

 If the SSI is so terribly important, the environmental groups include some very rich elements and could purchase the land on behalf of the people of Scotland and the critters who call it home.  Knowing of Mr. Keiser's past land purchases, my bet is that the tract could be acquired for a reasonable sum- maybe within the reach of a GoFundMe scheme.

Someone asked about the cost of planning in a difficult regulatory environment.    25+ years ago C & C designed a course for a site previously used for crude oil logistics (tank depot, as I recall) in coastal SoCal.  I had access to the economics and it would have been a homerun for everyone involved.  A 10+ year fight ensued involving the CCC and numerous environmental groups and finally the developer tossed the towel in.  I was told by an individual working with the group that north of $3 Million had been spent before pulling the plug.  As far as I know, and TommyN might be able to verify this, the site remains unused, contaminated, and probably ignored by even the people who pass it on the train each day.  For the public good!

[Sean_A]

While I can understand your frustration, I think it best to be safe than sorry.  Because land isn't currently being maximized for public or private use doesn't mean it won't be in the future.  That is what protection is in the main about, protection for the future.  I don't know enough about this specific project to have an opinion on if it should be developed, but as part of the over-arching question of protecting a limited and dwindling resource (especially in the UK ), that is land, I am all in.  There are many aspects to current living which cannot be governed by the free market.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Yes Lou, always happy to be enlightened as well.

I do however think you are off track in thinking this is about class warfare or nationalistic feelings one way or another. It's a planning application that is going through the process in the prescribed manner. In other words, the process would take this route irrespective of who the applicant was, assuming they could afford the cost of pursuing it.

But if I read your post correctly your real objection has nothing to do with the wealth of the applicant or their nationality being an issue (which it isn't IMO), and more that you don't think there should be a planning system in the first place and that the landowner should be able to do whatever they want with the land, correct ?

If you follow that reasoning he could use his property for landfill, or a toxic dump, or oil refinery or some other bad neighbour use irrespective of what that would do for the surrounding area. That sort of reasoning could also see many of golf course, the Old Course included, ploughed up and redeveloped for more commercially valuable uses.

On balance I think I prefer to have a planning system.

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Sean,

If you are responding to my post, I am not frustrated at all.  I am in the sunset of my life and am extremely fortunate to have access to nearly all the courses I want to play.  Likewise, my kids are well-positioned to deal with whatever political environment they will face, and I remain generally optimistic about their kids' prospects.

My concern since early adulthood is that people keep making the same mistakes based not on how things actually work, but on the ingrained class and political dogma they were reared in DESPITE the level of formal education they subsequently acquire or the seemingly instinctual desire to be different than their parents (as Seve's former father-in-law once rudely remarked, "you can take the boy out of the caddie shack but you can't take the caddie shack out of the boy").

For example, one only has to travel to a relatively few different countries and it is quite evident that those which have a market-oriented economy (laissez faire capitalism hasn't existed in the Western World for over a century) have a cleaner environment and a much better standard of living at all levels of society.  Class envy- why should Tiger Woods be so much better than me and command such wealth?- is diminishing all of us.

Relative to the future, the UK and most Western developed countries won't have a problem with over-population as fertility rates have declined beyond population replacement.  Unfortunately, there appears to be a correlation with more education and fewer kids, and Malthusian fears remain rampant despite all the evidence to refute them.

Immigration is the wild card and the current zeitgeist in many countries is to better mind the borders.  I would not be concerned about running out of land due to too many golf courses being built- there is likely to be many more returning to other uses than being built- though the continued migration from rural areas to large population centers may be a cause of worry (as mobility and housing prices become more difficult).

Relative to the subject links, it is not that the owners wish to take property out of production of any sort.  It is a matter of an insect and a mostly unusable tract of private land having higher value in its current state to Scottish society than its development as a golf course.   I am merely suggesting that this is a political decision and, in a society governed by rationality and the rule of law, if the base case prevails, the owners should be equitably compensated.
   

[Lou_Duran]

But if I read your post correctly your real objection has nothing to do with the wealth of the applicant or their nationality being an issue (which it isn't IMO), and more that you don't think there should be a planning system in the first place and that the landowner should be able to do whatever they want with the land, correct ?

If you follow that reasoning he could use his property for landfill, or a toxic dump, or oil refinery or some other bad neighbour use irrespective of what that would do for the surrounding area. That sort of reasoning could also see many of golf course, the Old Course included, ploughed up and redeveloped for more commercially valuable uses.

On balance I think I prefer to have a planning system.

Niall

Wow, what a straw man you have built!

I am very big on orderly, relevant planning, especially at the local level.  I also strongly believe in the bundle of rights inherent in ownership, especially of real property.

Accounting for externalities and the impact of a proposed use on those in the area is an important part of the process.   I've always liked variations of the  clause inserted in contracts to the effect that "consent shall not be unreasonably withheld".  The interests of the NIMBYs- no one IMO is entitled to a pristine existence at the expense of others who may wish something that approximates it- must be weighed against the interests of other parties.  I do think that the planning process must have a short clock- say up to one year in most cases- and the folks allowed to intervene via legal challenges limited to having direct skin in the game and liable if they lose for all costs incurred by the challenged party.

So no, I don't think a nuclear waste  site should be built next to my home, but perhaps a plan to build low-income housing nearby might deserve due consideration.   Common land (TOC) should not be ploughed under, though if the stakeholders one day make the case that it should be, open-minded people may wish to consider.

In contrast, the powers of eminent domain in the U.S. are very strong.  As I recall, a few years back, a city mayor wanted to condemn privately-owned Deepdale GC to redevelop for commercial uses which would bring the government more tax revenues.  Fortunately for the well-heeled members, they were able to fight it off in court, but at what expense and tribulation. 

[Jon Wiggett]

David,


the planning system in Scotland is different from England.


Ben,


this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.


Marty,


you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.


Sean,


there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.

The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.   

The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not.  Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local.  One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.

Ciao

Sean,


one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.


Jon

[Niall C]

Lou

If I misunderstood or misstated you then apologies, it certainly wasn’t my intention. However I’m not sure I follow the logic or the practicalities of your suggestion that somehow the Government (ie. the tax payer) should somehow compensate the landowner for not getting planning permission to develop the site.

As we both know, the granting of planning permission can add value where there is demand for the use granted. This also assumes the proposed use is of a higher value than the existing. Presumably, on the grounds of equity and fairness, you would also have to compensate neighbouring owners ? And if everyone was assumed to have got planning permission for compensation purposes, you would soon have a (theoretical) oversupply resulting in depressed land values.

Or it’s possible you mean that compensation should be only in this case due to the designation of the land in the Development Plan ? If that’s the case then why should it apply here and not in another situation where higher value planning was refused ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

David,

the planning system in Scotland is different from England.


Ben,


this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.


Marty,


you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.


Sean,


there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.

The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.   

The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not.  Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local.  One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.

Ciao

Sean,


one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.


Jon

Jon

First off...I have never heard of racially based planning and I hope I never do. 

I have no issue with social housing so long as it is appropriately located...that is in areas where there is employment, transportation, infrastructure and amenities. I see little point in placing social housing in rural villages where none of these benefits exist.  Of course, some developments are large enough to tastefully incorporate social housing...and some are not.  In the case I referenced, one social housing unit among three rural market dwellings was wholly inappropriate and made the scheme unaffordable to develop.  IMO...this is very poor planning regulation which stopped the development of some very cool ecologically sound bungalows. 

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Sean-  "racially-based planning" may not be the preferred phrase, but in the U.S. at least (and we tend to lag Europe in these social issues by a decade or two), the results of urban low-income housing initiatives amount to that.  Obama's HUD rolled out to a number of cities its Section 8 program (vouchers that paid landlords the vast majority of the monthly rent directly for qualified low-income tenants) which were good only in areas of the cities or suburbs where subsidized housing did not exist.  The theory was that by getting poor people out of crime-ridden, undesirable areas, they would automatically rise to the improved environments and emulate their new better-off neighbors.  Only the most invested social planners would conclude that things went even directionally well.

Jon may be correct that "most" in the UK appreciate the need for a "mixed community", at least when asked for an opinion in public.  It is probably another thing all together if a high-density low-income housing project was being proposed near the respondent.  Conversations with many folks there in my  over dozen trips suggest that in practice, birds of a feather tend to flock together, i.e. in theory, we should all learn to live, work, and socialize together; in practice, not so much.  One only has to look at one of the most racially and culturally diverse parts of the U.S., SoCal, and see how segregated many communities are.         

[Lou_Duran]

Lou

If I misunderstood or misstated you then apologies, it certainly wasn’t my intention. However I’m not sure I follow the logic or the practicalities of your suggestion that somehow the Government (ie. the tax payer) should somehow compensate the landowner for not getting planning permission to develop the site.

As we both know, the granting of planning permission can add value where there is demand for the use granted. This also assumes the proposed use is of a higher value than the existing. Presumably, on the grounds of equity and fairness, you would also have to compensate neighbouring owners ? And if everyone was assumed to have got planning permission for compensation purposes, you would soon have a (theoretical) oversupply resulting in depressed land values.

Or it’s possible you mean that compensation should be only in this case due to the designation of the land in the Development Plan ? If that’s the case then why should it apply here and not in another situation where higher value planning was refused ?

Niall

No apologies necessary Niall; we are friendly.

I suspect that how land was originally acquired in Scotland and Ireland might have something to do with our very different perspectives on private property rights.  Perhaps you see that the land's value is conferred by the government through its approval process.  I see it more from the standpoint of its location³, market demand for a particular use, and a regulatory regime which takes into account a variety of issues including the effects on the neighborhood and nearby areas.

On the specific Coul Links site, if the good folks in Scotland deem the fly and the rather ordinary, degraded dunes complex to render the private property essentially unusable by the owner, yes, they should compensate the owner.  After all, it is the "taxpayer" who is deriving the collective benefits of privately-owned land by fiat at the expense of the owner.

In the U.S. zoning is largely local, though state and federal regulations have a considerable effect.  The concept of "entitlements" is fairly new to me despite having been active in the real estate industry for over 20 years (not a new concept in CA, as I learned when I moved there for a couple of years in 2006). 

Many areas in Texas had what was called cumulative zoning which essentially allowed the owner to build a variety of things covered up to the zoning that was granted (e.g. the higher the intensity of the approved zoning, say industrial, the more options the owner or developer had, say office, retail, apartments, etc.).  Some cities like Houston had relatively few zoning requirements, and though it has tremendous traffic problems, it remains one of the fastest growing large metro areas in the country.  Master Plan zoning became popular, but it was still flexible enough to build in a pro-growth environment.

As to acquiring private land by the government for public use, that happens all of the time with market-based compensation to the owner.  Ditto for preserving natural areas (and some golf courses have gone this route).  Maybe the environmental groups can GoFund the purchase of the farm and make it available to all the people they purportedly represent.   Me, for a variety of mostly unselfish reasons, I hope the course gets built. 

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

the planning system in Scotland is different from England.


Ben,


this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.


Marty,


you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.


Sean,


there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.

The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.   

The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not.  Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local.  One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.

Ciao

Sean,


one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.


Jon

Jon

First off...I have never heard of racially based planning and I hope I never do. 

I have no issue with social housing so long as it is appropriately located...that is in areas where there is employment, transportation, infrastructure and amenities. I see little point in placing social housing in rural villages where none of these benefits exist.  Of course, some developments are large enough to tastefully incorporate social housing...and some are not.  In the case I referenced, one social housing unit among three rural market dwellings was wholly inappropriate and made the scheme unaffordable to develop.  IMO...this is very poor planning regulation which stopped the development of some very cool ecologically sound bungalows. 

Ciao

Sean,


firstly, I never said that 'planning' should be done on a racial basis so please either read what I wrote. Secondly, I am somewhat gobsmacked by your opinion about who should be allowed or not allowed to live in 'rural villages'. You may not have a problem with the local working class population who may have been living in such villages for generations being driven out of the area by incoming, wealthier outsiders wanting to escape the dirt and noise of urban life however many including myself do. I find the whole line of class segregation you are pushing quite abhorrent and am genuinely shocked by it being aired openly on this website.


How sad

[Sean_A]

David,

the planning system in Scotland is different from England.


Ben,


this was never always going to be called in and is only been so because the SNP are in hoc to the Green Party represented none directly elected MSPs.


Marty,


you cannot have the processes running parallel as this could lead to two different outcomes.


Sean,


there is no blackmail involved in the planning systems in the UK but developers are required to consider the impact of their projects on the local area. If anything the system is weighted in favour of the developer not the planners.

The presumption of planning depends on local plans. Jesus, after having spent 5 years to develop a Neighbourhood Plan I know far too much about planning than I would like. Planning is the darkest of all arts.   

The extra costs of infrastructure development, amenity increase costs, provision of social housing (all under the guise of S106 in England), land swapping etc is often the difference between development and not.  Our Council is in constant negotiations with developers and the local authority about how to keep these cream funds local.  One of the few very good planning projects I have seen locally was unaffordable for the developer because of the requirement for social housing.

Ciao

Sean,


one of the things that most people in the UK appreciate is the need for a mixed community in both social and racial terms. This also means on projects above a certain size it is important to have a mixture of housing which includes social housing. Also, larger projects will have a larger impact on local infrastructure so it is only fair for developers fund mitigation work.


Jon

Jon

First off...I have never heard of racially based planning and I hope I never do. 

I have no issue with social housing so long as it is appropriately located...that is in areas where there is employment, transportation, infrastructure and amenities. I see little point in placing social housing in rural villages where none of these benefits exist.  Of course, some developments are large enough to tastefully incorporate social housing...and some are not.  In the case I referenced, one social housing unit among three rural market dwellings was wholly inappropriate and made the scheme unaffordable to develop.  IMO...this is very poor planning regulation which stopped the development of some very cool ecologically sound bungalows. 

Ciao

Sean,


firstly, I never said that 'planning' should be done on a racial basis so please either read what I wrote. Secondly, I am somewhat gobsmacked by your opinion about who should be allowed or not allowed to live in 'rural villages'. You may not have a problem with the local working class population who may have been living in such villages for generations being driven out of the area by incoming, wealthier outsiders wanting to escape the dirt and noise of urban life however many including myself do. I find the whole line of class segregation you are pushing quite abhorrent and am genuinely shocked by it being aired openly on this website.


How sad

Jon

I find it disturbing that you consider the opinions of others abhorrent because they don't meet your standard social equity.  But hey, that seems to be the way of the world in the Trump era...you are either with me or against me.  We all can't be socialists or there wouldn't be any money to build social housing....how is that for an opinion?  I can just about understand the agenda of altering demographics via the planning process, except that a significant percentage of people moving into social housing these these days don't have legitimate ties with the community.  If there are no ties, why not build the houses in towns and cities where jobs, transport, infrastructure and amenites already exist?  Why gobble up more and more open countryside? 

Village centres are being eroded by urbanization at an alarming rate...the very thing people are trying to avoid when moving to villages.  Its criminal to have so many empty properties in cities and yet build in unsustainable green land areas or village centres. It makes zero sense to me and the system will continue to crack and leak until England's green and pleasant land is no longer. Sure, I have serious issues with social housing as automatic tag on to development...and for very good reasons.

BTW...why you raise the concept of race in regards to a planning discussion is beyond me...unless you think the two are connected.

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

It looks like there will not be a decision until next spring:
http://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/highlands-course-project-set-for-public-inquiry

[Jerry Kluger]

Does anyone believe that another expensive golf course will be good for golf in Scotland so far as the Scots themselves?


http://www.golfwrx.com/529176/the-endangered-state-of-scottish-golf/

[Niall C]

Jerry

If you mean will it be good for the Scots in a general golfing sense as opposed to some sort of wider financial or economic sense then I suppose the quick answer would be that it won’t do any harm assuming it doesn’t detract from other clubs or courses in the area. 

If however you mean will it lead to Scotland having a much bigger representation in the world top 100, which seems to be what that article was focused on, then I suppose having some big modern course for elite players to play the odd event at, also wouldn’t do any harm.

However I’ve got to ask, does it really matter ? Is the number of players in the top 100 the best way to judge the health of the game ? Does it make any difference to the club golfer ? I recall it wasn’t that long ago when England didn’t have any players in the top 100 and then a few short years later they had one at no. 1 and several more in the top 20 or whatever. I’m not sure it meant the average club was doing any better.

Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

Does anyone believe that another expensive golf course will be good for golf in Scotland so far as the Scots themselves?


http://www.golfwrx.com/529176/the-endangered-state-of-scottish-golf/

Well, the article does not support the thesis of the thread or the issue at hand or the one you may want to put forth.


The article is about golf participation by younger/millennial Scots in general - an issue facing every golf market in the world including the US.


Debatable issues surrounding Coul Links focus on: 1) the environment 2) overall Scottish golf tourism 3) the economy in east Sutherland 4) capacity of golf tourism in Dornoch, etc.


Millennials arent buying homes either.
Millennial participation in our game has been covered extensively here.


Sadly, like many things - including real estate, there is a bifurcation occurring that underscores the widening wealth gap in the US and in the world. Coul Links will be targeted at higher end golf tourism and is designed to create a "hub" for golf tourism in Dornoch. If the Scottish Govt's studies support this thesis, and if the course treats the environment with respect, then the project may well be approved.

[Lou_Duran]

Balancing the pros and cons of the CL project, I can't see much of a downside-  can't hurt Scottish golf participation rates, foreign capital comes in, positive impact on golf tourism, little if any cannibalization of rounds from second and third tier courses, more money in the local economy=higher employment, more income, maybe even higher participation among the locals?, likely ancillary development, etc.

And if the project fails due to insufficient demand?   A site which has been marginally cared-for and deteriorating for decades is stabilized, its local owners have cash in their pockets, and perhaps the course can be re-capitalized at a much smaller basis to better serve the local and regional communities.  Worse case: the site returns to nature with the indigenous flora dominating once again.

As noted in another thread, let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.   It is not like the status quo is much good. 

[Brian_Ewen]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tiny-fly-ready-to-stymie-tycoons-golf-links-plan-nr5x9nnt9



Tiny fly ready to stymie tycoons’ golf links plan
Shingi Mararike
November 18 2018, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times

Plans for a 450-acre golf course in the Highlands bankrolled by two US tycoons could be scuppered by an endangered species of fly.


Fonseca’s seed fly (Botanophila fonsecai), which is the focus of efforts to block the Coul Links development in Sutherland, has now officially been declared a species at risk of extinction.


The fly is found only in the north of Scotland, including the sand dunes near Dornoch that Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser have earmarked for their project. Keiser, who owns several courses around the world, is often described as President Trump’s greatest rival in the golf business.


The International Union for Conservation of Nature says the species is likely to die out if threats to its survival are not removed or avoided. A petition begun by the charity Buglife to save the fly has reached more than 3,600 signatures. Craig Macadam, Buglife conservation director said: “The endangered assessment places Fonseca’s seed fly in the same category as the Asian elephant, tigers and the blue whale. We must do everything we can to ensure threats to this unique Scottish species are avoided.


“We can start by throwing out damaging plans for a golf course at Coul Links that will see this species lost from a third of its global range.”


Earlier this year Aedán Smith, head of development at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “The permanent destruction of these rare and irreplaceable dune habitats is unthinkable.”


Stuart Brooks, the National Trust for Scotland’s head of natural heritage policy, has said there are many places in Scotland where a golf course could be built without harming the environment, but “one of the last intact sand dune systems is not one of them”.

[Tom_Doak]

(sigh)

Fonseca’s seed fly (Botanophila fonsecai), which is the focus of efforts to block the Coul Links development in Sutherland, has now officially been declared a species at risk of extinction.


The fly is found only in the north of Scotland, including the sand dunes near Dornoch that Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser have earmarked for their project.

. . .

Earlier this year Aedán Smith, head of development at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “The permanent destruction of these rare and irreplaceable dune habitats is unthinkable.”

Stuart Brooks, the National Trust for Scotland’s head of natural heritage policy, has said there are many places in Scotland where a golf course could be built without harming the environment, but “one of the last intact sand dune systems is not one of them”.

I've not weighed in on this debate much, because it's generally seen as self-serving when golf course architects are pro-development, and someone would accuse me of having a beef with the developer or architect if I said anything anti-development.


However I look at this latest release and I have two thoughts:


1.  The opposition must be pretty well-connected to get a certain species of fly declared endangered just as it becomes the centerpiece of opposition to this development; and


2.  It would be nice if someone in the environmental movement understood what the "natural habitat" for golfers was.




It seems to me if this land were closer to a population center, and had been grazed for years, you would likely be able to play golf on it without constructing much of anything or destroying much of anything habitat-wise, just as the evolution of Prestwick and Dornoch and North Berwick.  [Maybe the environmentalists would also object to opening the land up for grazing, but I doubt it.]  The National Trust guy quoted above needs to brush up on his history.


It's possible if the land had been grazed, then some of the dunes would be too raw for animals without causing erosion, and perhaps that's the line at which no further development should be allowed.  It would be nice if planning limitations were based more on actual environmental issues, instead of the arbitrary 100-meter setbacks we often encounter, which take extra land because they can.


Somehow I do not see the Fonseca's seed fly in the same category as the Asian elephant, tigers and the blue whale though.  If one of them landed on that guy's neck you know he would swat it. 

[David_Tepper]

"Plans for a 450-acre golf course in the Highlands bankrolled by two US tycoons could be scuppered by an endangered species of fly."

The most obvious misstatement in this article is the notion that the golf course will occupy 450-acres of the property, which I believe is over 600-acres.

In fact, the turfed area of the golf course, as planned, will occupy well under 100-acres.

[JC Jones]

Environmental objections to development are always labeled as "political" and not "scientific" by those who feel the development should move forward.  The lack of nuance is tiresome and almost as ridiculous as thinking that the size of a species is relative to its value in the ecosystem.  Though not as ridiculous as the anti-science movement's progression ending in "I want great climate."


I don't think that denying zoning/permission applications rises to the level of a taking and also, I am curious as to who is in bed with the "save the fly" campaign and whether other, competing golf courses/resorts are a part of that.  The larger corporate land owners were all for spotted owl protections that limited the non-land owning smaller timber companies ability to log on federal lands....


This thread has reminded me how much I like reading Lou's posts, hes quite thoughtful and intelligent both when I agree and disagree with what he has to say.

[Kalen Braley]

I think sensible growth and respecting the environment are great goals and should definitely apply to the golf industry..., but playing the endangered-fly-species card sure seems desperate.


PS. As for a courses' footprint aka "natural environment"... as a reference point, Wingpointe golf course here in Salt Lake has been shut for a mere 2 years now, and many parts of it are already barely recognizable, including some green complexes.  Mother nature does a pretty damn fine job of taking things back.  I wish I could get out there with my camera and take some "after" pics but its federally owned land with a barbwire fence and very imposing No Trespass signs.

[David_Tepper]

"I am curious as to who is in bed with the "save the fly" campaign and whether other, competing golf courses/resorts are a part of that."

JC Jones -

To the best of my knowledge no other, competing golf courses/resorts are in bed with the save the fly campaign. All the golf clubs in the area have spoken in favor of the project.

DT

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is there evidence to suggest that the fly population will actually be reduced with the golf course?


In Ireland, we have actually seen the opposite with a particular snail that was the basis of development objections. Numbers were larger on the golf course than on the undeveloped dunes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()