Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

[Sean_A]

This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.

An identical application from a less wealthy developer would probably either be approved or rejected in a much shorter process, because there is no budget for concessions.

In todays UK planning, there must always be a budget for concessions....sometimes a very large budget.  There is a form of legalized blackmail in place which is now considered par for the course.

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

A question - is the planning process uniform throughout the UK or is the process in Scotland different from England?

[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. 

[Ben Stephens]

Ben -

Since I am the guy who started this thread 2 1/2 years ago. I am very well aware of the SSSI nature of the Coul Links site and the various levels involved in the planning process. 

That being said, should it really take over 3 years to reach a final decision?

DT

David


Yes for SSSI's especially very sensitive sites. The UK Planning System is complex and rigorous. The process starts at local level, then regional level and then national level. Minor applications remain at local level. Major developments can be regional level or national level depending on what is proposed.


Any objection put forward is seriously considered like changing a dormer window to a velux roof light because it prevents overlooking. I think it can be rather too sensitive at times. The green crested newt often holds up small to large projects as they are a protected species. 


There are Local Plan developed by each council and National Planning Policy Framework to refer to however they may not be the same so it can be at crossroads at times. NPPF is what most use in an appeal.


A case study is Heathrow Terminal 5 - this took 7 years to get through planning. Dubai Airport started design work on their new terminal just after and finished construction just before Heathrow T5 got planning.


I suspect the government is biding for extra time to assess whether all the necessary procedures have been carried out and justify whether a golf course is suitable in this area bearing in mind the argument of additional jobs in the area over possible environmental damages. Its now in the hands of politicians that have no real idea or experience of golf course construction or bird nesting areas. It is crazy IMO.


Trump Aberdeen the politicians were swayed by the promise of millions of dollars of investment. What they did to the golf course is now a very poor precedent which does not help Keiser and Coul Links. We on GCA know that Keiser is much more sympathetic to the environment than Trump who is more of a bull in a china shop. There is a huge possibility that Trump has put the spanner in the works of Coul actually happening.


Another case scenario is a compromise happening so that certain areas are not used for the golf course and that the design will have to be altered further to move away from those sensitive areas as part of a planning condition.

[Ben Stephens]

A question - is the planning process uniform throughout the UK or is the process in Scotland different from England?

[size=78%]The planning and legal system in Scotland is different to England as well as house sales![/size]

[Ben Stephens]

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.

Jon


Due to the nature of the site and the objections it was more likely to be called IMO. Environmental objectors can write to the government about their concerns plus dispute that the reasons for approval was not satisfactory enough and from a government point of view if they are thought to have a strong case or a large number of objections it will then be called in. Same for buildings etc.


Ben

[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

[Niall C]

Niall -

Feeling sorry for billionaires & millionaires really isn't the question.

You know the planning process in Scotland probably better than anyone else of this board. Do you really think it should take 3+ years for a planning application like this to work its way thru the system before the ultimate/final decision gets made?

This is not a terribly complicated project. It is not a development in the center of a big city that might impact the lives of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis.

DT

David

Absolutely correct, Mike Keiser and Todd Warnocks feelings aren't the issue but on that I suspect they are OK with where things are at. They must have known that there was every prospect that the application would get called in should the Council grant approval. I suspect they are happy that it at least got to that stage.

BTW, I'm not a planner but I do work with the planning system and as part of the system on occasion. There are others on here such as Ben, James Boon and other architects who equally work with the system although mainly down south. The systems in Scotland and England are different but are similar in many respects I believe.

Niall

[Niall C]

This was ALWAYS going to be called in, so why they don’t have a procedure for this is beyond stupid. Oh, wait a sec, it’s politicians! Ahhh, yes.

Exactly.  There's gotta be an extra round so someone can hold out for additional concessions and/or take credit for approval.  But usually that works out in the developer's favor - in that the project ultimately gets approved, it just costs a few more favors / $ to get there.


An identical application from a less wealthy developer would probably either be approved or rejected in a much shorter process, because there is no budget for concessions.

FBD/Tom,

I'm surprised at such nonsense and cynicism from two level headed chaps like yourselves.

Firstly the planning process in this country is a plan and policy process as outlined in the Scottish Government guidance on the attached link www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/08/11133705/1

The existing Development Plan and policy pointed to this being a clear refusal as recommended by the planners. The developers have endeavoured to make a case to get round the myriad of reasons for refusal. It is this more than anything that has taken the time to get where we are now. I'm referring to issues such as the insufficient access, environmental issues etc. A more commercial developer would have walked away a long time since but in this case I suspect it is as much a labour of love as well as a commercial development for the developers.

With regards to why the application wasn't looked at a national level from the outset, I think there are two very good reasons. Firstly there would be a presumption that the Council wouldn't grant approval for something that went so far against policy, and secondly this will be a tricky decision for the Scottish Government and one that they were probably hoping the Council would make for them by refusing the application. On another day they might have gone for the jobs/economy approach but given the timing with the environmental report about Balmedie having come out, I tend to think the odds are now against the development.

Niall

[Marty Bonnar]

Niall,
I’ve been through the contents of PAN65 and the NPPG’s in more than enough detail for one lifetime, thank you very much!
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I just happen to think in cases where it’s flamin’ obvious to anyone with half a brain, that, where Cooncilurs will almost certainly disagree with their Planning Officers, things could be expedited somehow.
Why we should think that the National eedjits will be any smarter than the Local ones however, remains somewhat moot!
Cheers,
F.

[Ben Stephens]

Niall,
I’ve been through the contents of PAN65 and the NPPG’s in more than enough detail for one lifetime, thank you very much!
I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I just happen to think in cases where it’s flamin’ obvious to anyone with half a brain, that, where Cooncilurs will almost certainly disagree with their Planning Officers, things could be expedited somehow.
Why we should think that the National eedjits will be any smarter than the Local ones however, remains somewhat moot!
Cheers,
F.

I echo's Martys statement re: planning system and how councillors have more power/say than planning officers who are professionals in their own regard who only make recommendations but not the final say.


The system at present goes through different levels as the application is being processed. I agree in some respects it should have gone straight to national level to speed up the process however there would be more local objections as they would argue that they don't have a say in what happens in their area. There is no perfect model and the system it what it is and its also knowing how to get around it in the right manner.

[Tom_Doak]

FBD/Tom,

I'm surprised at such nonsense and cynicism from two level headed chaps like yourselves.

Niall

Niall:


I have only one experience with the planning process in the UK; considerably more in other places.  So I didn't mean to criticize the UK process directly.  I just acknowledged the idea that sooner or later, the thing would get to the national political level, because regional development and jobs are things of interest to politicians.


In my observations there is often a big difference between what the planning process is supposed to be, by law, and what happens behind the scenes to get approvals.  It's not supposed to be a political process at all, but it nearly always is.  [As one famous U.S. politician remarked years ago, "All politics is local."]  Many constituencies are involved, and each wants its own interests addressed ... sometimes by promising things completely unrelated to the site and project up for review.  The developer's duty, as you say, is to make objections go away, and sometimes people object with ulterior motives.


I agree with you that it would be political suicide for the process to have gone national too early, before local interests were heard out.  But are you really surprised it has done so now?


At the core of it, there are two parts of government, bureaucrats and politicians.  The bureaucracy's default answer to approving a project is "no," because they have a steady job, and it would be most threatened by approving a project which proved to be a problem down the road.  No one looks back ten years on and fires them for having stopped something; it's all forgotten.  The politician's motives are exactly the opposite.  The politician is pro-development; he/she wants to see things happen that he/she can take credit for, and get reelected on.  And of course, the politician can take campaign donations from developers, while that would be illegal for the bureaucrat. 

[Thomas Dai]

At the core of it, there are two parts of government, bureaucrats and politicians.  The bureaucracy's default answer to approving a project is "no," because they have a steady job, and it would be most threatened by approving a project which proved to be a problem down the road.  No one looks back ten years on and fires them for having stopped something; it's all forgotten.  The politician's motives are exactly the opposite.  The politician is pro-development; he/she wants to see things happen that he/she can take credit for, and get reelected on.  And of course, the politician can take campaign donations from developers, while that would be illegal for the bureaucrat.

Nicely put. Not totally sure about the last sentence in the U.K./Scotland though.
Worth adding that politicians can often be against something for the same reasons as outlined about. And boy oh boy do they like seeing their photos in newspapers, magazines, on the web and on TV. Forget the issues, forget the policy, forget the people, forget standards, just get me on TV. And the mainstream media have column inches and screen time to fill and what better when events are quiet than a story about the evils of golf and what dastardly oversea investors wish to do with the landscape.
There’s a few messages here to other potential investors in golf in the U.K./Scotland.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

That's why bureaucrats tend to wait until politicians order them (indirectly) to say 'yes'. That political direction never comes in plain language and certainly never on paper -- so bureaucrats have to stall until politicians commit themselves and send the message in some other way.   
You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but only the successful senior bureaucrat can make a case for the wind blowing in whichever direction a politician says it is.

(A wily & successful bureaucrat I knew believed this was exactly the way it should be. He was fond of saying: "If it was the bureaucrats making all the important decisions instead of the politicians, we'd be living in the Soviet Union". )

[Kalen Braley]

I'd be curious, for anyone in the know..


How does Coul Links compare to say a project like Bandon or Sand Valley when it comes to the approval process.  I totally understand that you don't want things to be too difficult, but also not without proper oversight.

[Niall C]

Martin

I think we are agreed that very often councillors are ill-equipped to make a proper judgement on a lot of issues that they are asked to decide on but thankfully they usually have enough common sense to take their officers recommendation. Trying to make a judgement as to when they are going to go off-piste would be a nightmare to do.

Personally I think you should only be able to pre-empt a local decision by calling in an application that clearly is of national importance in an economic and social sense such as an application for major infrastructure and such like. Otherwise leave it to the locals to make the initial decision. Whether there is guidance on that I don't know.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,


In general, I think that's my issue with locally elected officials. While they have good intent for the most part, if its anything like here in the states, most of them have zero background in city planning, environmental planning, land management, etc to even be able to develop an informed opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

I'd be curious, for anyone in the know..


How does Coul Links compare to say a project like Bandon or Sand Valley when it comes to the approval process.  I totally understand that you don't want things to be too difficult, but also not without proper oversight.

I don't know the answer to your question, but my understanding is that the process for Bandon was a lot more complicated than for Sand Valley - as you would expect for coastal land in a "blue" state.  Mr Keiser's success in Bandon also made it easier for the politicians in central Wisconsin to welcome him with open arms.

[Niall C]

Tom

There's no doubt the planning process over here isn't perfect, and like all systems can be abused, but it is reasonably robust. It also has a certain amount of checks and measures to prevent naked political opportunism to gain additional material benefit outwith what's allowed for by policy. For a start the politicians aren't meant to be involved in the process other than when/if it goes to the planning committee for a decision. They can't for instance negotiate with an applicant over what goodies they might be willing to give away to gain the planning application. Indeed if they happen to be on the planning committee (not all councillors are) then they shouldn't have any dealings with the applicant at all. That's not to say they won't do a bit of posturing if it suits them mind you.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder how much the developers have spent so far on this project?
And how much more they reckon their going to have to spend before things happen on the ground?

Also what their monthly outgoings are running at?
I wonder what proportion is borrowed money and how much is ‘in house’ amongst the developers?
Atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley...

[Kalen Braley]

There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley...

The course is going to be a dump...I knew it!! 

[MClutterbuck]

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

Thanks for your enlightened opinion Niall. I find it odd and wrong that you disqualify a person just because he is a billionaire (if he is one) or millionaire, and do not take into consideration the amount of lives that are impacted by their dreams, enthusiasm, entrepreneurial initiative and risk taking. It seems you believe millionaires only think about money and are greedy and do not deserve any sympathy.


If this land had been owned by a Scot with little or no capital, who had put himself through architecture studies while caddying on the best courses in Scotland, had put in all of his inheritance into this dream, and process, then we could feel sorry for him?

I don´t know both principles here, so it might be only about money (I doubt it). But even if it is only about money, a quick, comprehensive, no bullshit process is better for the lives of all current and future stakeholders. And those areas/countries that have good processes will benefit more than those with bad approval processes.

Sometimes developers are driven by other factors, not just money and I know of many examples.


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

[Niall C]

There’s a one word reason why this project has taken its current path...and it rhymes with the original architect of Pine Valley...

If by "current path" you mean the application being called in then I don't think so. The nature of the site and it's designation is the reason for that. However Trumps development at Balmedie, and the fall out from it, could very well have a bearing on the end decision.

Niall

[Niall C]

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