[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


which is what I have always said. Just to be clear. When the document says instructed and retained by the applicant. This means the applicant says what the EIA should encompass as laid out by the planning officer and not that the applicant is the one who decides what is covered. The applicant is not the person in charge just the person who pays.


Jon

[Niall C]

Jon

The EIA is there to inform the planners of the impact of the proposed development. The guidance I referred to is guidance on how best to do that. The proposed development therefore to an extent dictates what is required for the EIA, and that is down to the developer.

It is also a process that allows the consultant to engage with the statutory consultees and deal with their concerns. That inevitably involves taking instruction from the client ie. the developer. To suggest that the consultant isn't somehow working for the developer and the developer has no part in the process other than paying the consultant is simply wrong.

In the case of Embo, the statutory consultees have withdrawn some of their objections. That would be on the back of this process and on the basis of certain mitigating works or agreements being put in the planning consent as planning conditions.

Niall 

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I am not saying that the developer does not influence the EIA through the nature of the project but what I am saying is that the nature of the EIA is as a direct result of the proposed development. It would be incorrect to suggest that the applicant picks and choses what the EIA covers regardless of the proposal.


My experience is that the applicant has an initial discussion with the planning officer about a basic proposal and will through this get an idea of what is, and is not likely to pass. The applicant will then get a basic outline of the project including various studies which might include environmental issues, archaeological, traffic, required building, and so on. To do this the applicant might use consultants or not. With this outline proposal the applicant will meet with SNH, SEPA, County Forester, County Archaeologist to get comments and concerns about the proposal.


It is at this point that the applicant will have to decide on either full or outline planning and assuming it is full planning will employ an approved Environmental Consultant/s to carry out the various required assessments. The scope of these assessments are set by the planning officer based on the input of the various bodies who's input is based on the outline proposal the applicant presented to them.


It is SNH for instance that might decide that a bat, red squirrel and badger survey is needed but might decide that no assessment of Owls is needed. It is not the applicant. The applicant only influences the choice of survey and assessment through the proposal and in no other way.


I do not disagree in general with what you are saying other than the idea that the applicant can dictate to the consultant what they have to do which is the kind of what you are insinuating. This is plainly wrong. The applicant can ONLY influence the scope of the proposal. This is in no way a sign of control. Assessments are part of the planning process which is fixed and doe not alter unless the executive gets involved.


Jon

[Niall C]

Jon

You might have noted in the guidance that they mention it being an iterative process which is to say a process that repeats, with refinements each time, until you get closer to the desired result. (Apologies if that definition is a bit clunky but for me it's one of those words that is easier to understand than to explain).

In the context of an application like this, where as you say, the initial plan would have been more conceptual than detailed, many of the issues wouldn't have been identified or dealt with without this process, and the process would involve a lot of discussion by all parties, not just the planners dictating terms. Often it results in adaption or refinement or tweaking of the initial proposal and agreement on how to deal with certain issues. So when SNH agreed to remove all their objections bar one, they likely did so on the basis and understanding that certain issues would be dealt with in a certain way and they would be covered in the planning consent by way of planning conditions should consent be granted.

Most major applications have something similar. In an urban setting the issue might be traffic related rather than environmental in which case the applicant might be required to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and come up with solutions in their design for any potential issues in the report. If it was a major retail scheme then the applicant might have to do a retail impact assessment (can't recall the formal term) etc.

In every instance the Council would expect the consultant employed to produce the report to be properly qualified. I can't see how that could be considered in anyway unreasonable.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


No, not so clunky an explanation. I agree with you in general. You are correct that it is not just the planners dictating but rather the planning process. Which has been my point all along that in general it is neither the applicant nor the planners that decide what is needed but the process. The applicant puts forward the proposal and the planners inform/advise on what is required to fulfil the planning requirements. Then as you say through an iterative process a suitable solution is either found or the proposal is unsuccessful.


My original comment was however that the Environmental consultant is chosen and paid for by the applicant but the consultant is still beholden to the planning regulations NOT the applicant.


On another note a [font=]public inquiry will be held in public on Tuesday 26 February 2019 at 10:00 a.m. within Carnegie Hall, Clashmore, Dornoch, IV25 3RG[/font]

[font=]So it looks as though this particular process has a way to run.[/font]

[Mark Mammel]

It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.

[Lou_Duran]

So Mark, are you saying that this is all politics and not about law or science?


Notwithstanding people's opinions of Trump, he is/should be a non-factor in this project.  So, what does this say about the politicians who put personal animosities and slights ahead of the expressed wishes and interests of the local citizens? 

[Mark Mammel]

Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/trump-golf-course-destroys-4,000-year-old-sand-dunes-scotland/10050786) and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


Mark has it pretty much spot on. Trump's Balmedie project never should have achieved planning permission in the format that it did which is why the application was denied by the planning authority. However, this is where politics became involved in the form of the National Government who foolishly had been having shall we say not so transparent dealings with Trump. He had of course promised them the world which they greedily believed and on the back of a Billion Dollar investment in the Aberdeen project circumvented the planning process and approved a project that should have been denied.


Roll on a few years and an election the former governing party have lost their leader and control of parliament needing the backing of a small party with just a handful of parliamentarians in order to run a (functioning) government. One of these decides to do some political grandstanding insisting the Coul Links project is called in which the Scottish Government is forced into doing.


So this situation is entirely down to the Scottish Government and their somewhat dealings with Trump. It should be noted that the then First Minister is also embroiled in a sex scandal and the Russians which is somewhat familiar

[Duncan Cheslett]

Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.

I would go further and posit that Trump's close association with golf is damaging immeasurably the image and reputation of the game around the world.

[Thomas Dai]

Lou-Basically, yes. And of course, the issue should not be Trump or anyone else, but the reality seems to be otherwise. The wishes of the locals, and the supporting science, may yet prevail but Trump as a developer at Trump International and at Trump Turnberry has poisoned the well- at least temporarily.

I would go further and posit that Trump's close association with golf is damaging immeasurably the image and reputation of the game around the world.

Difficult to be convinced that he’s generally done/doing the game any favours.
Atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.

+1..!!


The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.


CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.


Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.

[Jud_T]

Wait, is this the same site from 4 or 5 years ago? Where are all the cheerleaders who said that, regardless of what those of us who knew him as a bridge-and-tunnel wanna-be used car salesman from NY said, he clearly loved the game, was the only guy really investing in golf and was clearly a net positive for the game? 

[Niall C]

So Mark, are you saying that this is all politics and not about law or science?


Notwithstanding people's opinions of Trump, he is/should be a non-factor in this project.  So, what does this say about the politicians who put personal animosities and slights ahead of the expressed wishes and interests of the local citizens?

Lou

It's not a popularity contest, it's a planning application. Salmond subverted that last time round with Trump but that is no reason why that should act as precedent. Indeed events at Balmedie since then should be a strong warning against doing so.

Niall

[Niall C]

Lou,


Mark has it pretty much spot on. Trump's Balmedie project never should have achieved planning permission in the format that it did which is why the application was denied by the planning authority. However, this is where politics became involved in the form of the National Government who foolishly had been having shall we say not so transparent dealings with Trump. He had of course promised them the world which they greedily believed and on the back of a Billion Dollar investment in the Aberdeen project circumvented the planning process and approved a project that should have been denied.


Roll on a few years and an election the former governing party have lost their leader and control of parliament needing the backing of a small party with just a handful of parliamentarians in order to run a (functioning) government. One of these decides to do some political grandstanding insisting the Coul Links project is called in which the Scottish Government is forced into doing.


So this situation is entirely down to the Scottish Government and their somewhat dealings with Trump. It should be noted that the then First Minister is also embroiled in a sex scandal and the Russians which is somewhat familiar

Jon

That the Embo application got called in is NOT another example of the tawdry politics employed by Alex Salmond last time round at Balmedie as you seem to be alluding to. At Balmedie, what was so striking about that was that the application got called in after it got refused at Council level. I've never heard of that happening before and the only justification you could have for it would be it being a development of national importance. Clearly building a golf course, hotel and some housing in itself is not of national importance.

In contrast at Embo, the application was passed at Council level. Given it the nature and designation of the land, it was as near a racing certainty as you'll get to be called in. Yes, the decision to call it in would have been made  by the relevant Scottish Minister, however almost certainly he would have done so on the recommendation of the civil servants/planning officers within the Scottish Government. If he had refused to do so, against the advice, that would have been the political act. Merely signing off on the recommendation, that was administrative.

Niall 

[Niall C]

It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.

+1..!!


The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.


CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.


Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.

Ian

See my response to Jon above about the process. The application being called in is not a political one. It was to be fully expected and a very likely scenario that the developer would probably have been made well aware of by their consultants at the outset.

And as I said to Lou, this is a planning application, not a popularity contest. Whether Todd Warnock is a lovely guy or whether Mike Keiser is less harmful to the environment than Donald Trump is neither here nor there. None of that is of any relevance, at least for the planning application.

Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

It is with some trepidation that I step into these murky waters, as you guys are deep in the weeds. As a RDGC member for 25 years, I am familiar with the location, the individuals involved, even the family that grew up on the Coul Links property. I think the long and short of the Coul Links story is all about Trump. When the HIghland Council gave approval in the spring, almost always the final step in moving a project forward, the repercussions of Trump's boondoggle near Aberdeen were beginning to become evident (as well as his offensive and repugnant attitude to the UK in general). The National Trust pulled the alarm handle and called on the national government to step in- with all the environmental issues, etc, as the stated reasons. But the Northern Times had it right a year ago or so (https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-is-just-another-Trump-fiasco-in-the-making-10112017.htm). I have mixed feelings about the project, since Dornoch can't easily handle the traffic up there now. But in any case, this is just another example of the havoc wrecked upon us all by our President. To pretend otherwise is to be naive.

+1..!!


The CL team was and has been extremely collaborative with local businesses and with ALL the surrounding golf clubs. Antithetical to the Trump approach and Even with the Village of Embo Trust as a stakeholder in the project, it was still “called in”.


CYA politics and, sadly, not surprising and, given the posturing and confrontational approach of the Orange POTUS and his family business , it has spread his stain to this project.


Time will tell if the project will stand on its merit or collapse under fear.

Ian

See my response to Jon above about the process. The application being called in is not a political one. It was to be fully expected and a very likely scenario that the developer would probably have been made well aware of by their consultants at the outset.

And as I said to Lou, this is a planning application, not a popularity contest. Whether Todd Warnock is a lovely guy or whether Mike Keiser is less harmful to the environment than Donald Trump is neither here nor there. None of that is of any relevance, at least for the planning application.

Niall

Your rear view mirror observations are spot-on!

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


it might have been called in due to the procedural objection that SNH had to raise due to it been partly in a SSSI. However, a procedural objection is not a guarantee to the Scottish Executive calling in an application. In this case, they were not minded to call in the application up on it being passed which would have probably been the case had they planned to. It was only called in after John Finnie started kicking up a fuss. You can draw your conclusion how you wish from that.


Jon

[Niall C]

Jon

The designation in the development plan made it a near racing certainty it would be called in. There is little doubt about that. From memory the Scottish Ministers have 28 days from being notified of the planning committees decision to decide to call it in. They did that. To suggest it was all down to John Finnie is far-fetched although I dare say Mr Finnie might take the credit.

Ian

If you would care to look in the rear view mirror yourself (try the Discussion Board search engine) you will note that I've made all these observations several times before on not only this proposed development but also on the Balmedie development.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


obviously you are much better informed than I am on such matters though I could have sworn that John Finnie did in fact publicly state he had demanded it be called in. That this would influence the government given the fact that the greens are propping up the SNP government might be seen as far fetched by you but I beg to differ.

[David_Tepper]

Just saw this article on the "calling in" hearing for the Coul Links project. The hearing will begin in late February and could take 4 weeks.

Two questions for those who might know:   1) Does anyone know how long it might take "the powers that be" to make a decision?   2) Will "the powers that be" make a decision to simply approve or deny the project as proposed or do they have the option of approving the project with limitations or changes to what has been proposed?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1599280/rules-teed-up-for-coul-links-inquiry/

[Niall C]

David

The following is from the guidance note issued by Scottish Minsters following the Balmedie debacle. 

WHAT HAPPENS ONCE AN APPLICATION IS CALLED-IN? Once an application is called-in, the Scottish Ministers effectively become the planning authority for that application. This means that Scottish Ministers are required to ensure that issues such as neighbour notification and public consultation are carried out as required by legislation. In practice, as many applications are only called-in once the planning authority are minded to grant permission, much of this is work will already have been carried out. Such administrative tasks and general management of the application process following a call-in are handled by Scottish Government planning officials.

Just as local authorities rely on their planning staff to consider a planning application and make recommendations, so Scottish Ministers rely on an independent Reporter working for the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals, formerly the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU), to examine the merits of a called-in application. The Reporter considers the application, prepares a report setting out their conclusions and recommends whether Scottish Ministers grant the application unconditionally, grant the application subject to conditions or refuse the application. The report is then submitted to Scottish Ministers who subsequently issue their decision, which does not have to follow the Reporter’s recommended course of action.

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


I doubt anyone can say at the moment. It should be a slam dunk approval but politics are involved now.

[Mark Chaplin]

It’s interesting Coul is a “special untouched place” etc, etc yet there’s an old railway line running through the property and a horrid area of harvested woodland. I can only see a golf course improving and preserving the site for the future.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()