[Niall C]

Having seen biased news articles about this project in the past, I actually took this as an opinion piece, and thought it was ok. I actually thought for an opinion piece, he frames the project in question quite well (balance of economic interests of the people and preserving the land).


The only part I don't agree with is his go at the locals. It reeks of someone who doesn't know the situation in the area, and looks from afar through the judgmental lens of theory vs. reality. I once went into the Amazon, and you start to realise that there are communities there that are just trying to feed their families - so chopping forests down to plant banana trees is what they have to do. It's not about giving them a telling-off, but rather, there are organisations that are working with them to ensure they have some sort of way to make an income - in a sustainable way.


If this golf plan doesn't go through, I hope the government will look at alternative ways that the locals can generate more income for the area - possibly through NC500 partnerships, etc. You can't blame locals for wanting better for their families. Just because they have come late to the party (ie - other communities have already exploited their dunesland) shouldn't be a knock against them.

Tim

According to SNH, banana trees are an invasive species 

You make a good point about the economy etc but I bet the vast majority of those doing the NCR 500 are not there for the golf or indeed interested in golf. They are basically there for the scenery and while you and I can see the beauty in a golf course don't bet that others can. They may just look over Embo links complete with golf course and see an eye sore in the middle of a beautiful landscape.

And as I've said before, this development might do wonders for Mr Warnocks luxury hotel in Dornoch (and why not) but what real impact is a few seasonal jobs, that won't necessarily be taken by locals anyway, going to have ?

As for your last comment, I very much doubt this land would have been seriously considered for a golf course in any other era.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,

Quick question for you.  Assuming you wanted to get some value from this land and went about looking for the least intrusive way to generate revenue that would benefit both owners and the local community.

Can you think of anything less intrusive (that would be a viable model) other than a golf course? Worst case scenario the project fails and you have a few small structures on property..but the rest gets re-consumed by nature, rather quickly.  The course that closed by the Salt Lake airport just 3 years ago, massive parts of it are already hard to discern what was there before.

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

Even if one was to accept your contention (which I don't ) that Mr. McKenna was referring just to the area the proposed golf course will occupy and not the entire 600+ acre Coul Farm property, the notion that the public will somehow be denied access to the area occupied by the golf course is not correct.

The golf course will not be surrounded by a fence. Walkers/ramblers will be able to stroll across the golf course during the day and along the golf course during the long hours of daylight in the summer, just as they can at almost every golf course I have encountered in Scotland. During the winter months, when play is minimal or the course will possibly be closed, the golf course will also be accessible to the public.

Regarding the promotion of golf and the North Coast 500, that subject has already written, blogged and podcasted about:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=graylyn+loomis+north+coast+500+golf

DT

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I would see it the same way as David. I do not believe that the reference was just to the area being used by the golf course. Having said that, were that to be the case we have the right to roam which does give people the right to wander across any golf course as long as they do not interfere with the use of the land so your point there is still not valid.


As to the reference to the Indy vote. One of the main reasons that there was such a quiet majority for the 'Better Together' side is that if you openly admitted to supporting it in public you were very likely to get harassed and even beaten up by 'Yes' campaigners. If you were daft enough to have a 'Better Together' sticker on your car then it was certain to get vandalised so many just kept silent. This is definitely not the case in the Embo community and the fact that the vast majority of the local population is in favour of the project is well known.


Jon

[Niall C]

David

Most golf courses in Scotland are in an urban setting and do very much have fences/walls/hedges round them to stop folk wandering across the golf course for obvious reasons. While in this instance the developers might not put up a fence, or be allowed to put up a fence, you can bet they won't be making it easy to access the course other than through the "proper" channels. Golfers and ramblers don't tend to mix well.

Re NCR500 - nice that these courses are getting a bit more attention but presumably you appreciate that golfers still make up a small percentage of those doing the route ? It's extremely hard to get accommodation during the summer month(s) in a lot of areas yet you will have little issue getting on a course. The only problem might be finding someone to pay your greenfee to as I did at Wick, and Reay and indeed Durness come to think of it.

Jon

Re indyref - you make my point for me. Without going to the lengths of acts of violence as the Yes campaigners did on occasion, the proponents of this development have been very vocal and not slow to rubbish those who have stood up to oppose the development eg. Tom Dargie. In that kind of environment, who would want to make their voice heard ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

Quick question for you.  Assuming you wanted to get some value from this land and went about looking for the least intrusive way to generate revenue that would benefit both owners and the local community.

Can you think of anything less intrusive (that would be a viable model) other than a golf course? Worst case scenario the project fails and you have a few small structures on property..but the rest gets re-consumed by nature, rather quickly.  The course that closed by the Salt Lake airport just 3 years ago, massive parts of it are already hard to discern what was there before.

Kalen

Without going into detail, and ignoring the environmental/planning issues, potential uses that might give you a return might be forestry, grazing and of possibly a high end residential scheme maybe. And while I take your point about the robustness of nature to fight back, would you get the same environment back again if you removed all the trees planted, cows grazing and any buildings ?

In any case I think the issue is not what would be less damaging but whether any development should be allowed in the first place.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,

While grazing does seem feasible, I would think building real estate structures would be far too impactful and certainly the "worse" use of the land.  Forestry could be good, but is there much ROI or demand for that given its location? Perhaps as a tree nursery but that would probably be more destructive than a golf course?

Of all these, I would guess grazing would be the least impactful, even over a golf course, so it appears that may be a better solution.  But once again given its remote location is there any demand for the site to be used for that purpose?

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I am afraid you are misrepresenting an entire community in an attempt to prove a point that does not hold up. There can certainly be no suggestion that the proponents of the project have behaved in a way as to make those against it fear to speak out.


As to access. I am not sure where you get the idea that any of the courses in the area make any attempt to discourage free public access to their land. Even the big names such as Dornoch or Nairn do not.


Jon

[Niall C]

Jon

I suspect a lot of the Yes campaigners didn't think for a moment that what they did was intimidation but that kind of vocal/visible movement that has a bit of edge from a small minority does indeed intimidate. I don't know if you watched the Indyref documentary last night but interesting comment from Dan Snow.

Anyway, how do you know that the vast majority of locals are in favour other than it is "well known" ?

Re access - at Dornoch there are fences/walls up the left side of the holes on the way out as far as I can remember, and while I don't recall there being a fence along the side of the beach I also don't recall there exactly being pathways criss crossing the course. Likewise at Nairn, and Lossiemouth, and indeed Brahan. Where there are paths to the beach for instance, or in the case of Dornoch the road, they tend to be historical rights of way that predate the golf.

In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access. Of course I may be totally wrong in terms of Embo, perhaps there are paths all over the proposed course.

Niall 

[Mark Pearce]

In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access.

I don't think that fairly reflects the position of either of the clubs in Scotland I'm a member of.  Both have well used footpaths on them in places that can interfere with play (and one a road), both are very happy to co-exist with the public.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I formed my view of local opinion through regularly visiting the Embo area and talking with the locals. Whilst the vast majority of the locals are in favour of the project the few discussions that I have been party to where people voiced concern were carried out in a very civilised manner.


As to access to courses. At Dornoch the fences and walls down the left side of the course on the way out are garden boundaries and nothing to do with the club. There is nothing that hinders the access to the course from the beach side nor that have been erected by the club. Whilst you are correct clubs do not encourage people to walk across the course neither do the hinder it. The original point that was been discussed was the land being for '

the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege'

yet you are now moving the goal posts to saying 'well the clubs don't exactly build pathways for ramblers' so they are stopping people accessing the land. I have walked thousands of miles on golf courses and very few have been on pathways. I am sure ramblers are perfectly capable of managing without them too.


It seems to me you are clutching a straws in trying to maintain an untenable position.




   

[Jeff Schley]

Sorry for this, but can someone please give us a synopsis of where this project is presently? Sorry but I tried reading a couple posts per page, but with so many I stopped.

[David_Tepper]

Jeff -

To the best of my knowledge, the planning inquiry/hearings currently under way near Dornoch are the final step in deciding whether or not the course gets permission to be built. I believe the inquiry/hearings will run thru the end of next week. I do not know how long it will take "the powers that be" to issue a ruling.

This article ran in the local press on February 22:

https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/golf-links-planning-inquiry-set-to-begin-174332/

DT

[Tim Gallant]

Sorry for this, but can someone please give us a synopsis of where this project is presently? Sorry but I tried reading a couple posts per page, but with so many I stopped.

Jeff,


In short, the application was approved by the local council (despite a recommendation to reject the plan), and there was / is growing support against the plan from a coalition of governmental & 3rd party agencies like the Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB.


Although approved by the local councillors, it has been called in my the national government to be reviewed by ministers. Right now, there is a 4-week hearing taking place where two ministers are listening to both sides (the applicants and those against the plans). After this four week period, they will make a decision, and to my knowledge, that will be the final word (unless there is some legal loophole I'm not aware of).


For the applicants, it's all or nothing - they want to build the course as routed by C&C, or they won't build at all. Those against are arguing that the course goes into a scientific area of special interest, and effectively would destroy the habitat of the duneland and wildlife in the area.


I can honestly see this going either way. If I was a betting man, I'd say it looks like the course won't go ahead, but I haven't been following the hearing too closely.

[Jeff Schley]

Thanks David & Tim for the update.  Keep our fingers crossed.

[Lou_Duran]

Maybe I was looking in the wrong direction when I visited the site last summer.  And perhaps my reading comprehension and understanding of the issues are lacking.


I was under the impression that the site had been "misused" in a variety of ways for decades and that nothing had been done to re-mediate or arrest the decline since the political imposition of the SSSI status.  From where I stood, I saw nothing to suggest that it was extraordinary or pristine in the context of coastal Scotland.  In fact, I came away thinking that maybe Bill Coore was a bit off in his assessment, but far be it for me to question his judgment.


I also thought that the site in its entirety was privately owned as opposed to part of the course being built on common land.  Other than to provide a few public easements/paths to public land, is it customary for the public to have access to private property?  Royal Dornoch, TOC, and others, as I understand, are on common land.  Can someone just hop the fence near the farmer's house at Coul Links and prance about? 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I've been following it even less closely, and only via this thread. But my guess is the opposite of yours: imo, that the 'case' is in the hands of national gov't ministers makes a building approval more likely than ever.
P

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas. There was a mandatory area of land that each country had to designate in order to qualify for funding. The body responsible for this effectively went round the country choosing sites at random. Coul Links was part of one of these sites.


It is private land and the land owner gets some financial assistance and has retained some rights such as the right to graze cattle and the right to shoot wild birds. The area is there to make up the numbers and such is its importance that there has never been a survey carried out by the various bodies of it, there has never been any money spent on its up keep nor is there any sort of maintenance plan.


In my opinion, the current situation is purely down to the debacle that was 'Trump International' and the entire planning process that went on there. There the planning permission was turned down by the local council and there was substantial local resistance to it as well as the land being a genuine SSSI with all that goes along with it. Ironically, Trump's environmental expert was on Mr. Dargie who thought the Trump course could be acceptable.


Finally, yes here in Scotland you have the right to access any land you wish so long as you do not damage anything ordisturb the use of the landowner. So as long as you are respectful you can walk across a golf course as you please. Do note that there are exceptions such a private gardens and the like. Certainly a far cry to what is the case in most other countries but I would say it has worked out really well.


Jon

[Niall C]

In short, no club promotes ramblers across their course, at best they accommodate them due to not having any choice and at worst they make the course physically difficult to access.

I don't think that fairly reflects the position of either of the clubs in Scotland I'm a member of.  Both have well used footpaths on them in places that can interfere with play (and one a road), both are very happy to co-exist with the public.

Mark

You would hope that all clubs and facilities would be working in compliance with the access legislation and any existing legal rights such as rights of way or servitudes that impact on their course. Notwithstanding the constraints that introduces, all clubs will be very conscious of keeping non-golfers away from the course and therefore out of harms way. Likewise they will work to ensure that play is kept “within bounds” and that the course is routed/designed in such a way as to avoid any conflict non-golfers ie. 3rd at RDGC.

While both your clubs are bounded by the Fife Coastal Path which is a voluntary agreement that the clubs entered in to, it is also an agreement that was backed up with the right to roam legislation and potentially CPO powers. I think I’m also right in saying that the path skirts the courses rather than cutting across them.

Therefore to suggest that clubs are happy to have members of the public rambling across their course is I think wrong, and on the contrary I’m sure it is a concern to many a member of club committees.

And while it isn’t always possible or desirable to put up a wall (even Donald didn’t try that at Balmedie) you can use landscaping/vegetation to try and deter ramblers for example by creating the path of least resistance away from the golf course. I’d be very surprised if such measures weren’t built into the design at Embo, even if only for H&S reasons, so while Mr McKenna might have been using hyperbole I suspect that in essence he is correct.

Niall

[Niall C]

Lou

You still seem determined to make Scotland the 51st state. 

I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon so you will just need to accept that we have our own legislation and legal system. Some of that legislation comprises the relatively recent legislation on Land Reform and access rights. So yes, anyone can ramble across this site provided the follow the legislation (outdoors access code I think it’s called). There is a section in the code that mentions golf courses.

Niall

[Niall C]

your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas. There was a mandatory area of land that each country had to designate in order to qualify for funding. The body responsible for this effectively went round the country choosing sites at random. Coul Links was part of one of these sites.

Random ! Really ?

[Niall C]

In my opinion, the current situation is purely down to the debacle that was 'Trump International' and the entire planning process that went on there. There the planning permission was turned down by the local council and there was substantial local resistance to it as well as the land being a genuine SSSI with all that goes along with it. Ironically, Trump's environmental expert was on Mr. Dargie who thought the Trump course could be acceptable.

Jon

From one of the newspapers, can't remember which I copied and pasted it from but possibly the Guardian;

Dr Dargie was employed by the Trump organisation and acted as a witness for it at a public inquiry in 2008, but had advised it to build the course further inland and always remained opposed to development of the course on dunes; at the inquiry he said such development would have significant adverse effects on habitats and plant species but argued that effective mitigation of this could be achieved. He says his advice was ignored by the Trump organisation.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,


I formed my view of local opinion through regularly visiting the Embo area and talking with the locals. Whilst the vast majority of the locals are in favour of the project the few discussions that I have been party to where people voiced concern were carried out in a very civilised manner.

Jon, I never thought that you would be anything other than civilised as nearly everyone tends to be when you speak to them. However, the pro-development lobby have been very vocal and visible and on occasion have cast aspersions at some of those involved in opposing the development, and when you have groups like the Embo Trust coming out and supporting the development and supposedly representing the locals (what mandate did they have to do that ?) then it must be a bit daunting if you are in that community to come out and object. That was the comparison I was making to Indyref.

And in noting that you base the level of support on your perception that is the other comparison to Indyref where for all the world it appeared that the Yes side were winning in a land slide, or at least it would have been if it wasn’t for the opinion polls. As far as I know, no one has undertaken an opinion poll at Embo so how reliable is your perception ?

But at the end of the day this shouldn’t be about a popularity contest, it should be about planning policy.

As to access to courses. At Dornoch the fences and walls down the left side of the course on the way out are garden boundaries and nothing to do with the club. There is nothing that hinders the access to the course from the beach side nor that have been erected by the club. Whilst you are correct clubs do not encourage people to walk across the course neither do the hinder it. The original point that was been discussed was the land being for '

the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege'

yet you are now moving the goal posts to saying 'well the clubs don't exactly build pathways for ramblers' so they are stopping people accessing the land. I have walked thousands of miles on golf courses and very few have been on pathways. I am sure ramblers are perfectly capable of managing without them too.


It seems to me you are clutching a straws in trying to maintain an untenable position.

Jon, no straw clutching needed, just read my response to Mark.



   

[Lou_Duran]

"But at the end of the day this shouldn’t be about a popularity contest, it should be about planning policy."

Really?  Wasn't the argument on Trump International the opposite?  There was considerable popular support locally but for a narrow majority of the local council led by one particular individual opposing it.  Perhaps there is logic in believing that the unpopular decision of the local government against the Balmedie proposal shouldn't have been "called in", but a favorable local decision on Coul Links should be. 


As to "it should be about planning policy", I would hope that policy is to guide and facilitate the well-being of the people affected by it the most, not as an end in itself.  Hopefully planning or any type of policies are constantly under review to ensure that they serve the interests of the affected, and modified through time as needed.


Re: "You still seem determined to make Scotland the 51st state.  "

Not at all, I am just trying to understand how things work.  There are any number of American states where I wouldn't own property.  But for the kool-aid I've been drinking on this site for so many years extolling the superiority of links golf, I probably wouldn't have a second thought about spending much time in Scotland.  I have no problem with people selecting their own form of government so long as they eat their own cooking and, for those types I find intolerable, that they are not infectious.

I guess that if I continue to visit the UK, a primer on tort law would be a good idea.  Suppose I hit a big 200 yard drive a bit left on TOC #1 and catch a lass as she starts to run across the fairway causing her great harm.  Could I be found criminally or civilly liable?

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,


your assessment is pretty spot on. The area was designated as a SSSI during a period where the EU (well it forerunner) were giving out funds for countries to identify such areas.

A similar movement occurred in Spain during the formation of the EU and the conversion of the Peseta to the Euro.  The exchange was very favorable to the Spanish and tons of money flowed into the country.  In Galicia, where my folks are from, money from the major cities started pouring into the rural areas, and what was once a fairly stable market heated up to a bubble. 


Along with the provincial government pushing and subsidizing wind power, much to the benefit of large companies domiciled elsewhere and creating next to no local jobs, this sudden goose to the local economy was very short-lived.  Today the diaspora to the large cities continues and properties that might have sold for € 500k can't trade for the cost of exchange.  In fact, there was an article in the financial news last year of whole rural towns begging for well-heeled foreign investors to take them over like we see the occasional golf course in the U.S.- $1 "and other valuable consideration".


A lot of bad things happen under policies based on the "broken window fallacy".  What many Gallegos have today as most of the young people pursue livelihoods in the big cities are abandoned ancient homes not only with broken windows, but also holes in the roof.  I have such an opportunity if anyone has an interest.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()