[David_Tepper]

"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 - No doubt there are those here better informed than I am, but believe you could be civilly liable for damages.  There are insurance policies you can buy for a very modest premium (20-25 pounds a year) to protect you in such an event. Here is an example:https://www.insure4sport.co.uk/golf/?ref=money15&type=lite&utm_source=awin&utm_medium=Awin&utm_campaign=Affiliates

Insure4Sport Golf’s Public Liability protects you up to £5 million if you injure someone or cause property damage while playing – covering potentially costly hospital bills.   DT 

[Tom_Doak]

In the old days, they used to tack on 50p or a pound to the visitors’ green fees at some UK clubs to cover the insurance David mentions.


We had some local opposition in getting planning permission for The Renaissance Club (mostly regarding tree removal, but it also bounded on an SSSI).  Generally, though, the attitude in Scotland is much different than America, because Scots know a golf course isn’t going to wreck the environment.  And they don’t think of the game as elitist, until there are Americans involved.

[Kalen Braley]

I spent about an hour yesterday scanning the eastern coastline of Scotland on Google Maps Satellite view.  What I found, other than long stretches of mostly nothing...was there are relatively few permanent structures (houses/buildings) right on the coast line. Instead it was Caravan Parks, cemeteries, or golf courses with some farming areas sprinkled in.

This was an interesting contrast to what you often find here in America, (at least on the West Coast) as this land tends to be extremely valuable with very expensive housing.  So i'm curious what the mindset is as to why these fantastic spots are mostly relegated to things like trailer parks and cemeteries.  Or are the environmental designations intended to prevent any kind of future development on ocean front property?

[Niall C]

Lou

The Balmedie application was quite remarkable, not because it got “called in”, but because it got “called in” after being refused by the Local Authority’s Planning Committee. While Trump could have appealed the decision it was “called in” by the Scottish Ministers before he got a chance to do so, or more likely it was done with collusion between Trump and Salmond. This was at a time when the Donald and Salmond were still having their love-in. They subsequently fell out over the off-shore wind turbines you may recall.

Anyway, as I understand how the process works if Trump had appealed then the appeal would have been heard by a Reporter who would have made a decision on behalf of Scottish Ministers without any referral to Scottish Ministers. However because the application was called in then the Reporter would still consider the application but would then report to the Scottish Minsters who would then make the decision and in doing so wouldn’t be bound by the Reporters recommendation. In other words it was a political decision. With regards to Balmedie, I can’t recall what the Reporters recommendation was but I doubt it would have mattered.

The point to note about Scottish Ministers using their “call in” powers is that it almost always after the Local Authority has granted permission for something that is totally contrary to the planning policy (ie. Embo). I can’t recall a situation where “call in” powers were used the way they were for Balmedie but then I’m not a planner by profession and there may well be some precedents.

So to answer your question, I suppose ultimately it came down to what was popular with Mr Salmond.

As an aside I’ve previously made comparisons between the method of Trump regarding getting permission for Balmedie and the method being used at Embo, and got a fair bit of stick for doing so.

 My point was that in both instances you had sites where the planning designations screamed “don’t even think of making an application”. In both instances the developer was advised to look at the land adjacent rather than using the really sensitive land, and in both instances the developer ignored that advice. Both developers then proceeded to court local interest groups before submitting their respective applications amid great fanfare on how they would boost/save the economy; what great guys they were; and how they had local roots.

The upshot much heated debate and division.

Contrast that with the Dumbarnie development. It’s a new links development in Fife that is already being built and yet it’s barely caused a ripple on this site dedicated to the discussion of golf course architecture. I suspect most on here have never heard of it and the number of people who know who the developer is can be counted on one hand. So why is that ? Why did this application go through with a minimum of fuss and in a relatively straightforward fashion ?

Was it perhaps because the developer respected the planning designation by avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas and working with the planners and environmental bodies ? Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there ?

Niall

[Tim Gallant]

Contrast that with the Dumbarnie development. It’s a new links development in Fife that is already being built and yet it’s barely caused a ripple on this site dedicated to the discussion of golf course architecture. I suspect most on here have never heard of it and the number of people who know who the developer is can be counted on one hand. So why is that ? Why did this application go through with a minimum of fuss and in a relatively straightforward fashion ?

Was it perhaps because the developer respected the planning designation by avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas and working with the planners and environmental bodies ? Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there ?

Niall

The difference is all in the image below.

[Lou_Duran]

Tim,


Would you span on that?


If the picture is of the problem-free site Niall alludes to, is it comparable to the CL property?  While I didn't get much into the Embo site, I was mostly underwhelmed.  Bill Coore has said that CL is the best site "we have ever had", and I don't think he has ever been accused of fluffing up his projects.

[Mark Chaplin]

Kalen the far north of Scotland has long winters, short summers and little employment outside of Inverness and Aberdeen plus the west coast has biting midges close to the sea. Basically there’s no market for “ocean front property” unless linked to golf, fishing or hunting.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?


With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.


As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead. 


As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.


As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.


Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)


Jon

[Niall C]

Tim,


Would you span on that?


If the picture is of the problem-free site Niall alludes to, is it comparable to the CL property?  While I didn't get much into the Embo site, I was mostly underwhelmed.  Bill Coore has said that CL is the best site "we have ever had", and I don't think he has ever been accused of fluffing up his projects.

Lou

Just to clarify, I didn't say the site was problem free, I just said that it wasn't part of the neighbouring SSSI land. I should add that I've no idea whether obtaining ownership of the SSSI was an option anyway.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,


firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?

I've acknowledged the right to roam and I've also addressed the historical situations where there is public access and how that has to be managed or allowed for. But in this instance we are talking about a brand new course and you seem reluctant to acknowledge that the design will likely discourage non-golfers wondering across the course. Or maybe I'm wrong in that the design will have paths going across it and picnic areas in the middle of the fairway ?

With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.

An EIA is a fact based report that contains professional opinion. The clue is in the title ie. assessment.

As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead. 

Jon - I respect your opinion, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it.

As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.

To be fair, what I said was face to face discussions generally tend to be civilised which I think is true. But the point I was making that you don't necessarily need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion.

As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.

Interesting, I'll need to see if I can find that.

Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)

Having spent the last decade working in the public sector I can well imagine a situation where lists are drawn up in a hurry to take advantage of grant funding before financial year deadlines ie. use it or lose it. But to suggest it was done at random suggests no thought or even basic level of knowledge was involved in the decision process which seems not only highly unlikely but unrealistic. Grant funding generally comes with a level of initial appraisal and oversight. We are after all talking about public money. 

Jon

[Ian Mackenzie]

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

For a review of the economics of the proposal given by two locals (an academic and the captain of RDGC), assuming Niall does not object to local facts interfering with his opinions, I refer you to the 2:33:00 mark here:


https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/413992

[Niall C]

Thanks Ian, Willie Mackay is actually only the Vice Captain at the moment but I didn't get in to his evidence too far as I was already losing the will to live and the Wales/Ireland game has started. But just let me say that Professor Bell's evidence was interesting as was his cross-examination. His evidence is of course his opinion and assessment based on certain statistical information so isn't actually fact. And as he was forced to admit in cross examination, the basis of his precognition (which although I haven't read but would seem to be on the decline in the population judging from his evidence) that the population has reduced steadily isn't actually true since it has been fairly constant since the 1950's and actually rising slightly after 2000.

However, what Professor Bell didn't address was why Coore and Crenshaw, world class gca's that they are, are unable to design a world class golf course on the land outwith the SSSI. 

Anyway back to the rugby....

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Lou

Just to clarify, I didn't say the site was problem free, I just said that it wasn't part of the neighbouring SSSI land. I should add that I've no idea whether obtaining ownership of the SSSI was an option anyway.

Niall

Poor choice of words on my part.  Sorry.  By "problem-free site" I was referring to the approval process, not the physical characteristics of the site.  Is the picture posted by Tim that of the Dumbarnie site? 


Just curious, would your opinion of the project be different if it was sponsored by some locals and the price structure was more mid-level, say green fees under £100?  Sand?

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


firstly, when it comes to the access issue the point and only point I (& DT) made was the statement about the land being for 'the exclusive use of golfers' was incorrect. You asked what was wrong in the article and this was one point. The fact that you do not seem to accept this and your point has morphed into clubs only entering into voluntary arrangement for access because the law requires them to is somewhat baffling. If you suggest someone has made a false statement and they prove their statement to be true why not just acknowledge that?


I've acknowledged the right to roam and I've also addressed the historical situations where there is public access and how that has to be managed or allowed for. But in this instance we are talking about a brand new course and you seem reluctant to acknowledge that the design will likely discourage non-golfers wondering across the course. Or maybe I'm wrong in that the design will have paths going across it and picnic areas in the middle of the fairway ?


yet again you duck the issue Niall. Please show me where there is any note of making Coul Links an area that is for the exclusive use of golfers. In relation to access that is the original point which you called into doubt and once proven wrong have refused to engage on. In answer to your comment that the project will reduce public access to the site would you please furnish me with the facts behind your comment. Where is the information to back up this claim. I would also ask if you really think 'picnic areas in the middle of fairways' is a balanced or serious point? There are no picnic areas in the middle of main roads as it might be dangerous. Is it your position that because of the lack of said picnic areas the local authority is preventing the public from traversing said road to get to the other side? REALLY!!!
With Mr. Dargie, the fact is that he did produce a report where he stated that it would be possible to build a course on the site and mitigate the impact. If you read his report it does come out in favour of the project being possible though his personal preference would be for the dunes not to be used. In an 'environmental impact assessment' the producer is required to make a factual report not to add personal opinion. That Trump chose not to highlight Mr. Dargie's personal opinion is no big surprise.


An EIA is a fact based report that contains professional opinion. The clue is in the title ie. assessment.


Correct but having actually gone through this process myself an EIA is professional opinion on the actually proposal and it's impact on the areas ecology. In this case Mr. Dargie found that with mitigation measures the project was possible without an overall negative impact. The part he offered about building inland being his preferred option is firstly not within the parameters of the report, secondly personal not professional opinion and thirdly was not part of his professional opinion in the paperwork submitted. Professionally his report was that the project would not have a negative out come.
As an aside, I too would prefer any project to stay outside a SSSI but having looked at this case and the whole picture believe it should go ahead. 

Jon - I respect your opinion, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it.

As for the Indy slant. You are very wrong with the assertion that face to face discussions are always civilised. During the Indy campaign were you to be canvased on the High Street in Inverness for your opinion on the referendum and you hinted you might be more inclined to remain then you were verbally abused and sometimes pushed and shunted. This is something I saw on multiple occasions.


To be fair, what I said was face to face discussions generally tend to be civilised which I think is true. But the point I was making that you don't necessarily need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion.



Indeed you do not need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion but just because there is a lack of locals voicing an opinion against the project does not mean this is the case. It could be as is my experience there are none. Do you have any information to the contrary?

As to a poll of where people stand there has been some polling done by the local College/University which showed overwhelming support for the project amongst the local population.

Interesting, I'll need to see if I can find that.

Finally, the SSSI site at Embo was effectively chosen at random. There was no study done of the site at the time, the amount of money spent on it in all those years is £0 and there is no maintenance plan which shows how important the site really is. It was chosen to make up the numbers (or area)


Having spent the last decade working in the public sector I can well imagine a situation where lists are drawn up in a hurry to take advantage of grant funding before financial year deadlines ie. use it or lose it. But to suggest it was done at random suggests no thought or even basic level of knowledge was involved in the decision process which seems not only highly unlikely but unrealistic. Grant funding generally comes with a level of initial appraisal and oversight. We are after all talking about public money.


So can you find the in depth studies filed in the process papers when the site was chosen.
Jon

[Niall C]

Lou

That is indeed the site or so I believe. Martin Bonnar or indeed I think Rich would be able to say more as they have been over the ground. The build is at the stage where it has been shaped out and their was an article with an aerial photo in one of the local golf mags a couple of months ago. I suspect if you do a google search you will probably find a website with some up to date photos on it.

To answer your question regarding would it make a difference if it was a Scottish developer looking to do this development and I can honestly say no. My concern regarding developing this ground would remain. You may get the impression from my posts regarding Embo that I'm a bit of a tree-hugger but I can truthfully say that the Green Party are the only mainstream political party I haven't voted for. I just think I have a fairly healthy and normal concern for the environment.

If the Dumbarnie development shows anything (as does Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns BTW) you don't have to use SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designated land to build what looks a very fine golf course. And as Balmedie has also shown using such land doesn't necessarily give you anything better. In the case of Embo (and Balmedie) I understand the developer was encouraged to look at the adjoining land outwith the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar area but declined to do so.

Niall

[Niall C]

Jon

So as not to give everyone a headache with multi coloured posts let me take out the comments from your most recent post and respond as follows;

Jon - yet again you duck the issue Niall. Please show me where there is any note of making Coul Links an area that is for the exclusive use of golfers. In relation to access that is the original point which you called into doubt and once proven wrong have refused to engage on. In answer to your comment that the project will reduce public access to the site would you please furnish me with the facts behind your comment. Where is the information to back up this claim. I would also ask if you really think 'picnic areas in the middle of fairways' is a balanced or serious point? There are no picnic areas in the middle of main roads as it might be dangerous. Is it your position that because of the lack of said picnic areas the local authority is preventing the public from traversing said road to get to the other side? REALLY!!!

Me - firstly Mr McKenna wrote the article, not me. I'm of the view he was referring to the golf course area whereas you and DT think he was referring to the whole site. You may well be correct in that but I don't think so. My comments however should be taken to refer to the golf course only as should be obvious given my point of view on Mr McKenna referring to the golf course only. My comment on footpaths and picnic areas was an attempt at humour which I thought obvious but clearly not. Next time I'll try and remember the emoji.

Your example of the road is quite useful as no, the roads authority wouldn't have a picnic area in the middle of the road in the same way as a golf developer wouldn't have a picnic in the middle of the fairway. And while people have to cross the road, you can be damn sure the roads authority take great care in designing crossing points and at times put in barriers to prevent pedestrians crossing the roads at other points. Basically the roads are for cars and other vehicles. In the same way a golf developer/architect will go to pains to have non-golfers preferably go round the course or make sure they cross at designated points only. I can't really explain it any simpler than that.

Jon - Correct but having actually gone through this process myself an EIA is professional opinion on the actually proposal and it's impact on the areas ecology. In this case Mr. Dargie found that with mitigation measures the project was possible without an overall negative impact. The part he offered about building inland being his preferred option is firstly not within the parameters of the report, secondly personal not professional opinion and thirdly was not part of his professional opinion in the paperwork submitted. Professionally his report was that the project would not have a negative out come. 

Me - Mr Dargie would still be giving his client professional advice outwith writing a submission.  Yes that is opinion, but it is his professional opinion based on his expertise. It was also his professional opinion that the course would be better built elsewhere. In this instance his client chose not to take his advice as sometimes happens.

Jon - Indeed you do not need to be attacked or verbally abused to feel intimidated or dissuaded to voice an opinion but just because there is a lack of locals voicing an opinion against the project does not mean this is the case. It could be as is my experience there are none. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Me - I seem to recall it was you who said that all the locals were in support and I questioned that. I didn't have any evidence but conflicting statements from the Not Coul group suggested there was opposition and indeed your own comments in an earlier post also referred to opposition so I assume their is some level of opposition, is there not ?

Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

If the Dumbarnie development shows anything (as does Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns BTW) you don't have to use SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designated land to build what looks a very fine golf course. And as Balmedie has also shown using such land doesn't necessarily give you anything better. In the case of Embo (and Balmedie) I understand the developer was encouraged to look at the adjoining land outwith the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar area but declined to do so.

Niall

Niall


Have you seen Dumbarnie at all? If not isn't that a fairly meaningless assertion?

[Niall C]

Adam

I said it looks like a fine golf course which was a reference to the photos and article that was in Bunkered (?) so I don't think it is a meaningless comment. Of course, whether it plays like a fine course remains to be seen but it certainly looks the part and that is the point. You don't need to use SSSI land to make a fine course. KB and CS are proof of that as I said. And while Balmedie certainly isn't a bad course is the fact that it was built on SSSI land made it any better ? There's an obvious answer to that.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Adam

I said it looks like a fine golf course which was a reference to the photos and article that was in Bunkered (?) so I don't think it is a meaningless comment. Of course, whether it plays like a fine course remains to be seen but it certainly looks the part and that is the point. You don't need to use SSSI land to make a fine course. KB and CS are proof of that as I said. And while Balmedie certainly isn't a bad course is the fact that it was built on SSSI land made it any better ? There's an obvious answer to that.

Niall

Niall:


As someone who has made his living building golf courses on beautiful land - and hopefully respecting the environment - it bothers me to see this view, which is all too common among those who oppose golf development.  "Let them build it on a landfill - we want this land preserved [so we can use it as we please]," is a common attitude.


I don't have any idea of the details of the Coul Links project or the SSSI that goes with it, so I don't mean to comment on it specifically.  And certainly, no, you don't have to find SSSI land to build a great course . . . just as I think we could agree not every developer is the same as Donald Trump. 


At the same time, I've seen plenty of golf courses massively shaped from formerly flat farmland a la Dumbarnie Links, and very few of them held much appeal for me as a golfer.  For me a great part of the appeal of the game is playing over natural ground, rather than man-made contrivance.  And I believe it's possible to build on beautiful natural ground without screwing it up.  In fact, I've got a few examples I'd be happy to show you.

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,


You are simply wrong about Elie.  As well as the coastal path there's a public footpath crossing 10 and 12, which is well worn, and another which runs behind 4 and across 8.  It's a seaside resort and it's common for walkers and their dogs and hods to stray off these paths and I have never seen anyone have an issue.  The non-golfing public are (mostly) very aware of golfers and I stand by my statement.  Though thanks for the lesson.


At Crail, you are right, the main interaction with walkers is the coastal path, which runs alongside as many as 5 holes.  Walkers there tend to be less aware but, honestly, it's rarely a problem.


At both, your interaction with a walker is far more likely to be a friendly conversation than anything else.


I used to be a member of Chorleywood Golf Club, a 9 holer on common land (note that there are many courses in England on common land, Kington and Berkhamsted among them) and, again, walkers and golfers get on just fine.

[Mike Bodo]

Here's the deal... virtually everything about American golf either makes me sad or pisses me off.
And exporting American golf to Scotland makes me sad... and it pisses me off.

      Quote of the thread thus far! I'm American and I totally get where you're coming from. This has been a real interesting thread as there's been good debate and banter on both sides of the issue. I don't have a dog in the fight, but the environmental politics surrounding this situation are eerily similar to much of what we see in the U.S. now - regardless of the type of property development we are talking about.

[Lou_Duran]

Here's the deal... virtually everything about American golf either makes me sad or pisses me off.
And exporting American golf to Scotland makes me sad... and it pisses me off.

      Quote of the thread thus far! I'm American and I totally get where you're coming from. This has been a real interesting thread as there's been good debate and banter on both sides of the issue. I don't have a dog in the fight, but the environmental politics surrounding this situation are eerily similar to much of what we see in the U.S. now - regardless of the type of property development we are talking about.

My take is a bit different.  As I progress on the inward nine, I am trying to find at least some understanding and enjoyment in those things I normally don't favor or find familiar.  It is amusing how golfers from the UK who visit the U.S. readily acclimate to the residential routings, golf carts, beer coolers, and an eclectic playlist serenading their rounds.  Golf is a big world, so I guess there is plenty of room to be cantankerous, pissed, and mostly avoidable.  I know of golfers who check the tee sheet to see who is playing around them.

[Niall C]

Thanks Mark, I couldn’t recall Elie well enough to say definitely where any paths might be but presume the ones you refer to are long standing rights of way. I too have rarely had any bad interaction with walkers (an instance at St Andrews of all places being the one exception) but I suspect that if an architect was starting with a clean sheet of paper they would endeavour to keep golfers and non-golfers well apart, which would just be good practice I’d have thought.

Niall

[Niall C]

Tom

If you would like to show me some examples I’ll happily book some time off and you can send me the plane tickets and course reservations. 

Seriously though, I’m a firm believer that a golf course can be an environmental benefit and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species but I also believe that there are some sites that shouldn’t be developed for golf or for anything else because of their sensitivity and existing value as a landscape/habitat.

Frankly, I’m not qualified to make the call as to what sites should be left alone but we do have a planning system that designates sites as SSSI/SPA/Ramsar or whatever based on their environmental value and importance. Notwithstanding Jon’s previous comments I think we can take it as read that sites with those kinds of designations have been evaluated by those that are qualified.

Accordingly there is a very strong presumption against development of those sites in planning terms. In the same way therefore that it bothers you to hear the sort of comment that you describe, it bothers me that some just blithely dismiss any environmental concerns/issues as irrelevant or having no foundation. I think a lot of non-golfers, and even in Scotland you get a lot of non-golfers, find that unreasonable. Probably outwith this website quite a few golfers also find that unreasonable. It’s the sort of thing that just gets peoples backs up and promotes an “us and them” attitude when it comes to golf and you now see that in some of the comments coming out of RSPB etc. That can’t be good for the game IMO.   

As an aside, where I have previously compared the Balmedie development to Embo it has been about the methods employed by both to obtain their consent, and not to do with personality, politics or nationality although I do wonder whether the business culture both parties come from might explain their methods. For instance I doubt whether a UK based golf developer (is there such a thing ? Adrian Stiff perhaps) would have challenged the Development Plan in such a fashion. I’m not a planner but work in property although usually dealing in a more urban environment. In that context UK developers generally work with the Structure/Development Plan rather than looking to completely over ride it.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I’m a firm believer that a golf course can be an environmental benefit and can provide a valuable habitat for all sorts of species but I also believe that there are some sites that shouldn’t be developed for golf or for anything else because of their sensitivity and existing value as a landscape/habitat.

Frankly, I’m not qualified to make the call as to what sites should be left alone but we do have a planning system that designates sites as SSSI/SPA/Ramsar or whatever based on their environmental value and importance. Notwithstanding Jon’s previous comments I think we can take it as read that sites with those kinds of designations have been evaluated by those that are qualified.

Accordingly there is a very strong presumption against development of those sites in planning terms. In the same way therefore that it bothers you to hear the sort of comment that you describe, it bothers me that some just blithely dismiss any environmental concerns/issues as irrelevant or having no foundation. I think a lot of non-golfers, and even in Scotland you get a lot of non-golfers, find that unreasonable. Probably outwith this website quite a few golfers also find that unreasonable. It’s the sort of thing that just gets peoples backs up and promotes an “us and them” attitude when it comes to golf and you now see that in some of the comments coming out of RSPB etc. That can’t be good for the game IMO.   

Niall

This about sums it for me.  I can't understand why we bother spending lots of money to go through a process conservation only to have it all questioned when an application arises.  I would be all in favour of revewing the designated sites as a matter of course to see the progress of conservation etc then decide if the designation should stand and other recommendations.  I am not in favour of tossing aside a planning system every time someone waves money around with promises of jobs and riches. 


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()