Niall,As you suggested, I perused the Dumbarnie website and the pics of the course under construction are very attractive (and very different than the one posted by Tim). I do note that the course is targeting the "high end" market in an area already crowded in that segment. I hope it does well, but unless they have a "coupon day", I am a doubtful customer.
As to your comments on Coul Links, I accept your word. And you are right in your response to Jon about the environmental assessments, they are mostly opinions (and values) based on some measurable facts, interpretation of difficult to replicate data, and more opinions.
An example (of opinions based mostly on sketchy, incomplete data and more opinions) is the testimony of the lady representing the Nay group around 2:23 in the video, speaking mostly of the impact on birds. She is attempting to refute, I think, the professed mitigation that the CL course would have on the "fear landscape" vis-a-vis past and present shooting (hunting) on the site. She is a bit halting and confusing in her testimony, but I think that she is arguing that though shooting would not be permitted on the site if the course is built, the so-called "fear landscape" is not mitigated because the poor birds could still be killed in other areas outside the property.
Now, as a hunter for years in the past and a frequent visitor to areas where hunting is a way of life, I can give first-person, qualified testimony that places where shooting is not permitted are precisely where wildlife often congregates. This is true in the various protected parks in Africa and India as it is in my own fully-developed neighborhood where coyotes and bobcats are seen daily and are a menace to our small pets.
Note that the opponent of the project is not suggesting that shooting as a means to cull and keep in balance wildlife populations is desirable, an argument that could be reasonably entertained. She apparently believes something quite contrary to the experience that many of us who've played golf widely can attest to, that rather than impede the well-being of desirable wildlife, even in dense urban environments, golf courses often offer safe-harbor for many species.
I think the whole issue does come down to values. Does the site possess sufficient national interest to offset the will and interests of the local people? In the context of both, the specific site and coastal Scotland in its entirety, is the value of the very small area that would be disturbed if the project goes forward eroded in excess of the potential benefit it would bring to the local stakeholders? And if it is, from the standpoint of fair treatment, should the local stakeholders be compensated if approval by the national government is withheld?
As you know, I am convinced that most central planning is to be avoided at all costs. But from the standpoint of Coul Links vs. Dumbarnie, I can easily argue from a collectivist/societal standpoint that the former should be green-lighted and the latter held to great scrutiny. Really, who needs another high-priced course in an area that already has some 40 venues, a good economy and a stable if not growing population? Surely the birds, NIMBYs and blowing sand in Fife deserve some consideration!
