Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

[Lou_Duran]

Ben,


If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?


BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party.  That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval.  The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.


CL had local popular support and formal planning approval.  Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact.  The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.


This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection.  It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless.  As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.


BTW, best of luck on your new project.  I hope to play it some day. 

[Sean_A]

Ben,

If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?

BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party.  That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval.  The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.

CL had local popular support and formal planning approval.  Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact.  The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.

This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection.  It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless.  As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.

BTW, best of luck on your new project.  I hope to play it some day.

Sweet Lou

Your second paragraph says it all. You seem to lack an understanding of what happened or at the very minimum continue to focus on irrelevant issues.

What does the party affiliation of the Planning Comm Chair matter? Besides, and this has already been made clear, the Chair was not a member of the Green Party at the time of this application.

The second comm as you call it was the decision making body for Trump's application. That Planning Comm did not approve the application...which according to planning regulations was a very reasonable and understandable result. There is really nothing more to it except for the government's bumbling interference which got the decision completely wrong because it trusted Trump to deliver on his grossly exaggerated figures. People say that if a deal sounds to good to be true it probably is.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Ben,


If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?


BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party.  That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval.  The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.
Lou, that is not what I'm saying at all. The Balmedie decision was wrong because the various planning policies and designations pointed to a straight refusal. It was a no brainer. The fact that Salmond gave it the OK was pure hubris on his part. The similarities with Embo are that again the various planning policies and designation pointed towards a straight refusal.

CL had local popular support and formal planning approval.  Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact.  The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.Both Embo and Balmedie had national implications because of the nature of the sites. The (proposed) developments themselves were not of national importance no matter the outlandish claims made by Trump.


This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection.  It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless.  As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.As above, the Balmedie decision was an abuse of power in my view and just plain wrong, and just because the Embo decision is inconsistent with that doesn't mean the decision wasn't correct. I suspect the Embo developers were gambling on some sort of precedent having been set.


BTW, best of luck on your new project.  I hope to play it some day.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,


If you have seen and know the CL site well, can you tell us what is so "sensitive" about it?


BTW, the argument that Niall and others have made was that the Balmedie approval was wrong because it was narrowly turned down by a single local committee with a tie vote broken by the chair who was/is a member of the Green party.  That vote came after another local committee gave the plan a super-majority approval.  The feds called the application in and reversed the vote of that second committee.


CL had local popular support and formal planning approval.  Whereas the scale and scope of the Balmedie project had national implications, CL by comparison was rather modest, but with considerable local impact.  The feds stepped in anyways and reversed the favorable local decision.


This is not a matter of a small inconsistency or a system which falls a bit short of perfection.  It may have been as simple as a make up call in basketball (for Balmedie), but it was a colossal screw-up nonetheless.  As several people much smarter than me have said, we get the government we deserve.


BTW, best of luck on your new project.  I hope to play it some day.

Lou,

I have not been to Coul Links however SSSI in the UK and NI is briefly explained via a wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest

The golf course I have worked on in a SSSI has been opened for play for over 12 years (with a few in-house changes without my input  )

The two SSSI sites are contrasting the one I worked on was on farmland on the shore of a huge man made lake not 50 years old which was near a nature reserve which made the surrounding areas by the lake an SSSI - compare this with Coul which has 100 years plus of natural sandy dunes with loads of flora and fauna. This is one inconsistency of interpreting SSSI's

The other inconsistency is planning - we do a lot of work with planners architecture and golf course wise however the local planning committee (who are non qualified planners but councillors representing the local people which is political and local/national planning policies can be 'thrown out of the window'). For example I had a 11 unit apartment block which the design evolved and lots of dialogue with the local planner to solve a number of issues and was recommended approval by the planners and it barely got through the planning committee by 1 vote (5-4)

Planning can go to several levels - local, mayoral, national/government/minster and then prime or first minister level Coul Links was refused at minister level and Trump Aberdeen was approved at first minster level which I had reservations about plus the then first minister is currently undergoing a major court case which has been in the national news  .

I echo Niall's response which both CL and TA were carried out in due diligence from a planning standpoint however one was rather corrupt.

The other downfall is the client and designer probably didn't go down the right route and thought that they could get planning a la the 'Trump way'. The best route in theory would have been constant communication with planners and other steering groups to get their support/on their side rather than enemies that they are not to impede the most sensitive areas and build around it plus follow local and national policies. It is a game and it is all about ticking the right boxes which if refused would more likely to get approved through the appeal process. 

[Niall C]

Ben

Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees rather than saying to hell with all that, let's just fight it ? Yes, it's helpful if you can avoid objections from the neighbours but stirring things up the way Trump did at Balmedie and the way the Embo developers did, so as to turn it into a popularity contest rather than a planning application is surely not how the process is meant to go, is it not ?

Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees rather than saying to hell with all that, let's just fight it ? Yes, it's helpful if you can avoid objections from the neighbours but stirring things up the way Trump did at Balmedie and the way the Embo developers did, so as to turn it into a popularity contest rather than a planning application is surely not how the process is meant to go, is it not ?

Niall

Niall,


To turn it into a popularity contest (or bullying in other respects) is not the right way that the process is meant to go. There needs to be an element of fairness from all angles and respecting the current rules whether you like it or not.


From certain angles it seems a lack of understanding of the process from the client/designer or they were badly advised. For me it is important to discuss with the planners and other potential steering groups early on to enable that all parameters are understood, that it is within the rules and has 'outside' support.


Planners do get nervous if there were a number of objections even more from national organisations. So at times they do advise and ask for alternatives to get around a potential problem/valid objection.


Certain parts of the proposed golf course at Coul was in a rather sensitive 'red flag' areas not the whole site surely they should have respected that these are no go areas and built around it whether it is a better golf course or not. The first thing i would have done in principle is it acceptable that a golf course can be on this site then secondly which areas it can it be built on and the no go areas.


The Planning system is not perfect I have seen the good and the bad sides of it.


Cheers
Ben

[Lou_Duran]

Being that I don't seem to understand the process or the relevant issues, I am retiring from this discussion.  Mind you that I've spent some 20 years of my life dealing with these very similar issues and have actually spent several hours at each site.  Hopefully I'll get to see what happens in Balmedie over the next 10 years and, God willing, my fears for Dornoch and the surrounding area prove to be unfounded.  For sure, things will go on. 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Being that I don't seem to understand the process or the relevant issues, I am retiring from this discussion.  Mind you that I've spent some 20 years of my life dealing with these very similar issues and have actually spent several hours at each site.  Hopefully I'll get to see what happens in Balmedie over the next 10 years and, God willing, my fears for Dornoch and the surrounding area prove to be unfounded.  For sure, things will go on.

Q.E.D....+1...

[Bryan Izatt]

Coul Links is part of the Loch Fleet SSSI. If you wanted to know what is sensitive about it you could look at the designation by Googling "loch fleet scotland sssi designation".


It's been designated as an SSSI since at least 1985 and was subject to a 25 year management agreement between the owners, Cambusmore Estates and the SWT, that expired in 2010 and was not renewed. Cambusmore Estates appears to provide a couple of self-catering houses in the area and some outdoors activities.  They tout their proximity to the Loch Fleet NNR.


The planning process doesn't look that complicated and it seems that various political bodies have the ability to over-ride the planning process.  That doesn't seem so unusual.


The final rejection of the proposed golf course included the following statement:

"Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporters findings that the local and regional socio-economic benefits of the development do not justify the adverse effects on the qualities of designation of the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar."


This could be read to suggest that there is some level of socio-economic benefits that would justify the adverse effects.  Perhaps they should have included Trumpian features such as a hotel and 650 homes.

[Jon Wiggett]

Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees

Niall

Niall,


I wonder if you have followed the Coul Links project closely as this is just what the developers did. They followed ALL the planning procedures correctly and this resulted in the application being PASSED unanimously by the council.


The reason that the one body found against the application was a technical one where they were obliged to find against it but if you read there statement to the planning it actually is positive not negative. The fact that they found against the project is also not a reason to say it should have been rejected as if that were the case there would be no need for planning committees in the first place.


I have good knowledge and practical experience of the workings of the Scottish planning system in relation to golf course applications and in my opinion you are off the mark here.


Lou,


you are correct about the popular feeling being positive for the Balmedie project early on in the planning process but this was definitely not the case as it developed. For my own part, I was always pro the project but against building it in the shifting dune system which has proven to be a grave error on the part of the SG and in particular Alex Salmond though he certainly has more pressing problems at the moment.


I am and have never been a fan of Donald Trump but do believe in the future he will be recognised as someone who did a lot to further the game.


Jon

[Niall C]

Niall,

I wonder if you have followed the Coul Links project closely as this is just what the developers did. They followed ALL the planning procedures correctly and this resulted in the application being PASSED unanimously by the council.

That’s not what I said. I said “Surely the "right route" for the developer and architect is take note of the guidance and planning policy and to work with planners and the statutory consultees”. Yes every applicant must submit the information as requested and follow the procedure as set by law and I’m sure the Embo developers did that or the application wouldn’t have passed through the system, but that is not what I referred to.

I referred to actually taking cognisance of the planning policy and guidelines, taking on board the advice and comments from planners and statutory consultees and then shaping the application accordingly. As I alluded to before, a cursory glance at the development plan and the designation of the land they were looking to develop should have told them all they needed to know. If they had taken heed of that then it would have saved everyone a lot of grief but instead they tried to bulldoze their way through. And yes I have been following this application fairly closely.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


the developers did take note of the guidance and planning policy (which does not exclude the possibility of developments in a SSSI). They also worked with and took on the advice and comments of the planners and various consultees which did shape the application that was passed. There was no bulldozing as you put it.


The reason the SG overturned the decision had nothing to do with the application it was purely about Holyrood politics.


Jon

[Bernie Bell]

Jon, Niall -


Trying to understand this better.  What role if any do the planning policy and guidelines give to MSP Finnie in the official approval process as it relates to balancing economic and environmental concerns?  And is the percentage of the Highlands vote MSP Finnie received in the last election publicly available?  I don't follow the whole "list MSP" concept very well, so please excuse me if the second is an ignorant question.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bernie,


As far as I understand it and simply put MSPs are elected through two methods. Some stand under their own name in a constituency and are directly elected by the voters. In addition to this the voter picks a party to vote for and depending on the % a party wins it gets to pick X number of people it wishes to send to Holyrood.


Mr. Finnie is a Green Party MSP and is a list MSP hence my comments that he was not elected by the people. The Green Party have 6 MSPs and if I am not mistaken all of them are list MSPs.


At the last election the Scottish National Party was the largest party but lost it's majority requiring the support of other parties to govern. They entered a loose arrangement with the Greens but this leaves them in a situation of having to do favours for the Green Party in return for support in parliament. Coul Links was one such favour and I very much doubt the SNP would have called it in otherwise.


Next year the SNP can expect to suffer a loss of support in the Constituency containing Embo/Dornoch where as it will have no effect on the Green Party. I guess this is the price to paid for being in hoc to a party with nothing to lose.


Mr. Finnie objected to the Coul Links project on principle and I have no problem in that. He has no role in the process of the planning application and had Green Party not held the balance of power I doubt very much if the SNP would have called it in.


I do wonder about the suitability of a political system that allows an unelected politician to over rule the decision of the locally elected politicians. It does not matter what he does he will always be returned by the Green Party to Holyrood and so he has absolutely no accountability to the electorate.


Jon

[David_Tepper]

Local Member of Scottish Parliment apologizes for not being able to do more:
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/msp-gail-ross-apologises-for-not-being-able-to-do-more-over-coul-links-193394/
 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

From Twitter:




Robert J Vasilak
@RJVasilakGolf


More from M-Keiser: He's all but given up on Coul Links, but he’s negotiating to build an 18-h, Coore & Crenshaw track, supported by a no-frills clubhouse, on property south of Dornoch. “I’m hopeful about it,” he said. “The landowner is eager to do a Bandon-type project.”

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?

NEWS 30 October 2020

In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.

1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.


2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.


3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.

[Ben Stephens]

This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?

NEWS 30 October 2020

In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.

1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.


2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.


3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.

Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........

[Thomas Dai]

Is Nicola's most likely successor a golfer?
atb

[Adam Lawrence]

This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?

NEWS 30 October 2020

In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.

1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.


2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.


3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.

Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........

Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead

[Ben Stephens]

This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?

NEWS 30 October 2020

In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.

1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.


2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.


3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.

Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........

Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead

Adam,


I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......


Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

Ben


I think it is an extreme interpretation to put all that on C&C. I'm not saying it's your interpretation, I'm just saying that someone is coming up with that line. For a start C&C can only design to the brief they are given which in the case of Embo included the SSSI. Do we know whether C&C's client has expressed an interest in developing the adjacent land or that the landowner would allow that land to be developed ? And if so, were C&C asked whether they would be interested in designing a course on that land ? There's an awful lot of if's and but's in there to just blame C&C straight off the bat.


As an aside, this same Councillor has been endeavouring to resurrect the development using the same protected piece of land more or less since it was turned down at Scottish Minister level. I think it more likely therefore that he is just trying to invent a reason why it needs to be built on the SSSI.


Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


I think it is an extreme interpretation to put all that on C&C. I'm not saying it's your interpretation, I'm just saying that someone is coming up with that line. For a start C&C can only design to the brief they are given which in the case of Embo included the SSSI. Do we know whether C&C's client has expressed an interest in developing the adjacent land or that the landowner would allow that land to be developed ? And if so, were C&C asked whether they would be interested in designing a course on that land ? There's an awful lot of if's and but's in there to just blame C&C straight off the bat.


As an aside, this same Councillor has been endeavouring to resurrect the development using the same protected piece of land more or less since it was turned down at Scottish Minister level. I think it more likely therefore that he is just trying to invent a reason why it needs to be built on the SSSI.


Niall

Bang on Niall! 

[Adam Lawrence]

This point 1 from the coullinksgolf.com website is a strange one. I haven't read all the previous messages; is the architect known?

NEWS 30 October 2020

In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.

1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.


2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.


3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.

Wow C+C are putting their repuation first rather than making compromises for the natural environment that their design could potentially damage? Adam L - is this true.........

Is what true? I am assured by those close to the project that Coul Links is dead

Adam,


I am referring to C+C approach of not changing the design which they feel will impact on their reputation. Potentially further away from the most sensitive areas of the land as a compromise. Sounds like reputation is more important to them rather than adapt and respect the environment. As you know Bill Coore better than most of us ......


Cheers
Ben

I don't know what you are talking about Ben. The project is dead.

[David_Tepper]

The next question is where is the property "south of Dornoch" that M. Keiser is now looking at? Maybe the abandoned Castlecraig course at Nigg?

https://www.forgottengreens.com/forgotten-greens/ross-cromarty-aultbea/castlecraig-nigg/