TOC - which proposed changes do you agree with?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

John - I cannot imagine many councils have experts on golf course architecture on the staff. Who would Fife council consult; The Links Trust, The R&A?

Mark,

A very fair question - assuming we’re only talking about the Historical significant elements which need to be preserved.

Obviously the Links Trust and the R & A would have too much self interest at heart to provide a balanced judgement.

I could imagine if Historic Scotland were involved a special sub-committee could be formed with experts in the field. Who would be on such a sub committee is up to Historic Scotland, but I should imagine it would be made up of leading golf historians, golf course restoration architects, experienced greenkeepers, experienced players, etc.

It would be up to the sub committee to draw up a code of practise and regulations for the preservation of Historic Golf Courses. If the Links Trust wanted to make alterations (which isn’t necessarily excluded) they would have to present their case. The sub committee could then examine the project, based on their regulations, and then pass their judgement on to the Council for a decision.

[Jim Colton]

We probably should've seen this coming. See Peter Dawson's comments below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/19/open-championship-17th-road-hole

While I guess I agree with the concept of having the Road Hole bunker gather more golf balls, two things give me pause: 1) it's already the toughest par 4 out there, why does it need to be any harder? and 2) the execution risk of Hawtree being able to get it just right.

If it ain't broke...

[Mark_Rowlinson]

There have been changes in the past, not least to the profiles of Hell Bunker and Road Bunker. How similar is the course today to that, say, in use in the late 1940s? How does that compare with the course in, say, 1900?

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think Sean echoes much of my reaction. Either you are for preservation, or you are for improvement, and it seems clear to me that, if the latter, the place to start would be with a redesign of the ninth.

This topic may deserve its own thread... that is, what's wrong with the 9th hole at St. Andrews? In my view, nothing. But, of course, I'm sure there are differing opinions.

[Tony Ristola]

Lastly, not 100% sure what is planned for 11, but having missed long there in 1980, I still remember the impossibility of keeping a chip on the green from back there, even at 1980 green speeds, which were considerable.  Frankly, if I remember how scary it was 32 years later, I wouldn't object to a sympathetic softening of the back to front slope there.

Which might be reason enough to leave it as is. 

[Niall C]

I wonder if the lack of details on the proposed work is because Dr Hawtree is a minimalist and prefers to all his design work in the field, no ? Perhaps not.

John C-S

I recall over a dozen years ago now when I had aspirations to get into golf course design and making a similar point that you're making to a group of aspiring golf course architects. I actually cited the example of the Old Course and suggested even more protection than you mention with for instance, protection from neighbouring landowners who might want to get a court order (interim interdict) preventing play on certain holes as it could effect their property eg. Old Course Hotel and drive at 17th.

Since then my views, if not gone full circle, have certainly changed. I'm don't think anything should necessarily be set in stone and while getting permissions might seem a good idea in priciple I've seen enough planning decisions and other decisions made by Committee to suggest better to leave it to the consulting architect and trust that the club has chosen well in picking their designer.

I would however also suggest that it would be good practice to follow the lead advocated by Frank Pont on here that the contours of the existing green should be mapped before any changes are made.

Niall   

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Niall,

In an ideal world I’d agree with you – however it all depends on “trust”

A “laissez-faire” attitude with self regulation is naïve and seldom works and it’s not working on the Old Course.

There are so many examples of butchered classics that have been “modified” to meet a specific need (more difficulty, ease of maintenance)
Why? – well mainly by prioritising their own personal current needs and NOT EVEN taking into consideration the historical worth.

I sincerely believe the Old Course is a significant cultural heritage of Scotland and as such belongs to the people of Scotland, and the owners in effect are the custodians.

If the owners want to tamper with a cultural heritage they should at least show respect to the people of Scotland and ask if it’s OK.

The Scottish people have the power to appoint representatives to address these issues, I would humbly suggest let the appointed representatives make the judgments, not the individuals.

John

[Marty Bonnar]

John,
the Scottish people ARE the owners -
and they have appointed those representatives - The Links Trust...set up by an Act of Parliament, no less.

F.

(from the guy who actually WAS the only Fife Council person ever qualified to speak on golf course architecture!!)

[Bill_McBride]

John,
the Scottish people ARE the owners -
and they have appointed those representatives - The Links Trust...set up by an Act of Parliament, no less.

F.

(from the guy who actually WAS the only Fife Council person ever qualified to speak on golf course architecture!!)

I'm guessing they didn't check with you before desecrating the 11th green.  "High Hole In" is not so high with its back left corner softened and presumably lowered.   

[John Chilver-Stainer]

F. (Martin)

Thanks for your explanation.
Maybe I should express my self another way..

Old Course St. Andrews = Scottish Cultural Heritage

At the moment it probably isn’t classified as such. I think it should be – it can be by ANYONE applying to have it classified as “Designed Landscape” for inclusion on the Inventory

See

 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/listingapplicationform.pdf)


Landowners = Public Ownership of the UK (correct me if I’m wrong)

Appointed Custodians (or similar description) = The St.Andrews Links Trust
Appointed Administrators = Links Management Committee

Scottish People (my description, it could read the British People) = Democratically elected Government of the UK and UK Civil Service.

Reading my script again with slight modifications:-.

If the owners (or custodians The St. Andrews Links Trust)  want to tamper (carry out constructional alterations)   with a cultural heritage (hopefully one day officially classified as such)   they should at least show respect to the people of Scotland  (UK Government and Civil Service) and ask if it’s OK  (apply for a Permit and allow objectors their say).

As you pointed out the Old Course is protected by statute, The St Andrews Links Confirmation Act of 1974, can you enlighten us on the contents?
 
Cheers
John.

[Jud_T]

from scottish government website:

The St Andrews Links Trust was established in 1974 by a special Act of Parliament to take over the management of the Links from the St Andrews Town Council, which was about to cease to exist. The land remains in the ownership of the local authority, now Fife Council, but the Act gives complete control of the management of the Links to the Trust. Under the 1974 Act, the Trust must "hold and maintain the Links as a public park and place of public resort and recreation for the residents of the town of St Andrews and others resorting thereto". The trust has charitable status.

The 1974 Act provides that in addition to 3 nominations from each of Fife Council and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, one trustee is nominated by the Scottish Ministers and one is the local MP

longer text:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/115300/0028516.pdf

[John Chilver-Stainer]

So does that mean the Links Trust don't have to submit Planning Applications for constructional alterations?

[Jud_T]

John,

That's all I can find thus far.  The question is what does "complete control of management" of the links mean?  Management doesn't sound like Architectural or Preservation authority to these ears, but rather what is says literally, management...

[Tags:]

Tags: