[Jon Wiggett]

Adam,


I hadn't realised that the 'right to roam' was also in England Adam. Is it the same law as in Scotland?

[Adam Lawrence]

Jon


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwiZlaOWgqnaAhWqJcAKHWZ9CJoQFghCMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ramblers.org.uk%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FGo%2520walking%2FAccessFactSheet-FS8.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0570fxhjwElv3X46HQFbH7

[Jon Wiggett]

Thanks Adam.


Yes, it is similar but not as far reaching as the Scottish version.


As for the recent comments about the Coul Links project and the comparison to Trump's.


 Firstly, Coul Links has the overwhelming support of the local population unlike Trumps.


Secondly, it is been undertaken by a developer who is living in the local community and has already invested a considerable amount of his own money in the local community to the great benefit of said community. You certainly cannot say the same about Trump.


Thirdly Coul Links will create a dramatic uplift for the economy of the immediate area in a region that sorely needs it and struggles to get investment. Trump was tapping into a local economy that was already very affluent so bringing (as it has been proven) little benefit.


Though both sites are SSSIs the Aberdeen site was been invested into by various environmental bodies and schemes. It had been actively protected and was suffering no degradation. Coul Links has had no investment ever from any environmental body or scheme. It has suffered from noticeable ingression through invasive species and current use.


In the construction of the project at Aberdeen the main reason for the SSSI (shifting dune system) was impacted upon in a negative manner. At Coul Links the project will provide the first funding for the maintenance of the SSSI and it's first ever management plan.


The area on which the golf course was built at Aberdeen was accessible and actively used by the general public prior to the project. Much of this use has been curtailed with the developer actively discouraging the public access. Coul Links is accessed by the public though in much lower numbers than at Aberdeen but the developer's plans will not only allow this access to continue as today but will provide improved/easier access to the site.


The Aberdeen project was rejected by the local planners and politicians at both a town and county level but this was overturned by national government. Coul Links has the support of the local politicians at both town and county level with the only objections coming from one national level politician. Coul Links is also very likely to get approval by local planners.


To the objections. The main person behind the campaign against Coul Links happens have worked as an environmental advisor for the Trump project and gave it his full backing. The Trump project led to a noticeable degradation of the SSSI and possibly said advisor's reputation which might account to some extent to his negative views.


The project at Coul Links will lead to an enhancement of the SSSI. Indeed as far as I understand, if the status quo carries on then the links will continue to be degraded by invasive species and coastal erosion which threatens its very existence. Further more the avian winter resting sites will continue to be used for shooting but this would cease were the project to go ahead.


In short. Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?


Yes, if it is going to enhance, indeed possibly save said system whilst bring substantial, needed benefits to the local economy such as Coul links is projected to and has the support of the local community.


No, if it has a negative effect on the SSSI, brings little benefit to the local economy and is apposed by the local community.


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jon,


I don’t disagree with anything you say. In fact it all seems to ring true aside from a couple of points which I will state in the interests of balance:


Trump in theory should definitely have added to the local economy of Aberdeen, which despite being more self sufficient than Dornoch can still do with a boost. Golf tourism should have increased with the creation of a genuine hub with Balgownie, Murcar and Cruden Bay...  I’d be interested to know if this idea actually worked out? Secondly, a large good quality hotel (which has never been built of course) was desperately needed on the north side of Aberdeen near the airport and conference centre. For such a thriving city, it’s woefully short on good accommodation.


On the other side of the coin, Coul has promised all of these environmental enhancements to the SSSI.... but the course hasn’t actually been built yet.... There’s still opportunity (once planning is received) for that line to be crossed a few times, either noticeably or under the radar.


For balance alone. As I said, I agree with the gist of your post.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,


whilst you are correct there was a reason that local planners turned the project down. The figures did not add up and the developer did not come across as credible in the claims he was making.


The opposite is true of Coul Links though as you point out only time will tell.


Jon

[Niall C]

David,

The Embo developers might not have Trumps profile, even from before he became POTUS, but they have endeavoured to shout as loud as they can and they are using the same methods.

As for acknowledging the public engagement in the form of the public meetings, I’m very happy to do that, but you should be aware that they are obliged to do that as part of engaging with the community in terms of the planning process. Mind you, the roadshow they did at Bandon probably stretches the community definition a bit  .
And with regards to the respective dynamics at Balmedie and Embo I don’t think they are that much different, and that was the point Finnie was largely making in his article that drew a lot of fire from the Embo developers and their supporters.

What Finnie was basically saying was that there is a clear presumption against development due to the sites planning status and therefore the Scottish government shouldn’t be engaging with the developer the way they have. What they should have done was politely referred them to Highland Council as the appropriate planning authority (that’s my opinion). That’s what they should have done with Trump and what they should have done with the Embo developers. That’s just good governance IMO.

It will be interesting to see what the Scottish Government does, should the application be refused. Will they call in the application in the same fashion as they did at Balmedie or will they let it go ? Likewise will they call it in if it is approved. Following their actions at Balmedie and with Judy Murrays development near Dunblane, I’d be surprised if they did anything to block this application.

Niall   

[Niall C]

Jon

You (and others) make great play of the project being undertaken by someone who has invested in the local community. I have to ask but what has that got to do with the merits of the planning application ?

For example, imagine if you will that Princess Diana and Mother Teresa had submitted a planning application to turn the hotel adjacent to the first tee at RDGC into an abattoir. Would you think that an unacceptable use or would you give them a free pass for previous good deeds ? 

Niall

[David_Tepper]

"The Embo developers might not have Trumps profile, even from before he became POTUS, but they have endeavoured to shout as loud as they can and they are using the same methods."

Niall -

Now you accuse the Coul Links team of shouting "as loud as they can" and "using the same methods" as Trump employed in Aberdeen.

I will grant you that their initial presentation for the project was a bit enthusiastic. You have repeatedly referred to statements made by them over 2 years ago and seem to be obsessed with what was said back then. Since then, the statements made by them have mostly been in response to the rather savage attacks they have received in the press from the environmental community.

If you can show me examples over the last year or two of shouting and using methods even remotely similar to what was seen in Aberdeen, I would be interested in seeing them. Clearly, there is not much confrontation and little rubbishing emanating from https://www.coullinks.co.uk/   

DT
 

[Niall C]

David

Not so. I started out saying they were using the same methods, and yes they did send out press releases and conduct media interviews. And no I'm not going to spend time googling to find various quotes. They (largely Todd Warnock from memory) said what they said and while none of it was offensive it was fairly outlandish and in the context of whipping up support for a planning application. Furthermore I don't recall any retraction so I'd surmise those quotes are still out there.

Is that any different to what Trump did other than in terms of scale and volume ? Just because Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser are decent blokes, and Donald Trump is fairly odious doesn't mean there is no comparison in their methods in terms of trying to get planning permission for their respective developments.

Niall 

[David_Tepper]

"Is that any different to what Trump did other than in terms of scale and volume ?"

Niall -

Well, clearly I believe there has been a substantial difference between how the 2 projects have been handled by their development teams.

Whether the Coul Links team are "decent blokes" is irrelevant. As exemplified by their website, the comments by the Coul Links team over the past couple of years have been measured and have tried to stick as closely as possible to the facts. No one has been rubbished or intimidated. No one has had the views obscured by a berm pushed up against their property line. No buildings have been built without planning permission. No one's property has been called a "pig sty."    

DT

[Garland Bayley]

Have to wonder how this discussion left the Coull thread and ended up here.

[Adam Lawrence]

Have to wonder how this discussion left the Coull thread and ended up here.

Yeah, I agree. I was hopeful we could have an interesting discussion about golf and its relationship with surrounding ecosystems, and it keeps getting threadjacked by a ‘yes they did’ ‘no they didn’t’ bicker about Coul

[David_Tepper]

Adam -

My apologies. No further comments re: Coul Links on this thread from me.

DT

[Ian Mackenzie]

Have to wonder how this discussion left the Coull thread and ended up here.

Yeah, I agree. I was hopeful we could have an interesting discussion about golf and its relationship with surrounding ecosystems, and it keeps getting threadjacked by a ‘yes they did’ ‘no they didn’t’ bicker about Coul

Well, I refer you to Jon Wigget's  post #52 above as he I think he answered the thread quite well using specifics from Trump and Coul.

[Adam Lawrence]

Oh yeah, it wasn't Jon I was complaining about 

[Bruce Bearer]

"But they talk as if we are out to rape the land and make every course into the image of Augusta.  Which, by the way, has been Augusta's worst influence on the game."

Perhaps this is another topic but I'll throw it out for discussion here.  As Tom Doak stated above, Augusta National and it's "pristine" images, although very impressive and beautiful, have perhaps not been very helpful to the game and development/construction/maintenance of golf courses around the world. 

Will it ever change?  What should/could Augusta do to reverse their influence on the game - both in architecture and maintenance?

[Thomas Dai]

"But they talk as if we are out to rape the land and make every course into the image of Augusta.  Which, by the way, has been Augusta's worst influence on the game."
Perhaps this is another topic but I'll throw it out for discussion here.  As Tom Doak stated above, Augusta National and it's "pristine" images, although very impressive and beautiful, have perhaps not been very helpful to the game and development/construction/maintenance of golf courses around the world. 
Will it ever change?  What should/could Augusta do to reverse their influence on the game - both in architecture and maintenance?

Suggest you raise your final sentence as a new thread Bruce or else this thread might get pretty sidetracked.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

Oregon has a large dune area North of Bandon called the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. Looking at their website it seems their primary goal is to keep non-native plants out of the area. This is a laudable goal as we have seen that a gorse invasion can lead to the land being deemed only useful for golf. They are also attempting to protect and increase the native animal population of the area. I personally agree with the preservation of this area. I hope that any golf development would be done on already degraded sites such as happened at Bandon.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder which is more environmentally friendly, golf courses themselves or the frequently adjacent to golf courses caravan sites?
atb

[Niall C]

Adam

You’ll get no apology from me 

The title of the thread sets a fair question and here in Scotland we have several very good case studies of how to do it and how not to do it so why not discuss them ? That said, I do actually think that in Scotland and the rest of the UK we have a system that can deal with the basic question. However like any system, it’s pretty useless if those that oversee it subvert it to their own ends.

That’s perhaps the big lesson to be learned in recent years.

Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Oh I think Coul is a perfectly reasonable subject. It's just that you, David and Iain repeatedly disagreeing with each other in the style of the argument sketch from Monty Python wasn't getting us much forrarder.

[Niall C]

Whether the Coul Links team are "decent blokes" is irrelevant.

Quite correct and exactly as I've been saying. So now that we agree that there nationality, politics, basic decentness etc should not be a factor in the decision process, what should ?

To me there are two factors, the value of the dunes in their existing condition, versus any mitigating factors. Way them up against each other and base a decision on that. In terms of mitigating factors the economic argument needs to be very compelling. There needs to be a very high bar both in terms of the level of economic benefit, the likelihood of achieving that and also who is going to see that benefit.

Niall

[Ian Mackenzie]

Oh I think Coul is a perfectly reasonable subject. It's just that you, David and Iain repeatedly disagreeing with each other in the style of the argument sketch from Monty Python wasn't getting us much forrarder.

Au contraire, Adam.
It led to a very succinct summary using two relevant examples of two contrasting developments built near sensitive dunes.


And your partcipation in the discourse about Coul is included...;-)


Would much prefer banter in the spirit of Monty Python than criticism in the spirit of my old 6th grade English teacher....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()