"We all know that the vast majority of heathland are now more or less a hybrid of heath and parkland, much to the demise of what made well drained heathlands attractive land to build courses over."
Sean Arble:
So, are you saying the fact that Colt planted trees on open heathland golf courses was part of some demise of what originally made them well draining and attractive? Is that just your opinion or do you have some evidence that some back in that day when Colt did that felt the same?
Tom
I am not sure of what you are asking. However, as natural woodland is the final product of heathlands if left unmanaged (at least in the Surrey/Berkshire/Sussex areas), it seems to me that if heather is cut back in favour of trees, especially as they occur in such large groupings on and around golf courses, then Colt was actually encouraging the demise of heathlands because soil nutrients become richer and more optimal for competing plants which don't thrive on what is essentially starved, poor heathland soil. I spose the use of fertilizers and the end of grazing were also factors which encouraged the return of woodland over heathland. This isn't a matter of opinion, its fact and it is very evident throughout the heathlands as compared to many, many old photos.
People cite tree plans as a positive element Colt brought to the business, but I am not so sure it was very positive where heathlands were concerned or where parkland was concerned. Not to throw the discussion sideways, but the original idea of a parkland course isn't anything like what we now think of parkland. Trees were not nearly as much in evidence and the grand specimens could be used on their own as design features. Now days, we have tree lined fairways, and worse yet, beautiful old oaks and elms surrounded by awful Scotch pines are some other awful specimen which robs the great specimen of its place of honour. At least in the case of heathlands, was Colt killing the golden goose?
Ciao