Gentlemen,
An interesting discussion regarding the boundary and safety issues.
Ben's comment, and I'm paraphrasing here, regarding the "ideal possibility of a safety buffer around a golf course", and your subsequent responses got me thinking. A club should seek to get on with its neighbours and safety is always a key concern. But several of you have hinted at the "what right have they to impose on me on my own land" scenario, which is often cited by people here and elsewhere in relation to similar issues. But don't forget this happens for many different reasons (I'm thinking restrictions due to flooding, tree retention etc for instance) and thats why we have a planning process with all the planning policy involved to prevent inappropriate development. Now I now that golf as a recreation is different and so this is somewhat of a devil's advocate comment... So in this case though the club was there first, but I suspect the caravan park has been there a while also. However, just suppose the caravan park wasn't there and the land owner applied for planning permission to build a caravan park on that site, would it be negligent from a safety perspective of the planners to allow the whole site to be developed rather than restricting it to the safer parts of the site? Let me put it another way. As an architect (of buildings) if a client came to me with a site overlooking a golf course, I would look to work out the danger area from any stray balls, and keep any houses, public areas, whatever, away from that part of the site, so would it be negligent of me as a designer to put people in harms way?
Back to Silloth though, as Mark's question and the clubs concerns are valid.
I notice in the club history book that when the course record of 59 was achieved in October 2001, the 11th was played as a par 3 of 135yards from the white tees with the blues and yellows remaining as the circa 400 yard par 4. This is shown on the reproduced card in the book, as if the original par and yardage has been tippexed out with the new numbers written over? It does say it was foreshortened due to major works but if so, why not for the other tees?
Also, in the clubs yardage book, the pros tip is to play up the right side of the fairway! Even if thats the case, cosnidering the issues discussed, I'm not sure the pro should be encouraging players up that side of the fairway?
Also, if the 11th was played as a par 3, then I would say the new green would need to be really tucked in under the 13th with new tees really emphasising the angle away from the boundary. But this would be around 150yards at most and the next would become a long par 4 / short par 5 making that 3 similar holes in a row tacking backwards and forwards.
I know they have put the out of bounds inboard of the actual boundary line to discourage golfers, but I missed the fairway that side a few times, and it wasn't too bad. However there were plenty of places on the course where a slight miss was in serious trouble, so perhaps they could clear out the bank on the left (and therefore also the left when playing 13) to make that friendlier and then get some heather on that right hand side, maybe even some dense gorse (not withstanding the desire to reduce the gorse) closer to the boundary. That would really encourage people to the left a little more. perhaps then make the left the side to be by adding another bunker short right, while removing the one short left and thinning out some of the gorse on that bank as well?
Cheers,
James