News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Limitations of land ownership
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:07:08 PM »
Was having a debate during the week about some of my local private clubs that needed a bloody good redo, and it was pointed out that one (but by no means the only) limitation was that they were all located on public land with various sorts of leasehold title.  They have exclusive use, but the local councils had a huge say in any work, especially any tree removal, despite the fact that pretty much every tree that needed removal was actually planted by the respective clubs decades ago.

In Sydney, the Lakes, Bonnie Doon and NSW are all public land, but the first two of these seemed to have got away with major tree removal, the last less so as it is national park.

I know there are examples in the UK of private clubs on public or third party land (Sunningdale, Swinley and the Berkshire spring to mind), but do such things exist in the US and if so is it a major pain to get anything done?

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2014, 11:20:27 PM »
Here in Canada a few of the classic Stanley Thompson courses, like Jasper, Banff and Highlands Links, are within National Parks. Highlands Links had become overgrown with trees and there has been some removal - perhaps Ian Andrew can comment as he was involved in renos at the course.

But these are all resort courses rather than clubs.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2014, 11:38:37 PM »
Josh, I think that many of the aspects of various councils, boards and commissions apply to most public courses in th US that are owned and operated by a city/township, county, or state.  But, I think the amount of meddling with golf course maintenence or remodelling varies from perfunctory oversight to hypermeddling, depending on local attitudes and sensitivities.   For instance, I believe the California Coastal Commission claims supreme oversight on all things within miles of the coast, publicly held or privately owned land!  Maybe someone more knowledgeable will correct me, but I think they even claim a say over removal of trees on private property of The Pebble Beach company.

This point you make of the set up of courses on public lands reminds me of the long and uncertain process of what they are going through in Hobart with the incredibly exciting and potentially top world quality course that could be done at Arm End.  But what an intricate dance that must be negotiated with the agencies that oversee there!
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2014, 11:48:20 PM »
Hm, yes well Taswegians are a different species.  Perhaps Bob Brown or Jackie Lambie can assist them there

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2014, 01:46:04 AM »
Josh

It is ridiculous local councils in Australia have the influence they do over golf courses - things they mostly know and understand little about.
Obviously trees are the biggest issue and there are people with no concept of how trees can ruin holes and courses determining the architectural future of golf clubs.
At The Lakes there are two tea-trees left of the 16th we want to remove so the alternate tee can be better used and it's an ongoing battle. Then you fly across the country to Perth and heading north to Yanchep developers are raping miles and miles of sand dunes with ancient vegetation - all indigenous - flattening the dunes and building housing estates. It's staggering.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2014, 04:41:18 AM »
Josh,

the cases you site in the UK were combined with the restoration of heathlands which would certainly get the backing o local and national government and bodies.

Jon

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2014, 04:59:08 AM »
Josh

It is ridiculous local councils in Australia have the influence they do over golf courses - things they mostly know and understand little about.
Obviously trees are the biggest issue and there are people with no concept of how trees can ruin holes and courses determining the architectural future of golf clubs.
At The Lakes there are two tea-trees left of the 16th we want to remove so the alternate tee can be better used and it's an ongoing battle. Then you fly across the country to Perth and heading north to Yanchep developers are raping miles and miles of sand dunes with ancient vegetation - all indigenous - flattening the dunes and building housing estates. It's staggering.

Hm raw nerve there chainsaw?  Perhaps no coincidence Clayts that the only courses in WA you have been allowed within 20 miles of (Karrinyup and Sun City) are two of the very small number of freehold properties.

Having said that, the WA government is mooting the removal of all development approval powers from local councils largely because they are little more than small minded provincial yokels who cant see past their own backyards and wouldn't know the bigger picture if it fell on them.  Predictably the yokels are putting up a fight, but we shall see.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2014, 05:36:04 AM »
In the UK the planning process is also very difficult and getting more and more difficult. There are a lot new protection for trees and well outside their canopy regulations, archaelogy is another hurdle that can be impossible. The construction itself can be a nuisance to locals and traffic and that can limit or ruin the project.

On the flipside I don't even know if you need planning to do some things and the councils don't either. It is likely that the planning fees together with the associated architect drawing costs could be more than some projects cost. Every council interprets the laws differently even with the planning fees, I don't know if it would be better to have a golf expert oversee as a national referral.

One of our projects where we are rebuilding some greens the council wanted us to produce drawings and a mitigating plan including a hydrological study incase we flooded the locals. A lot of time they don't know why they ask for things and sometimes you can spend £20,000 for no logical reason other than just because.

I think the whole process is enough to drive some to a nervous breakdown, sometimes its very easy though. Most small projects in the UK ignore the planning process though with some councils there is no way you could just make it up and build the course in the dirt.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2014, 05:57:39 AM »

One of our projects where we are rebuilding some greens the council wanted us to produce drawings and a mitigating plan including a hydrological study incase we flooded the locals. A lot of time they don't know why they ask for things and sometimes you can spend £20,000 for no logical reason other than just because.


Adrian,

If you are silly enough to ask for an opinion the planners will usually go to a default of we think it needs planning permission unless you can prove otherwise. As you say they very rarely understand if you need permission or not so if you must approach them give them a logical explanation why no permission is required. Never rebuilding greens renovate them. Explain you are replacing like for like ergo no planning permission needed. If the local planners want to dispute this then let them prove their case.


Jon

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2014, 06:32:23 AM »
I remember in the early 90's selling some furniture to a guy who had just started building a golf course on his farm. I asked him how difficult it had been to get planning consent and he smiled enigmatically.  "If you don't ask, they can't say 'No'''. A year later he opened it up to the public as a fait accompli and got away with it!

The course was complete rubbish, but for several years he made an absolute killing from the place. There would be queues at the first tee all weekend - this still being a time when working class golfers were more or less excluded from private clubs and there being a total lack of municipal courses in the area.

Now that anyone can play almost anywhere for £20, the course is a sad shadow of its busy former self. My friend has the last laugh however, as a new road is to be built through it and he is line for a bundle in compensation!
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 06:36:45 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2014, 06:38:09 AM »
John - We have five projects currently which are not strictly new courses and we deem them improvement, one we did not bother with consulting the council, another the club were quite advanced and had gone through the process and so far that they are frightened to move away from the exact (rubbish) drawings they have permission before, the other three required planning permission and we could not get away with; one because the lease says clearly you must have planning permission, another the land is council owned so there was no way and the other was just way to large involving importing landfill.

As for taking out trees I would not want to publish what my advice is but I would have a good chat about it over a beer.

I agree just replacing greens is like for like and taking the renovation route is exactly the way I would go and interpret the planning laws. The problem is when dealing with a golf club some (not all) are so frightened about making mistakes they want everything written down and rubber stamped...some committees being made up from those of a legal background...other committees are more relaxed.

The club that got permission (for not a great scheme) are an interesting study. The four or five on the greens committee all have different views on the way forward...one is fairly stuck in constructing as the drawings and the others take a more middle of road view.
You own yours and its an easy call for you but for golf clubs and the committee acting on behalf and entrusted by the membership they fear backlash of getting it wrong.

A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2014, 06:41:13 AM »
How does the saying go - easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission

I would have thought building a golf course on a farm would not require permission at all as long as no sensitive vegetation was removed.  Grass is grass after all.  The tricky bit would be getting a change of zoning permission to let the public in and run it as a business.

In the UK I imagine you would have no chance given the way they protect their farmland

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2014, 06:48:08 AM »
Josh - depends on the grade of the farmland. But in general golf courses have a fairly easy route to achieve planning provided you tick the boxes. Access is a big issue that may not be easy to overcome, Footpaths are a minefield and some councils have 50 metre protection barriers around them (even behind the tees). Provided to you want the course just for your enjoyment as I read the planning laws there is nothing stopping you building your course. As soon as you allow the public in the problems start. The latest *&^* is that you need a hydrological assessment and studies to justify that by building the golf course you wont flood your neighbours. These studies can cost £10,000.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2014, 03:55:02 PM »
Adrian,

I fully agree with you and it is the club's responsibility to get the process right. It is of course easier for me as you point out but it is definitely better to tell the planners what you are doing and why you think certain rules apply or don't than asking if certain rules apply or maybe not if you get my drift.

Jon

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2014, 05:05:19 PM »
Jon - I think we are thinking the same.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2014, 10:55:30 PM »
Wow.   You should try to build a course in the USA.   Depending on the state, it's not easy.   And even after it's built, the state can continue to visit.   

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2014, 11:05:13 PM »
Regarding the original post, I've consulted at a couple of clubs in New England, each of which had a few holes built on leased land.  The original arrangement was done on a 99-year term, and as the leases were coming to their end, it was a pretty big deal.

I've also built one course on leased land ... Charlotte Golf Links was on a 25-year lease.  It closed after 23 years and will likely be developed into housing.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2014, 02:47:46 AM »
Reddish Vale is largely built on land held on a 999 year lease, of which 897 years remain. We pay a peppercorn rent.

I have heard one or two members express concern about the situation saying that action should be taken to secure the club's future.

My view is that if golf is still being played in 897 years time it would be surprising...

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2014, 05:12:59 AM »
Yes I suspect its a question of scale and the land owner

I would not feel too concerned at investing in new work or buildings  it I had 900 years to go.  We will be golfing on mars by then

But 25 yrs with no iron clad option to renew and I might be worried.

I don't know of any examples where the owner of land has taken possession of a course when the lease expired, but I know of a few where the rent has suddenly increased from peppercorn to commercial, and that is painful. That may change

Peppercorn rents that were negotiated 80 years ago are not relevant if cities have expanded and what was sandy waste in the middle of nowhere is now squillion dollar inner city real estate. 

My club owns its land, and yet pays several times more in taxes and rates than it would if it were rented public land from the same era. That anomaly that will not last, the public has a right to expect that public land is either made available for public use, or at the very least extracts decent rent. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2014, 07:49:10 AM »
Have a few courses on leased land, such as Cowboys, which is actually on a sub lease from City of Grapevine, TX who leased the land below the Grapevine Lake dam from the US Army Corp of engineers.  The biggest problem there was the course being built on Federal Land at a time when the enviro regs were being both strictly enforced (as you would expect from the Feds on their own land) and changing from Clinton to Bush era wetlands regs.  Started under Clinton, so the older, more restrictive, regs kept in place.  The laws are very stable in the US, so undertaking such projects with "only" 25 of 50 years left on the lease is practical.  I do recall they figured the debt, etc. on the possibility that the lease would end, but don't really think it won't be renewed at the end.

In general, never have too much problems with the regulators.  They know the law (which has been fairly consistent in the last 10 years) and enforce it correctly.  There is some opinion and judgment on their part, and you can bet that a TX or KS project will get more favorable treatment than a MN or CA one, based on the general political attitudes of the area.

I have seen some local zoning issues - such as having to move a clubhouse from preferred location because it was selling alcohol, and was too close to a school.  Still, fairly easy to deal with.  And, there can be local environmental issues that add complexity (and cost)

Hardest part is most new courses, and even some renovations get those public hearings.  Public comments can be all over the map, emotional (NIMBY) rather than researched, etc.  However, in many cases, the authorities feel compelled to add conditions to the approvals of the project based on such public opinion, which is really unpredictable, and sometimes, very expensive to the owner.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2014, 12:16:56 PM »
Hardest part is most new courses, and even some renovations get those public hearings.  Public comments can be all over the map, emotional (NIMBY) rather than researched, etc.  However, in many cases, the authorities feel compelled to add conditions to the approvals of the project based on such public opinion, which is really unpredictable, and sometimes, very expensive to the owner.

I will second this comment, and add that it isn't always the "public" ... I have been shocked how coercive some local governments can be.  The conditions for approval on some of my courses have included "donating" land to the township, buffers that weren't part of the code, paving nearby roads because of the potential for increased traffic, etc.  Meanwhile, the same governments hand out all sorts of tax breaks whenever a big company dangles a relocation that would create 100 jobs.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2014, 12:30:16 PM »
Tom

The "infrastructure" handouts for developments are common in England - the law even!  Part of my job is keeping that funding for the local community rather than see it lumped in with bigger settlement projects.   Personally, I think it is good business to expect developers to contribute to infrastructure.  Mind you, we do get some crazy ideas people want developers to pay for. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2014, 01:28:58 PM »
You don't tend to have to give anything back (land/building) for golf courses in the UK presently in return for planning, you can get 'stupid' conditions which can make the project not worth doing.

106s agreements can often include road improvements and sometimes it can mean a whole section of road can get done by the developer  that perhaps is a bit beyond the remit.....again this can determine the viability.

The current situation in the UK is to pass almost everything as development creates jobs/wealth, this is a different stance to 5 years back.
There has never been a better time to apply for planning for anything. The downside is the red tape and the monotonous drawings and statements to get it all.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limitations of land ownership
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2014, 01:40:30 PM »
There is a history in the UK of some communities just 'turning-up' on a plot of land on a weekend, themselves laying down some tarmac/paths/roadways/power and putting up some gates/fences and installing pref-fab houses or caravans and, by the time the planners wake up on the Monday morning, there's a new community housing scheme in place seemingly never to be moved on. Kind of similar to the Nike advert philosophy - 'Just do it'. Not possible with golf courses I guess.
atb