Archie,
Well, I have been involved in more than a few protracted permitting projects, and yes, they can be frustrating, and in cases, I know a few holes that may have been built that weren't. Giants Ridge in MN is my best, but not only example. That said, we managed one lake hole and 17 other nice ones, and for the most part, golfers don't know what hole didn't get built, so its okay. Even the long cart rides weren't really forced by permitting there, but were forced by the long legal process it would have taken to acquire small bits of land from the US Forest Service.
Maybe I am trying to make lemonade out of lemons to keep my sanity, but I do believe its true. I had to route the GR project about 40 times (Previous to that, I used numbers to distinguish prelim plans, but ran out and had to go to AA, BB, etc.) Sounds crazy, but every time I relooked at the routing, while I had sacrificed some other good holes, I thought it was an opportunity to find some new ones I hadn't considered before, and overall, I think the routing came out better.
BTW, I don't think I was hired in that case for connections and ability to get permitting. Those conditions came about later. In recent memory, there are few times I can recall an archie getting hired solely on permit ability. Maybe, Chambers Bay, where RTJ II touted his previous experience getting ocean front courses permitted and also had been working the commission for a long time, was it a factor in selection.
Not sure what exact permitting requirements you may be facing, but the general trend when some new permit requirement is added is to complain about it a few years, then incorporate it in design, knowing it will inflate contractors bid prices, then at some point, it becomes SOP and the costs come down for construction.
I agree that it means buying more land, which sometimes is required, and in others, it raises costs considerably on a site specific cases. We estimated that the Marsh Marigold cost Giant's Ridge maybe $750,000 to avoid. And the worst part was, the agency that made us protect its habitat also pulled one of the three known marsh marigolds on site out of the ground to show it off. Apparently, that wasn't against the law, but endangering its habitat was......so yes, there are cases when opponents purposely use environmental laws, etc. to inflate cost, hopefully in their eyes, enough to stop the project. It's really the site specific opposition, where they can bring up almost anything (most of it crazy) to slow you down, that add big bucks to construction cost.
That would be another thread, permit disaster stories, as would trying to calculate how much more we pay to play golf because of newer environmental restrictions. I am sure it's some, but in the current state, extra cost is probably more than off set by low interest and fuel rates, which probably have always had a bigger impact on golf construction pricing than most (not all) general environmental restrictions.