Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

[David_Tepper]

The debate continues:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1356246/locals-attack-green-msps-golf-course-protests/

[Ian Mackenzie]

The debate continues:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1356246/locals-attack-green-msps-golf-course-protests/

Indeed....from both sides:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1357336/coul-links-objectors-exaggerating-impact-on-bird-life/

http://dpsmconsultants.com/coul-links-announces-planning-submission/

[Jon Wiggett]

It is nice that John Finnie comes up here to spend some of his free time. It is just a shame he and his party show so little interest in the lives of the residents that he/they couldn't even be bothered to put up a candidate for in the general election this year. Seems to me he is more interested in protecting his holiday play ground than caring for the region and how it fares.

[Niall C]

Has anyone actually spent time on the planning portal reading the planning application submissions ? Well worth a read, especially the Economic Case. Mind you it will be better once they have finished it !! It seems from comment from the wildlife and environmental interests that the environmental submissions made by the developer were also in something like draft form.


Incomplete and unfinished submissions, the hiring of Chris Haspell now rather than after planning, all suggests the developer is confident they have the planning in the bag perhaps ?


Niall


 

[David_Tepper]

Discouraging news here:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15683255.Golf_course_plan_suffers_new_blow/?ref=twtrec

[Rich Goodale]

The world continues to go mad.....

[David_Tepper]

Yet another voice is heard from:

http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Confidence-in-Coul-Links-golf-project-prompts-Royal-Golf-expansion-plans-23112017.htm

[Robert Thompson]

Worth noting that they said they couldn't "fully support" the project. That's not exactly the same as being completely opposed. I'm guessing this is the start of a negotiation.

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

with your link re the Royal Golf Hotel, it occurred to me that folks like you and Rich Goodale deserve a tip of the hat. If I've been reading your posts correctly, you both support the Coul Links project. And you support it for the benefits you believe it'll bring to the broader community/economy -- even though I assume it comes at a personal cost to both of you.

It seems like only yesterday that I read Lorne Rubenstein's A Season in Dornoch; and the picture he paints of his experiences aligns well with Rich's posts over the years about Dornoch in his earlier days, and even with your more (relatively) recent experiences.

And yet that's the very experience that seems to be slipping away by the day; one that, if Mr. Sutherland is right about Coul Links bringing significantly more golfers to the area and to your beloved golf course, will soon be mostly a pleasant memory of times past.

But despite knowing this -- as both of you surely do, obviously much better than I -- you support the cause of change & growth, because you believe the area/the people need it.

I deeply appreciate the game of golf, and I value wonderful golf courses (even if I can enjoy them only vicariously, or only from afar); and yet I'm also unsettled by the large-scale-elite-destination model of current golf course development -- no matter how good those courses are deemed to be/how highly they rank. Nonetheless, I do think your positions admirable; and so, for what it's worth coming from an outsider, a tip of the hat to you both.

Peter


       

[Sean_A]

Worth noting that they said they couldn't "fully support" the project. That's not exactly the same as being completely opposed. I'm guessing this is the start of a negotiation.

The main issue will be the officer recommendation for the Council.  To me it is very odd that a full application has been submitted prior to outline approval.  How has the principle of the proposed plan been agreed in principle?  Usually, when it gets to the full application stage is when the nitty gritty is worked out...or not., but at least the principle that a development of some sort can take place is agreed. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


the planners will often advise not to bother with OPP as it is just another process in an already clogged up system. Full planning permission (FPP) is the part where you might have to do some more detailed work on mitigation but often if you have done your homework correctly you will get FPP with conditions attached to address this.


OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean,

OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.

Jon

Cha-ching...which begs the question...do the developers think this is a shoe-in project to warrant not dipping the toe?  Very strange imo to submit the application, follow up on the decision and then not resubmit.  In my experience, for anything potentially conroversial developers like to slip in the outline app to help guide the full app. I can only guess the developers feel they received enough info from the Council and consultees to think there aren't any major obstacles.  My guess is the application in some form will be approved should Keiser want to carry on.  As always, I am keen to read the officer recommendation.  I am often amazed at how much of a dark art that is the UK planning system.

As an aside...I am surprised by the 805 acres...is that a starting point whose number will be cut through negotiation?

Ciao 

[Ian Mackenzie]

This article presents an interesting perspective that also challenges the "Not Coul" movement with stepping up and doing something about the mismanaged SSSI in the event the project is not approved. It also draws attention to the damage that has happened recently by allowing hunting and "quad bikes and SUVs" on the sensitive areas.


Plus, it seems that some of the "Not Coul" proponents were actually part of the team that saw Trump's project get approved.


"The poacher turned gamekeeper" as the article says...;-)



http://www.northern-times.co.uk/Opinion/Letters/Can-we-not-have-a-sensible-debate-about-Coul-Links-golf-23112017.htm

[Niall C]

Wonderful stuff. Who are those "independent experts" referred to ? The ones being paid by the developer perhaps ? 


Niall

[Niall C]

Sean


You will likely be able to read online the planners recommendations in their report to Committee in due course, assuming the report doesn’t go up as a Confidential report. Different Councils have different attitudes with regards that with most going with the “open and transparent” approach so I suspect you will be able to read it online.


With regards the 805 acres, that presumably includes the land they propose to remediate or would be affected by the development and not just the land for the golf course itself. That would have been agreed between the planners in the local authority and the planning consultants acting for the developer.


As for the actual application, this would be treated as a major application and therefore I’m not sure there is such a thing as outline planning any more (could be wrong). With a major application, applicants are “encouraged” to undertake pre-application discussions with the Council that will involve input from the likes of SNH, SEPA etc. They will also have to undertake a public consultation which the developer has done, before actually submitting the application.


The Council may or may not give them a steer as to whether the application is likely to be successful but the idea is that the applicant is made aware of all the relevant policy, views of the statutory consultees such as SNH etc.


Whether or not they have been given the thumbs up by the Council I don’t know but I can guess. If I was betting man I’d put money on them getting their consent with conditions. I can’t imagine they would be hiring staff, and that those staff would agree to join, unless there was a pretty clear indication that it was going to happen. In any case, as I’ve said before, given how the Scottish Ministers bent over to allow the Trump and Judy Murray applications you’ve got to think they would be a shoe in at appeal.
 
Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

OPP is used a lot by developers buying land and getting change of use without the expense of FPP.

Jon

Cha-ching...which begs the question...do the developers think this is a shoe-in project to warrant not dipping the toe?  Very strange imo to submit the application, follow up on the decision and then not resubmit.  In my experience, for anything potentially conroversial developers like to slip in the outline app to help guide the full app. I can only guess the developers feel they received enough info from the Council and consultees to think there aren't any major obstacles.  My guess is the application in some form will be approved should Keiser want to carry on.  As always, I am keen to read the officer recommendation.  I am often amazed at how much of a dark art that is the UK planning system.

As an aside...I am surprised by the 805 acres...is that a starting point whose number will be cut through negotiation?

Ciao

OPP is usually used for a speculative application which Coul Links certainly isn't hence FPP which is the most sensible option. I also do not believe there is any attempt being made to slip anything controversial past the planners. Generally if you are straight with the planners then they are straight with you up here in the Highlands. Also, up here we deal with the Scottish Planning System which is a bit different to south of the border (No UK planning system).

[Rich Goodale]

Pedro
.......Rich's posts over the years about Dornoch in his earlier days, and even with your more (relatively) recent experiences...... 

Fake News, Pedro!


I've physically and emotionally been connected to Dornoch for 40+ years, and know more than any other poster here regarding it's past, present and future.  You might be advised to read my book, "Experience Royal Dornoch", or at the very least my free IMO on this site.


All the best


Ricardo

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi Rich -
I read your essay and knew of your (continuous) connection to Dornoch from back in the late 70s/early 80s; so I was referencing the  "earlier days" at the course, when it was less universally well-known and revered and less a destination for overseas golfers.  It is those days/those experiences that I mean are becoming a thing of the past. 
Peter

   

[Rich Goodale]

Nae problemo, Pedro


I just wanted to check my pulse to see if I was still alive!


BTW, Josie and I will be up in Dornoch with family and friends over Hogmanay.


Slainte


Ricardo

[James Boon]

A couple of brief points regarding the planning system (though the Scottish system is slightly different to down here in England) that may be relevant...

Firstly, developers will often be discouraged or indeed not able, to apply for Outline Planning Permission on sensitive sites. This is because the detail of how the development will impact on the sensitive and significant site (with my experience its historic buildings, but in this case its the SSSI etc) are such a key and material consideration.

Also, many of the reports produced to accompany an application such as this (in this case mainly the various ecological surveys and the impact on the SSSI) may be paid for by the developer, but the professional consultancy producing them does have their own professional integrity that means they will tell it how it is, not how the person paying the bills wants it to be. If I had a pound for every developer that complained about a report they had paid for not supporting their application I'd be a very wealthy man! 

Cheers,

James

[Niall C]

James
 
You are quite right to stick up for professional integrity but I think we both know that rarely are things black and white and that different professionals can take a different view on certain issues. In that respect the clients who were disappointed in the advice perhaps should have been more astute in who they appointed or perhaps a bit more circumspect in what they asked them to do.
 
Either way, you couldn’t call them independent since their advice would have been framed by the instruction given to them by the client. 
 
Niall

[David_Tepper]

Hot off the presses:

http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-developers-welcome-SNH-objection-27112017.htm

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hot off the presses:

http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Coul-Links-developers-welcome-SNH-objection-27112017.htm

And even hotter....;-)...:


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42143171




Have been amazed to read that supposed "nature groups" are all up in arms over the possible harm the course could inflict on native bird species. Yet these "concerned entities" somehow turn their backs every year as hunters descend on the property to legally blow the birds out of the sky.


I may have interpreted it incorrectly, but have also read that ALL of the environmentally concerned groups have been invited to walk the property and engage in a productive dialogue but have all declined.

[Niall C]

Ian
 
I appreciate you’re a stooge for the developer but perhaps you could give some thought before you spout such shite.
 
Unlike the US we don’t have a gun culture over here. Anyone wandering about discharging a loaded firearm in an area open and relatively accessible to the public is likely to get their collar felt fairly quickly, particularly if they don’t have the consent of the landowner.
 
Niall

[John Connolly]

Ian
 
I appreciate you’re a stooge for the developer but perhaps you could give some thought before you spout such shite.
 
Unlike the US we don’t have a gun culture over here. Anyone wandering about discharging a loaded firearm in an area open and relatively accessible to the public is likely to get their collar felt fairly quickly, particularly if they don’t have the consent of the landowner.
 
Niall

Hey, Niall C.,

We Americans will let you know when we need you to further characterize an entire nation of people. What a stupid thing to spout off about - you sound like a stooge for ignoramuses everywhere.