Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Agreed.  I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made.  I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative.  Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area.  As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.

[Jerry Kluger]

Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL.  Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon.  The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.

[Peter Pallotta]

Intriguing evidence that what we're discussing and debating around here on gca.com isn't actually great golf courses, and even less the art & craft of great golf course architecture, but instead a range of issues related to personal narratives and egos and value & belief systems. We're now on the 23rd page of a months-long discussion (ostensibly) about one *possible* new golf course, by one of *many* qualified architectural firms, financed by one of a *dozen* American billionaires with an interest in golf, located in one *small* region within one of a *hundred* sub-national jurisdictions around the world where the game is played -- in short: a blip, really, but one that has engendered tens of thousands of words and heightened emotions.
23 whole pages of impassioned posts on 'Keiser's Coul Links Project' -- more posts/pages than some 50 'purely' architectural threads combined.
I wonder what that's about. I wonder what we're all actually doing around here -- what draws us in and keeps most of us coming back for more. This gca.com increasingly seems to me a vehicle and metaphor both -- but a vehicle to where and a metaphor for what?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Very true, Peter....


Let’s be honest, there’s nothing left to say about GCA that hasn’t been repeated on here many times over.


Only if you all overnight became actual designers rather than armchair ones would there be new angles, discussions and intriguing takes on the art of architecture itself.


So it leaves the new topics about history, the business and new golf courses... very occasionally a quality old course gets highlighted that is new to everyone. That’s about it.


Strategy, routing, bunker styles have all been debated ad nauseum in a theoretical manner that usually bears little resemblance to the decisions that need to be made on the ground... Still makes for good reading though.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jerry, Lynn,


have you actually read the projects concept?

[Niall C]

Some interesting comments gents. The one that struck me was this concept that somehow a SSSI should be managed (for that read cultivated and maintained) in the same way as public parks and gardens. I've never heard that before. To the best of my knowledge the "management" of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is what SSSI stands for, is about preserving the conditions that made the land a SSSI in the first place. As FBD would put it that largely involves some benign neglect ie. leaving well alone.

I'm therefore surprised anyone is seriously suggesting that building a golf course over part of the land and thereafter spending money on various measures is going to increase the environmental or ecological value of the SSSI. At best any money spent is going to be mitigation for the damage done with the building of the golf course.

There also seems to be this perception amongst some that somehow the "authorities" have failed in looking after this site. That basically misunderstands local government and central governments roll in the process. Their roll is largely about regulation, not ownership. This site is privately owned and the local authority and Scottish Government can only regulate how it is used. So if there has been a failing by the "authorities" it has not been historically but through the granting of this planning permission.

As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic. 

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Some interesting comments gents. The one that struck me was this concept that somehow a SSSI should be managed (for that read cultivated and maintained) in the same way as public parks and gardens. I've never heard that before. To the best of my knowledge the "management" of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is what SSSI stands for, is about preserving the conditions that made the land a SSSI in the first place. As FBD would put it that largely involves some benign neglect ie. leaving well alone.

I'm therefore surprised anyone is seriously suggesting that building a golf course over part of the land and thereafter spending money on various measures is going to increase the environmental or ecological value of the SSSI. At best any money spent is going to be mitigation for the damage done with the building of the golf course.

There also seems to be this perception amongst some that somehow the "authorities" have failed in looking after this site. That basically misunderstands local government and central governments roll in the process. Their roll is largely about regulation, not ownership. This site is privately owned and the local authority and Scottish Government can only regulate how it is used. So if there has been a failing by the "authorities" it has not been historically but through the granting of this planning permission.

As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic. 

Niall

Niall,


I am stunned at how ill informed you are on the subject of SSSIs.


Firstly, a SSSI is usually about maintaining an area in a particular phase of its development. As nature is always evolving this means actual maintenance as if you 'benignly neglect' a site as you put it said site will evolve and alter into something else. The site at Embo for instance is being overrun by diverse invasive plant species and animals. If no work is undertaken to counter this then the site as it is will be lost in a matter of decades. Have you never wondered why the heathland courses which were open courses when built have become largely tree lined courses today? or did you think the clubs planted all those birches and pines


As to the 'authorities' statement you make I would point out the following. Yes the site is privately owned but the SSSI is a governmental tag and it is up to the various bodies (RSPB, SNH, SEPA, Highland council, etc) between then to ensure the site is suitably managed. In addition, it is not the case that the 'authorities' can just turn up and inform a landowner that his land is being designated. There has to be an arrangement in which the landowners rights to use their own land as they see fit is protected. It is then up to the 'authorities' to put together a maintenance plan, then to implement and finance said plan. So you assertions on this manner are incorrect. The landowner is not responsible to finance nor maintain any programme for the SSSI.

[Rich Goodale]

Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL.  Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon.  The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.


PS, to Lynn.


I've been campaigning as a long time member at Dornoch for the past 20+ years to invest in the Struie before thinking about a new clubhouse and changing the Championship course and other foolish plans.  Several past Captains replied with sympathetic letters but not empathetic ones.  C'est la vie.


Just imagine a Struie with 27 holes--a 2800 one a 3200 on and a 3600 one.  The 6800 would be a world class course, the 6000 one perfect for juniors and seniors, the 2800 a great start for beginners or just people who want to play an easy 9 holes in an hour or so.  A small clubhouse out near what is now the 5th and 7th tees, ideal for juniors, seniors and all others alike.  No need to demolish the current clubhouse and build a space ship out by the helicopter landing landing pad.


Sigh......


rfg

[Niall C]

Jon

No need to be stunned, the number of things I don't really know about is legion !

While I take your point about succession on the heathland courses, the point I was making was that the "management" of the site was far more about prevention of certain activities rather than active and extensive intervention. That's active and extensive relative to the upkeep of say a public park. And by prevention I mean preventing things like, say, putting down 50 odd acres of manicured turf for instance.

I also take your point about the designation of SSSI sites, which as I understand is delegated to SNH, and the process that involves the owners input that can lead to a Management Plan being agreed, and that grant funding is available for that. However beyond that the role of SNH is prevention of certain detrimental uses is it not ?

As an aside, when I referred to authorities earlier I was thinking of more the local authority and Scottish Government whose role is very much regulatory one although I appreciate SNH's funding (mostly ?) comes from Scottish Government.

Niall

[Niall C]

Lynn

The tourist organisation in Scotland is Visit Scotland who have a mixed rep as far as I can see. I think they tend to go for bigger picture marketing initiatives although I'm sure there are folk on here who can speak about them far more knowledgably than me.

One of their initiatives in recent years is the marketing of the North Coast Route 500 (is that what it's called ?) which is the route going round the top of Scotland and down either coasts. That has already been fairly successful such that the limited infrastructure ie. roads, accommodation, eating places, is already creaking particularly round about the north west apparently. It occurs to me that developing another caravan park on Embo might have more of a beneficial economic impact for the local area than the proposed golf course.

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

As an aside, I might add that the landowner who has presided over the period of supposed neglect, is also party to the development of the golf course which to my mind is somewhat ironic. 

Adam Smith must be rolling in his grave that fellow Scots would deprive an owner from using and enjoying the fruits of HIS property.  If the SSI designation is so appropriate and important for Scottish society, shouldn't the private owner be compensated by the government for what is essentially the taking of his land?

To me, the issue here is whether building the golf course will have such a negative impact on the environment that it should not be built.  It seems that environmental considerations have become far greater now than they have ever been and to argue the positive economic impact of a project is almost irrelevant.  ......  So while we all would like to see this course built because of the track records of the architects and developers, economic impact should not really be part of the determination.

Wow, nature and the environment exist independent of people!  And who has stipulated that building the golf course has "such a negative impact on the environment"?  Certainly not the property owner, the development group, and, reportedly, a considerable majority of local stakeholders.  "Environmental considerations" are largely a function of political philosophy and which group currently swings the sledgehammer.  I would suggest that consideration of any environmental proposal must include the relevant costs and benefits.

We made a brief visit to the proposed site after the Buda and I can't say I was blown away.  I have no idea what the scientific value is or how society at large benefits from prohibiting the owner to develop his land as proposed.

I do believe that a quality links could have a significant economic impact locally, though I can also understand why those who already have theirs (NIMBYs) might resist change, more visitors, congestion, etc.  I suppose that the point of diminishing returns might be approached where having many more golf tourists paying £160-£200 for a round of golf to support the members' annual subscriptions of £500-£600 is no longer worth the inconveniences of a busier course.  If I was an international member at RD, I may be concerned that my annual visits might get much more expensive.



   

[Sean_A]

I do wonder what the point is of paying experts to designate SSSI sites only to have other paid people say its okay to disturb the land because the economic benefit is more important. Isn't that why SSSI sites are named, at least in part so the land can be preserved from economic concerns?  Like Niall, I too wonder what was so horrible about the stewardship of the land and then to reward the supposed transgressions by allowing the keeper of the land to sell.  None of it makes much sense to me, but hey, there will be another golf course which will surely save the Highlands from economic ruin.  Lets hope the project does better than shameful Trump's folly. But I have to wonder at the logic of the expectation that more people will stay in the immediate area when accommodation isn't part of the plan.


Yes Rihc, why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that.


Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

Agreed.  I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made.  I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative.  Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area.  As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.

Funny that you say that, Lynn, as that was the precise genesis of the project in 2013.
Bill Coore first came to Dornoch and looked at the Struie in the hopes that it showed potential as a renovation candidate. In the end, he determined that the Struie could not be suitably altered.


“Go take a look up the road, just past Embo,” someone told him. “Let me know what you think of the property by Coul farm.”


Lastly, give the developers some time to get sorted.
Let’s see what happens with the other clubs.

[Ally Mcintosh]

That last point is interesting, Ian.


Are you suggesting that Keiser / Warnock might invest in Golspie and Brora or is that wild conjecture?


In the case of Golspie (which I love), I think some investment could help the course. In the case of Brora (which I also love), I’m less sure.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I do not follow or agree with the all or nothing position being pushed by those who are sceptical of the project. If you look at the percentage that will be intensively maintained as sports turf it is a very small number. Is it not better to loose a 3% amount to a golf course whilst not only looking after the other 97% but also adding a further piece of land thus increasing the actually area maintained as/like the SSSI. Or is it better to let all of it degrade through doing nothing. If we really want the land to be left in its natural state then most of it would be woodland. There is a misconception that SSSIs are to protect the natural state of the land which could not be further from the truth. Heathland, duneland, moorland in the UK is 99.9% a manmade environment and left to nature Coul Links would not look like it does today.

I do wonder what the point is of paying experts to designate SSSI sites only to have other paid people say its okay to disturb the land because the economic benefit is more important. Isn't that why SSSI sites are named, at least in part so the land can be preserved from economic concerns?  Like Niall, I too wonder what was so horrible about the stewardship of the land and then to reward the supposed transgressions by allowing the keeper of the land to sell.  None of it makes much sense to me, but hey, there will be another golf course which will surely save the Highlands from economic ruin.  Lets hope the project does better than shameful Trump's folly. But I have to wonder at the logic of the expectation that more people will stay in the immediate area when accommodation isn't part of the plan.


Yes Rihc, why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that.


Ciao

Sean,


have you thought about reading up on any of the topics you touch on in your post. There is a ton of easily accessible information on all of them. I agree with you and Rich about Struie.


Jon

[Rich Goodale]

Jon


I don't think the Sean and I are in agreement, or maybe Sean just made a tyop(TM) when he he said:


"...why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that."
[/size][/color]
[/size]RD has in fact "made a meal" of the Struie (i.e. FUBAR in American.....).[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Ian[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]I respect Mr. Coore's opinions, and enjoyed his work at Sand Hills, but Robin Heisman's work on the current Struie (holes 9-13, greens on 5, 7 and 14)) tells me that there is a very good 27-hole golf course out there waiting to be built.[/color]

[/size]rfg[/color]

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon


I don't think the Sean and I are in agreement, or maybe Sean just made a tyop(TM) when he he said:


"...why hasn't RD made a meal of the Struie...very strange that."

RD has in fact "made a meal" of the Struie (i.e. FUBAR in American.....).

Ian

I respect Mr. Coore's opinions, and enjoyed his work at Sand Hills, but Robin Heisman's work on the current Struie (holes 9-13, greens on 5, 7 and 14)) tells me that there is a very good 27-hole golf course out there waiting to be built.

rfg

Maybe

[Niall C]

Jon

Your point about succession in your last two posts is well made with nature forever being in a state of flux. However I'll stick to my point about lightness of touch or benign neglect, whatever you want to call it, being a far better "solution" than wholesale development of a chunk of the site with another chunk of un-proven mitigation thrown in.

I may be cynical, in fact let me confess to being cynical, and say that what ever supposed shortcomings SNH have had in relation to this site are being used by the landowner and the developer as a pretext for making money/building a golf course.

However let me get back to the first sentence in your last response to me about the all or nothing approach of those against the development. Surely the same can be said about the developer with the this is where the course is going take it or leave it. That is one of the main concerns I have about this development and Trumps development at Balmedie. Just like Balmedie where a course could have been built on less sensitive land, the same is happening at Embo.

At Balmedie the planners wanted them to move the course to another part of the land and Trump said no. He said that knowing he had the support of the Scottish Govt. The same thing seems to have happened at Embo where politicians have undermined the system. Just my opinion.

Niall

[Niall C]

Lou

I'm no Adam Smith scholar but know he talked about the hidden hand of market forces etc and how that affected the price of bread etc but not sure he talked much about planning policy. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I do take your point but ask for the following clarification. Define '

benign neglect' [/size]in relation to management of a SSSI in order to maintain it in its current state.[/color][/size][/font]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color][/size][/font]

[/size][/color]

[/size]I would generally be against development within SSSI sites but given that the site has not been managed at all and will cease to retain the characteristics that made it a SSSI in a matter of decades combined with the obvious indifference to future maintenance of the site were planning permission refused I would suggest long term for the site it is better the course go ahead.[/color][/size][/font]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color][/size][/font]

[/size][/color]

[/size]Jon[/color][/size][/font]

[Niall C]

Jon

No hard definition of benign neglect but generally where doing nothing rather than making wholesale changes, as in this instance, might be the better choice. Of course that depends on what timescales you are looking at. If you are looking at it over a good many decades as you suggest then you perhaps could make a case but even then, if you allow me to make an analogy, it’s like the amputation of a limb when a few stitches might be a much more sensible solution. 

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Lou

I'm no Adam Smith scholar but know he talked about the hidden hand of market forces etc and how that affected the price of bread etc but not sure he talked much about planning policy. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Niall

I haven't visited Smith for 40+ years, nor have ever been accused of being a scholar of any type.   However, the concept of property, real property and the underlying bundle of rights in particular, have been of great interest to me for longer than that. 

AS didn't theorize as much as observed that wealth is created through the use of private property to produce income greater than the cost of production and the owner's personal consumption.  Property rights incentivized and enabled their holders to more efficiently allocate resources through the operation and discipline of markets.  I can give any number of examples where stripping the rights of owners to enjoy their property resulted in the rapid decline of property, the economy, and society at large.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuETYEgY68

I don't know what AS thought about planning policy specifically, though I suspect that he was not a fan of central planning in conflict with millions of people making individual choices as to the type, price, and quantities of bread (or most any product or service for that matter) they chose to purchase.  He would not, for example, be surprised that the care of the Coul Links SSSI has been neglected being that the private owner is essentially prohibited from using his property for gain.

A superior approach, IMO, would be for the government, in the interest of the community and the country, acquire the designated land from the owner AND assume the stewardship the SSSI deserves.  A person with your skills and talent can assist all stakeholders in determining the fair market value of the land being taken (it is done every day in eminent domain cases; in the U.S., if the owner and government entity can't come up with a mutually agreed value, the owner can file suit in district court, I think, and sometimes prevail at a considerable higher price than paid in the taking).

As to the designation itself, my bet is that it is much more of a political than scientific process.  And, as we know, that can change in a dime. 

   

[Ian Mackenzie]

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/aristocrats-tycoons-and-billionaires-the-people-who-really-own-scotland-2/


Aristocrats, tycoons and billionaires … the people who really own Scotland
A major investigation by The Sunday Post has laid bare the 30 aristocrats, foreign tycoons and charities who own the largest chunks of the 19.5 million acres that make up the country.[/font][/color][/font][/size]

[MClutterbuck]

Agreed.  I am coming to this debate with little background so maybe this argument against the project has already been made.  I would have said if you want to enhance the economy in the area, a substantial upgrade to the Struie Course would be an alternative.  Secondly, a financial effort to promote Golspie and Brora through advertising and with an improved maintenance budget seems to me would entice visitors to spend more time and hence money in the area.  As for the environmentalists, who seldom lack in funds, a promise to overseer and provide funds for the environmental upkeep of the golf course site would seem to give the government a reason to examine an alternative.

Absolutely loved Brora. Royal Dornoch is up there with the best. Given how much of GB&I I still have to see, I honestly think I will come back and stay at Dornoch in the foreseeable future only if Coul Links is built. No marketing of Golspie and Brora will do anything remotely close to what Coul will do to the local economy.

[MClutterbuck]

Ian: I just don't see how this is going to benefit the local economy when you say that "hopefully" golfers will play Golspie and Brora as well as RD and CL.  Your comparison to Bandon is completely off as you are dealing with a self contained resort with 5 courses and very few of those who come there do anything other than play golf at Bandon, stay in rooms at Bandon and eat at the restaurants at Bandon.  The better comparison is Carnoustie which certainly is as much of a draw as most any course other than TOC yet golfers stay in St Andrews and go to Carnoustie for the day and go back to St Andrews - they don't play the other courses including Panmure which is very good. Again, I am certainly not against the building of CL but I agree with Lynn that a commitment to market it along with RD and Brora and Golspie would have far more credibility as actually being concerned with the economy of that area.

Coul Links to date (and prior to any earth being moved) has created more hype and actual golfers wanting to visit, than any course in the immediate vicinity of Carnoustie has in the last 100 years.

In fact your example is perfect to support Coul Links.