Keiser's Coul Links Project (Embo/Dornoch)

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,


Coul Links

was designated a SSSI in a blanket style operation where many such sites were so called in order to reach a required amount of hectares for an environmental scheme. It

is of such importance to the various environmental bodies that in the 40-ish years since it called a SSSI they have spent a total amount of £0 on its maintenance. There isn't even a maintenance plan.


Yet suddenly it is of vital national importance. I will predict that if the project is rejected the various environmental bodies will instantly forget about the site and be quite happy to allow its steady decline into worthless scrubland. It is only about certain bodies flexing their political muscles for the sake of it.


Jon

[Niall C]

OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?

Lou

Not really being a betting man I'm not sure how the over under thing works but FWIW I'd suggest that there is a better chance it will get the nod than not although not much in it.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

OK, at this moment, what is the over and under for the course being built?

Lou

Not really being a betting man I'm not sure how the over under thing works but FWIW I'd suggest that there is a better chance it will get the nod than not although not much in it.

Niall

Niall,

As one who understands how the over/under works, I was a little confused myself.  Unless he means by what year?

P.S.  I think what he meant to ask is, what % chance would you give this thing of happening?  Is it a 50/50 or is one side clearly favored at the moment?

[Niall C]

Kalen

FWIW – the Reporter is a planner by profession and I suspect unlikely therefore to go against the Council planners recommendation to the planning committee. IIRC the recommendation from the Council planners was to approve the application subject to conditions although my memory might be dodgy.

As I posted before the Reporter gives his recommendation to the Scottish Minster to allow him to make his decision. Normally they just sign that off as a matter of course. In this case, and for the conspiracy theorists out there  , the present SNP administration might be looking to keep their junior partners, the Green Party, happy and could very well knock it back irrespective of the Reporters recommendation. Just a thought.

If I was a betting man however I’d think it more likely to be granted with the chances of success being 60% or something like that. But hey, what do I know !

Niall

[Lou_Duran]

Sorry about the lack of precision chaps.  Both of you are right, I was just curious about the chances of the project getting approved AND built.  And yes, I think the world is better off with another C & C course.


BTW, is anyone aware of a C & C course that NLE (Blaketree Natl. does not count) due to financial hardship?

[David_Tepper]

"BTW, is anyone aware of a C & C course that NLE (Blaketree Natl. does not count) due to financial hardship?"

Lou -

There was a C&C course in Florida (Sugarloaf Mountain) that closed. I think it was part of a real estate development that never took off.

DT

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/790655-sugarloaf-mountain-fl-what-happened/

[David_Tepper]

The final inquiry/hearing begins next week:

https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Golf-links-planning-inquiry-set-to-begin-22022019.htm

[Tim Gallant]

David,


Are members of the public able to go, or is this a closed inquiry?

[David_Tepper]

Tim -

As far as I know, the inquiry hearings will be open to the public.

As noted in the article, it is being held in the Carnegie Hall in Clashmore, a very small village a few miles west of Dornoch.

A schedule for the hearings is shown here:

https://www.coullinksgolf.com/

DT

[Tim Gallant]

I watched a bit of the inquiry yesterday and was surprised by a few things:


https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/409100


- I didn't realise it would be essentially like a court case with cross examination! I thought the Ministers would be leading the questioning, but from what I watched, it seemed like the legal team from the applicant were trying to poke holes in the arguments of the scientific interest of the site - Yikes! I would not want to be questioned by that Ms. Wilson (think that's her name) - holy smokes, she was making me nervous.


- There are documents galore! How could anyone keep up with all there is to read? They were referring to so many different letters, it would be impossible to keep up, unless this was your full-time job


The more I watched, the more I realised I see both sides of the argument. From a selfish perspective, I'd love there to be a golf course there. Looking specifically at the special scientific interest of the site, a few things became clear:


- There is no way that the developers can legitimately say that building the course on the site will have the same or more positive impact on the entire site, than if it was left in its current site. The site is accepted by both sides to generally be in decline as it relates to its SSSI, but as the Professor being questioned said, the scales are not even even close to being comparable.


- That said, it became painfully clear that the site has been left abandoned. I normally wouldn't think this is a big deal as I am of the thinking that you should 'let nature be nature'. But the SNH and all the opposing forces have lauded on about how vital this particular site is for both the dunes and the wildlife it shelters, and yet, since 1973 the site seems to be in steady decline with loss of dune land (debatable by both sides) and increase in invasive specie (not debatable), which threatens the wildlife they seem so set on protecting, and the stability of the dune system.


If the course doesn't go ahead, and I can see arguments why this should be the case, then the SNH and other bodies must respond by ensuring the site gets the attention and dedication that they say it deserves. If that course does go ahead, I genuinely think the parts of the site that aren't covered by course will generally see an uptick in maintenance.

[David_Tepper]

Tim G. -

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware the hearings would be webcast.

Something to watch if you have way too much time on your hands.

DT

[Tim Gallant]

I’m listening at work. It is quite hard work, but I am learning a lot about dune systems and transplantation!!!

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


you would hope that if the project is rejected that the various eco bodies would finally be shamed into doing something to maintain this apparently vital natural area. However, if they win they will spend no more in the future that they have in the past. The idea behind the planning process is that applicants and the various bodies work together to get the best overall result and when the bodies involved are from the town or county area this works on the whole quite well. However, when as in this case the national bodies get involved and especially RSPB it is all about blocking any progress that is not part of their overall political vision.

[Lou_Duran]

you would hope that if the project is rejected that the various eco bodies would finally be shamed into doing something to maintain this apparently vital natural area. However, if they win they will spend no more in the future that they have in the past. The idea behind the planning process is that applicants and the various bodies work together to get the best overall result and when the bodies involved are from the town or county area this works on the whole quite well. However, when as in this case the national bodies get involved and especially RSPB it is all about blocking any progress that is not part of their overall political vision.

Your last sentence is of critical importance.  I kill an eagle in the U.S., I pay thousands in fines and go to jail for a couple of years. A wind farm in CA or TX kills hundreds, and it gets federal subsidies to build (and kill) more.


Ironic to me that an "expert" for the NOs can have such limited knowledge of the entire site and relies greatly on an old study by some other entity on a matter that turns on "specific" scientific interest.  I know of a lawyer or two who could have fun with this guy.


As to the notion that the interveners might/should be responsible for remedying the decline of the site, history shows that no infusion of cash or sweat equity has flowed to further its "scientific interest".  What would change now if the stake is driven into the owners' heart?  Surely we have all heard of the Tragedy of the Commons.   

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


you are spot on with your analysis. The big problem I have with the objections of the NOs is if the site was of such importance as they now claim why have they not spent any money on maintaining this site and why do they have no maintenance plan in place for it?


Jon

[Brian_Ewen]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/golf-tycoons-want-to-raid-scotland-duty-to-defend-beauty


Golf tycoons want to raid Scotland. It is our duty to defend its beauty
Kevin McKenna
Yet another golf course on the north-east coast would be a disaster for the environment
Sat 9 Mar 2019



If there were an international beauty pageant for countries, Scotland would win it most years. In January it was voted the most beautiful country on the planet by the travel website Rough Guides.

This follows similar awards by global travel specialists in three of the previous five years, as well as ancillary awards for “best island” (Lewis and Harris) and quality of living (Orkney, Edinburgh). Other countries have spectacular mountains and gorgeous lakes, but nature seems to have chosen Scotland as the location for her best work.

Each year, however, the Scottish government is faced with the challenge of balancing its duty to preserve and nurture Scotland’s natural beauty with ensuring as many of its citizens as possible are provided with the basic requirements for a decent standard of living: homes, jobs, food and health. Scotland may be the world’s most popular museum of natural history – some of its mountains were formed amid the birth pangs of the world itself – but more than five million people live in this museum and the country needs more to help sustain an economy creaking under pressure from an ageing population.

Occasionally, we may be required to hold our noses and concede that beauty can also be found in designs for living. Many of our green spaces have formed a happy synergy with golf tourism, one of the principal drivers of our vital tourist industry. You’ll struggle to find a location where you can’t see mountains or sea, and few are the places where a golf course isn’t close at hand either. We haven’t merely exploited opportunities for golf tourism, we have wrung them dry. Yet, in a place such as Gleneagles in Perthshire, the relationship between commerce and nature brings a glorious communion. However, it’s a fragile relationship and one that requires constant vigilance to ensure that the temptation of easy, corporate money and the untested promises of jobs and investment do not override our moral duty to protect Scotland’s beauty and to pass it intact to future generations.

A public inquiry is underway into the proposed development of a luxury golf course on one of our most fragile and beautiful stretches of coast. The planned 18-hole course at Coul Links near Dornoch in Sutherland is being proposed by the US developers Todd Warnock and the golf course tycoon Mike Keiser, who claim that it will create about 200 jobs and provide £60m of investment into the area over 10 years. The plans were originally passed by Highland council, despite objections from its own planners and just about every environmental and heritage group in Scotland and across the UK. This inquiry was triggered after the Scottish government opted to call in the proposals due to “issues of national importance” related to “natural heritage issues”.

Seven years later, the promises of jobs parroted by Trump and well connected local supporters have yet to materialise
You don’t have to be closely acquainted with these issues to understand why there is so much distress at the prospect of another stretch of this wild and vital north-east coastline being sacrificed to the whims of a US billionaire and the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege. Further along this coastline, Donald Trump’s luxury course at Menie was waved through in the face of objections about damage to the globally unique dune system. Almost seven years later, the promises of jobs and investment parroted by Trump and some well-connected local supporters have yet to materialise.

A remarkable nexus of environmental protections has made Coul one of Scotland’s most fortified locations against marauding corporate interests. It possesses one of the last undefiled dune systems in the country and has a unique triple-lock of designations comprising SSSI status (site of special scientific interest), special protection area (SPA) and is a Ramsar site of international importance. Scottish Natural Heritage lists the loss of 40.5 acres of direct habitat in its objection. Much of this would be excavated and have its natural vegetation stripped to be replaced by artificially manicured greens of negligible conservation value.

A crude manipulation of the land will be required to squeeze a golf course on to this specific site, like trying to fit Oliver Hardy into a Versace. To ensure a high viewpoint for sea and loch, a large area of unique dune heath would need to be quarried out. A remarkable and unique biodiversity would be threatened, including rare lichens, orchids and invertebrates. A rare dune habitat comprising 95 junipers would be moved, along with species such as rock-rose, the food plant of the scarce northern brown argus butterfly.

A couple of very vocal local groups and individuals are supportive of the development and curiously have swallowed the optimistic economic projections of the billionaire developers. Their social media responses suggest that, as locals, their views must carry more weight. Such an attitude betrays a fundamental arrogance. This beautiful coastline has evolved over millions of years. Just because you’ve lived there for a micro-fraction of that time doesn’t give you the right to have it turned into a corporate vanity project in exchange for some woolly future economic windfall of uncertain provenance.

The Scottish government must exercise its sacred duty of protection of our natural heritage and kick this environmentally ruinous proposal out. If it fails to do so, it will open up Scotland’s beauty to the predations of other international corporate raiders. As one objector put it: “The developers claim only a small part of this site will be altered. But that’s like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa and saying only a small area has been affected.”

[Jon Wiggett]

Wow, very inaccurate and biased piece. Journalism at its worst and certainly nothing balanced about it. I am surprised the Guardian prints such dross but there you go.

[Niall C]

Jon

Kevin McKenna is in the business of writing opinion pieces. If you have read any of his stuff you will know where he's coming from, and if you haven't then let me just say that he's unlikely to sit down and enjoy a drink and a chat with Lou  .

That said, he makes what I consider one valid point and that's that if this application goes through then environmental designations elsewhere won't be worth much. Arguably the precedent was set at Balmedie but that could possibly be argued away as being due to unrealistic and over the top promises that weren't scrutinised, allied to political expediency.

Anyway, opinions aside, what facts has he got wrong ?

Niall

[Tim Gallant]

Having seen biased news articles about this project in the past, I actually took this as an opinion piece, and thought it was ok. I actually thought for an opinion piece, he frames the project in question quite well (balance of economic interests of the people and preserving the land).


The only part I don't agree with is his go at the locals. It reeks of someone who doesn't know the situation in the area, and looks from afar through the judgmental lens of theory vs. reality. I once went into the Amazon, and you start to realise that there are communities there that are just trying to feed their families - so chopping forests down to plant banana trees is what they have to do. It's not about giving them a telling-off, but rather, there are organisations that are working with them to ensure they have some sort of way to make an income - in a sustainable way.


If this golf plan doesn't go through, I hope the government will look at alternative ways that the locals can generate more income for the area - possibly through NC500 partnerships, etc. You can't blame locals for wanting better for their families. Just because they have come late to the party (ie - other communities have already exploited their dunesland) shouldn't be a knock against them.

[Mark Pearce]

It is an opinion piece.  Sadly, the Grauniad (disclosure, I subscribe to the Guardian) appears to have no interest in any balancing opinion.

[David_Tepper]

"You don’t have to be closely acquainted with these issues to understand why there is so much distress at the prospect of another stretch of this wild and vital north-east coastline being sacrificed to the whims of a US billionaire and the exclusive use of golfers with the means to pay top dollar for the privilege."
This statement is not factually correct. It is wrong to state that the property will be available only for "the exclusive use of golfers." In fact, the golf course will occupy well under 20% of the property. The vast majority of the property will still be available for walkers, birdwatchers or anyone else who wishes to enjoy this scenic place.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


in addition to the point that DT makes in the previous post he gives the impression that only a few loud locals are in favour of the project when the opposite is true. The overwhelming majority want the project and you will be hard pressed to find a local outside Mr. Dargie who is against it.


I do take the point that it is an opinion piece though and agree that Balmedie has made it harder for new projects.


Jon

[Kalen Braley]

I think the last few points make some excellent points, especially as it relates to most "news" especially by the big providers.


The vast majority of online stories and TV slots are Commentary and IMO pieces being implicitly advertised as actual news...

[Niall C]

David/Jon

In this instance I don't think he is making a false statement as presumably he's referring to the golf course and not the larger property. I appreciate that the developer is trying the argument of "hey, we're not using all of it, only a small portion" but the objectors focus is not on what's not being destroyed but on what is being destroyed.

Niall

ps. always thought that the developer missed a trick by referring to the course only taking up 10% or whatever of the larger SSSI area. They really should have said that they were only using 0.00005% of Scotlands land mass, or even better only 0.0000000000000000000000000000005% of the planet.

[Niall C]

Jon

the other thing.......how does anyone know who thinks what ? There was partitions signed on both sides as well as letters of support and objections sent to the planners, which as I recall didn't have addresses identified. I doubt either side can make any claim with any degree of certainty.

You will also recall how vocal and visible Yes campaigners were relative to No voters during the Indyref and you will recall what happened then.

Niall