News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« on: April 03, 2018, 10:05:39 AM »
Just heard a trailer asking the above question for a programme on Radio 4 (BBC) at 3.30 this afternoon.


UK members might like to tune in.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2018, 10:33:45 AM »
"Dunes into Bunkers
Costing the Earth

It's a decade since Donald Trump began building his golf resort on the enormous mobile sand dunes of Balmedie in Aberdeenshire. Conservation organisations bitterly protested and the idea of building golf courses on sensitive dune habitats seemed tainted. Today, however, a new course is being proposed for Coul Links on the stunning coastline to the north of Inverness. Peter Gibbs investigates the impact of Trump's development and the increasingly bitter controversy over the new course.

Producer: Alasdair Cross"

That's what it says on the website but as I'm supposed to be working I won't be able to give it a listen. I suspect that it will have the usual BBC left wing/right wing/environmentalist/capitalist bias (delete as appropriate  ;D).

Niall

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2018, 01:34:09 PM »
This is such a hard topic to discuss.


Let's start by all agreeing that there must be some potential sites that are too sensitive to build upon.  If you can't concede that, then there is no point in having the discussion.  "It's my land and I can do whatever I want," okay, we understand your view.


But once one concedes the point, who draws the line?  There are always going to be some people who don't want to see their area developed further, or who fear golf because they have nothing to gain from it.  And 90% of people have nothing to gain from it, so we are in a tough spot.  So we wind up arguing back and forth about some bird or snail or plant that neither side really knows anything about, as a proxy for the real argument. 


At Tara Iti, the argument was about the fairy tern, rare in NZ but common in Australia.  The barren Dunes north of our site were a breeding area; the planted pine forest of our site was not.  But if we cleared our site, the birds might be attracted to it, and ... somehow injured by golfers??  The argument was never clear to me, yet it took 18 months to resolve.  And now there are more fairy terms than ever.


Does that mean all such arguments are bunk?  No.  I did look at a site once that had a huge bird population and it would have been a crime had it been developed.  again, where does one draw the line?


Since all such arguments eventually become political, it is ultimately on the back of government to decide.  They really ought to have clearly defined lines in place to save everyone the heartache, but that leads to things like arbitrary setback lines that have no basis in science or reason.  Why would it matter if a golf course had a couple of greens closer than 100 meters to a deserted beach?  The only reason is so the whole course isn't over that line, because architects and developers are just as greedy as the protestors on the other side who want a say over what their neighbor can do.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2018, 01:39:48 PM »
PS.  In the case of Trump Aberdeen, the govt should have just told him to stay out of the shifting Dunes and build his course around them, which there was plenty of room to do.  And I believe that the master negotiator actually asked for two courses hoping to compromise for one.  But when nobody wanted to discuss compromise, it became an all or nothing decision, and they gave it all - which was ultimately a bad decision for all sides, including golf as a whole, because that's the case we all have to hear about from now on.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2018, 02:36:41 PM »
The programme is 30 mins long and can be heard on the web/intenet via the BBC iPlayer, Radio section.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio


You will have to register to listen to it.


Atb


PS - the matter kinda reminds me of the 1980’s film ‘Local Hero’. Burt Lancaster, Fulton Mackay etc, with the Dire Straits music that’s sort of morphed/evolved into an unofficial Scottish theme tune even though it was written by a Geordie!

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2018, 04:10:30 PM »
Can anyone give us a Reader's Digest synopsis of the BBC show? 

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2018, 04:33:42 PM »
Tom Doak, my memory is that Trump had widespread local support for his dunes course.  i.e. 90% did not oppose it.  A majority -- a big one IIRC -- wanted the project to move ahead.  Any thoughts on how that enters the equation? 

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2018, 05:29:58 PM »
Tom Doak, my memory is that Trump had widespread local support for his dunes course.  i.e. 90% did not oppose it.  A majority -- a big one IIRC -- wanted the project to move ahead.  Any thoughts on how that enters the equation?


Jim -- I don't think that was the case. Or at least, as no-one was polling the locals scientifically, it was the kind of 'fact' that is open to endless debate.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2018, 07:19:33 PM »
Tom summarised it well, it's a hard question. They were allowed to build the links course on Sylt, because it was paved over as a former airport and no one would post the money to return it to pure dunesland. Had it been pure dunesland from the start, then there would be no golf course today. So standards are really futile - one and the same site can get a "yes" or a "no", depending on context.

To me it should be clear that a truly unique natural site cannot be touched (be it dunesland or whatnot), whereas beautiful natural sites that exist in comparable form in several places can have one or two set aside for development. The operative term here being "one or two". Also, you can put a condition on development that an equal area must be "un-developed" and renatured elsewhere (like that airport on Sylt or previously agricultural land), so there is no net loss of natural acreage.

Some development is good and it can supply the economics for preserving other sites.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2018, 10:51:43 PM »
Tom Doak, my memory is that Trump had widespread local support for his dunes course.  i.e. 90% did not oppose it.  A majority -- a big one IIRC -- wanted the project to move ahead.  Any thoughts on how that enters the equation?

If he had local support, then why was it turned down at local, regional, county, state/province, etc. until it got to the national level, where it was approved?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2018, 11:39:30 PM »
Garland, my memory is that the local populace wanted the project, but a small (tiny?) committee of public servants nixed it.  Maybe similar to how the California Coastal Commission has near-total power over development along the coast? 

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2018, 11:40:26 PM »
At Tara Iti, the argument was about the fairy tern, rare in NZ but common in Australia.  The barren Dunes north of our site were a breeding area; the planted pine forest of our site was not.  But if we cleared our site, the birds might be attracted to it, and ... somehow injured by golfers??  The argument was never clear to me, yet it took 18 months to resolve.  And now there are more fairy terms than ever.


Does that mean all such arguments are bunk?  No.  I did look at a site once that had a huge bird population and it would have been a crime had it been developed.  again, where does one draw the line?
Were there any bird issues at Cape Kidnappers?  It is one of the few breeding grounds for Gannets - but that is not that close to the course if I remember correctly.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2018, 12:21:50 AM »
Wayne:  the golf course at Cape Kidnappers is not close to the gannet colonies, which are 3-4 miles further out on the point, and fiercely protected.  However the original site for the lodge was nixed because some locals complained it was too close to a smaller colony ... which seemed unnecessary as you can literally walk right up to the edge of them and the birds pay zero attention.


There were some seagulls that liked to nest very close to the 15th green ... we waited to build it until the young birds had been taught to fly.  The next year they wanted to come back right to their old spot, but they moved down along the walk path to the 16th without much fuss.  If you are there in January you might get to see one of the chicks make its first flight - right out off that cliff 😀

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2018, 01:24:25 AM »
Garland, my memory is that the local populace wanted the project, but a small (tiny?) committee of public servants nixed it.  Maybe similar to how the California Coastal Commission has near-total power over development along the coast?

You probably know better than me.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2018, 01:26:44 AM »
Garland, not sure I do know better than you, and Adam says I'm wrong.  That is my pretty clear memory though.  I even recall several of us commenting on it at the time, here on GCA. 

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2018, 01:59:14 AM »
The point made in the programme was that Trump got approval by making extravagant promises about job creation and regeneration of the local economy - few if any of which have come to pass.


Embo was then discussed and similar promises trotted out by its proponents.  I have to say that they came over rather well, but their main problem appears to be the damage done to the whole idea of such new courses by the Trump experience.


The only way forward seems to be to slag off the POTUS as a charlatan, untrustworthy, and an environmental vandal. Which, while taking care not actually to name him, they duly did!
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 02:27:29 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2018, 03:31:41 AM »
Garland, my memory is that the local populace wanted the project, but a small (tiny?) committee of public servants nixed it.  Maybe similar to how the California Coastal Commission has near-total power over development along the coast?

This is according to Trump...a serial liar.  Its not as if proper polls were taken!  In any case, planning is not decided by popular vote (do you get to vote in your area for every planning app?).  It seems at least in Scotland, planning is down to big government stepping in and over-riding locally elected cllrs  ;) .   Yes, the government fell for Trump's grandiose scheme even though economists were saying it was a load of bunk. I wonder, with more folks realizing now that Trump is an out and out liar, would Aberdeen have been given permission after the man was elected President?  This project should never have been allowed and will unfortunately be cited as planning gone wrong for years to come. 

Ciao
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 03:40:19 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2018, 03:40:53 AM »
Jim, I'm not saying you're flat out wrong -- I'm saying that, as Sean points out below, 'public opinion' is a pretty imprecise measure, unless there someone doing proper polling, and even then they can get it wrong. So when you have any kind of contentious issue, both sides claim public support, and bring out a few locals who speak in favour of their side, and it all becomes an amorphous mush. Kinda like the hype before a big fight, where both boxers are asserting that they know they are going to smash the other guy's head in. They can't both be right, but it's all just sound and fury signifying nothing, until fight night.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2018, 03:59:36 AM »
I haven't heard the programme (I don't listen to Radio 4) but Chris Haspell from Coul has posted about it on FB, quoting the presenter as saying that Mr Warnock doesn't appear to be much like Donald Trump. That's good, as far as it goes, at least they seem to realise that these issues are nuanced. The public, politicians and the mainstream media seem to find it difficult to distinguish one rich American from another -- on here we know there is a world of difference between Mike Keiser and Donald Trump, but if you live in Scotland and have no interest in golf, how will you know that? And so, as several have said, the mess over Trump Aberdeen cannot but affect any ostensibly similar planning application for many years to come.


Now, onto the question of golf on sensitive sites. I remember some years ago I was approached (IIRC by a BBC reporter) who was doing a piece about golf development, I think around the time of the Trump planning approval row. I said a few things, I hope reasonably nuanced, about golf, properly developed and managed, being a pretty good steward of some of these environments, and I still stick with that. However on the other side he interviewed the well-known environmental campaigner George Monbiot (for whom I generally have quite a lot of time) who merely parroted the 'golf uses lots of water and chemicals' message. Which I thought was selling the issue a bit short but there you go.


Part of the planning application for Coul is that the site has become denatured over the years, and the golf course will generate funds to sort that out. Now, to me, that is a pretty compelling good thing. Similarly with lowland heath in southern England; for thousands of years that has been a landscape managed by grazing, and when the grazing ceases the heath starts to return to the poor quality woodland that characterised the land before the arrival of early man and his flocks. But heath is ecologically important, and so its preservation is highly worthwhile. And thus one good way to do that is to have golf, and thus to have greenkeepers playing the role of sheep and deer, keeping tree growth in check and promoting the heather. This is the single biggest reason why, for me, tree removal and heather restoration is so vital on those courses. But also, it is good from a golfing point of view -- it is a win/win.


And I think there are quite a lot of these win/wins around. Over the last century, so many courses have basically been responsible for denaturing their site by tree planting, encouraging weed grasses and the like. They have gone from being heath, moor, chalk down, prairie or whatever to, essentially, pretty poor parkland. I think this is an error -- why would you want to be a second rate park when you could be a first rate down or moor? So my message to clubs is 'Embrace what you are; do everything you can to encourage the vegetation that is appropriate to your environment, and that will help you from every point of view. You will be a better 'citizen' because you are supporting the native environment, not trying to change it to something it is not; you will be a better golf course because you are authentic'.


I truly believe that the best courses are, generally speaking, the most natural.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2018, 04:34:37 AM »
Out of interest, how did Machrihanish Dunes get the go-ahead, how was it built and how does it operate now in relation to environmental matters?
atb

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2018, 04:50:55 AM »
Out of interest, how did Machrihanish Dunes get the go-ahead, how was it built and how does it operate now in relation to environmental matters?
atb


Ah, now you see this is the example I always cite when asked how golf development _should_ proceed on a sensitive site, in contrast to the Trump model.


MD was the first course in Scotland to be permitted on a SSSI, before Trump and before Coul, if it goes through.


It was granted planning consent for two principal reasons: firstly, that south Kintyre was economically very depressed following the withdrawal of the RAF from Machrihanish (it got a substantial slug of regional development aid for that reason too) and it was thus seen as an economic engine for the region; and secondly, because the developers signed up for an extremely long list of conditions, both environmental and economic, as part of the planning deal.


On the environmental side, those conditions basically precluded any movement of muck on the site, except for the construction of tees and greens. They specified that, where turf was lifted, it should be relaid in a particular location (I think facing in the same direction but could not swear to that), they meant that substantial parts of the site were totally off limits (this is why the course has always felt compromised from a routing pov) and they put a Scottish Natural Heritage representative on site essentially full time during construction to monitor compliance and deal with issues as they came up.


In economic terms, the developers were required to renovate and bring back into use two hotels, the Ugadale at Machrihanish, and the Royal in Campbeltown.


You will recall that, when the course opened, it was hit with a flurry of criticism from golf writers -- too much blindness, too long a walk, too much all round craziness. There was truth in these complaints, but they were also unfair -- those issues were built in by the planning constraints.


Over time, the initially frosty relationship between the course and SNH has improved as one side has realised that the other has no desire  to rip up the property and build a Campbeltown Augusta, and the other side has come to understand the priorities of the environmentalists. As such, the course operators have been permitted to do quite a lot of work that had not been allowed in the first place -- a few greens have been built, walking paths have been constructed through some of the sensitive areas, etc. And the course has continued to be refined and improved. I really like it now. And the creation of a little 'resort village' in Machrihanish itself has made the area a vastly more attractive destination for travelling golfers.


In short, imo it is a case study of how to do it. Unfortunately, because a key part of that case study is 'quietly, step by step and with compromise' it doesn't get the attention that the 'my way or the highway' stuff at Balmedie does. As a reporter, I totally understand why. As a golfer who believes the game can be a force for good on many levels, I bitterly regret it.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2018, 05:18:01 AM »
Thank you Adam. Very informative.
I also can't help but wonder if the 'front men' and the architects for Coul had Scottish rather than overseas accents that folks might already be pretty close to playing golf at Coul?

atb

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2018, 10:10:35 AM »
Speaking of polls reminds me that some scotch drinkers voted the man that wouldn't sell to Trump to be the national hero of the year.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2018, 11:23:27 AM »
Adam

I agree, Mach Dunes is the case study to follow. On the other hand Balmedie is the case study of how not to do it. Unfortunately, while the Embo development isn’t quite at the Balmedie end of the scale, I tend to think they are probably closer to Balmedie than to Mach Dunes.

The developer at Embo has long protested at being compared to Trump but while they might not be guilty of some of Donalds dubious personal traits, they both share similar capacity for making outlandish claims allied to threats of taking their ball home if not allowed to get their way. Compare that to Mach Dunes where the developer seemed to engage with the planning process more.

Niall

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2018, 12:38:23 PM »
"The developer at Embo has long protested at being compared to Trump but while they might not be guilty of some of Donalds dubious personal traits, they both share similar capacity for making outlandish claims allied to threats of taking their ball home if not allowed to get their way. Compare that to Mach Dunes where the developer seemed to engage with the planning process more"

Niall -

I cannot agree with what you have said. The Coul Links developers have gone out of their way to engage the local community and have been very up front about their plans for the project. In addition, one member of the Coul Links team has, over the past several years, already made a substantial investment in the community, providing significant employment and business opportunities for local residents.

DT 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back