Should we build golf courses on sensitive dunes?

[Adam Lawrence]

Yes, I have to say that I agree with David here Niall. You are closer to the location than I am, but I haven't heard any of the outlandish claims or threats you describe. Mr Warnock isn't exactly in a position to take his ball home bearing in mind how much skin he already has in the game around that area.

[Ronald Montesano]

I think about the dunesland on the eastern side of Cape Cod, out past Truro, on to Provincetown. The Truro links, a 9-hole affair, sits in the shadow of a lighthouse. Said heliograph was moved from the edge of the water's cliffs, to its current location, by a Buffalo (NY) firm. We hear about the lighthouse a bit, and I follow up with the Truro links story.


Incredible dunes out there, as on the opposite side of the country, north of Bandon. Hope they always remain untouched.

[Niall C]

David

If you think back to when Trump was looking to get planning permission for Balmedie, another sensitive site similar to Embo, he started off making the claim that he was going to invest half a billion dollars in Balmedie. Then that became half a billion pounds (this was back when the exchange rate was near 2 to 1), then that became 1 billion dollars and eventually a billion pounds. Every time he opened his mouth the amount to be invested seemed to go up. Even when the course opened he had Monty primed to claim it had cost £100 million. Has there ever been a £100 million course ? Possibly, but I'm pretty sure it's not at Balmedie.

Then there was the claim it would be the best in the world. All good knock about stuff designed to promote and market his development which I suppose is fair play. But when you are going through the planning process that sort of stuff should be held up to account. Unfortunately at Balmedie it wasn't, which is probably why many are on their guard at Embo.

Now if you compare the process of the Embo application, it doesn't have a Trump with his exposure and preposterous claims but both used or are using a concerted media campaign that is none too subtle in creating a divide in the respective community.

For their part, the Embo team have made some extreme claims  and off the top of my head I recall some comment from Todd Warnock (he seems to be the spokesman) about if Embo goes ahead there will be no other part of the country where you'd have so many top links courses together within a certain distance or some such nonsense. The other one is claiming its the biggest economic investment in Sutherland (or was it the second biggest ?, can't recall) ever ! I'm not sure what Peter De Savary would think about that. Again, all part of promoting the development but shouldn't play any part in the planning process.

All that doesn't make Todd Warnock, or Mike Keiser, bad people but in my view not how you should go about obtaining planning.

Niall

ps. IIRC both Trump and Embo developers threatened to walk if the didn't get support

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

At most, the amount of hyperbole and bombast emanating from the Coul Links developers is a tiny fraction of what was seen and heard at Trump Aberdeen. Your rather detailed description above regarding what Trump engaged in/promoted vs. the one or two random statements from the Coul Links team (which are quite dated by the way) proves my point.

The only comparison is that there is really is not one.

DT
 

[Duncan Cheslett]

The only comparison is that there is really is not one.

You are undoubtedly right David.


Unfortunately, to the public at large one rich American sounds much like any other.


Trump has done untold damage to the image of golf generally in the UK, and to the prospect of future links development in particular.

[Niall C]

David

I think you and Duncan and maybe Adam are confusing personal traits and personalities with way of doing business. So while I’m sure Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser are good guys and the sort you’d enjoy having a couple of pints with (indeed it might be interesting having a drink with the Donald if only you could hold your nose long enough to enjoy it) the discussion was actually on the respective modus operandi of Trump and the Embo developers in contrast say to the Mach Dunes development.

In that respect the modus operandi of outlandish claims, concerted PR with a bit of confrontation thrown in, seems to be common to both Trump and the Embo developers whereas at Mach Dunes, from what I’m aware, they engaged more with the process without the need for exaggerated claims or histrionics.

Duncan

I made a similar point back in the day about Trumps antics in obtaining planning permission and how that would likely adversely impact golf development going forward. Not many agreed. Given that planning permission has apparently been granted just today for a new course at Largo in Fife then perhaps I was wrong. Or maybe the developer went about his business in a similar manner to Mach Dunes ?

Niall

[David_Tepper]

"In that respect the modus operandi of outlandish claims, concerted PR with a bit of confrontation thrown in, seems to be common to both Trump and the Embo developers whereas at Mach Dunes, from what I’m aware, they engaged more with the process without the need for exaggerated claims or histrionics."

Niall -

I admit I am not familiar with how the planning & development process for the Mach Dunes project evolved. I am simply trying to draw a distinction between Trump Aberdeen and Coul Links in regards to the levels "confrontation" and "exaggerated claims or histrionics."
 
Given the time I have spent in the area, the local people I have spoken with, the meeting I attended and the many, many articles I have read, there is no doubt in my mind the levels of the latter are just a small fraction of the former.

In addition, had not Trump Aberdeen not "poisoned the well" for Americans wishing to develop a golf course in Scotland, there is no doubt in my mind the Coul Links project would not have been subjected to the sizable backlash and protests it has generated. Surely you will acknowledge that some of the "concerted PR" and "confrontation" you perceive is simply a response to the objections that have been raised to the project.

DT

[Thomas Dai]

I recall a long time ago being told about the 3 P's....."perception, prejudice and politics".....and how they should not be underestimated.


However they did it, Mach Dunes seemed to get this aspect right.


Trumpet International then got it wrong and the 3 P's have been high on the agenda for anyone following on ever since.


atb

[Niall C]

David

I can appreciate your sensitivity regarding nationality but undoubtedly Trump poisoned the well for more than just Americans. That was the point I made back in the day and that I think Duncan was making. It's not the nationality it's about how you go about obtaining planning consents.

Proposed development of sensitive sites are always going to come under scrutiny, quite rightly, and all Trumps tactics have done is put the interested parties on the defensive. Unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in Embo as well.

If you consider that Mach Dunes was developed by an Australian (as was the course on Jura come to think about it) and if you will allow me a gross generalisation but Aussies are fairly well renowned for calling a spade a f***ing shovel. Yet both those developments managed to get through without a great deal of public rancour. I don't doubt that there was some detailed and tough discussions to be had with the planners and statutory consultees behind closed doors but they reached agreement and seemed to manage that without a great public hullabaloo. I don't recall either development having a website that rubbished opponents, politicians and anyone else raising concerns but maybe I missed them.

Niall 

[Adam Lawrence]

David

I can appreciate your sensitivity regarding nationality but undoubtedly Trump poisoned the well for more than just Americans. That was the point I made back in the day and that I think Duncan was making. It's not the nationality it's about how you go about obtaining planning consents.

Proposed development of sensitive sites are always going to come under scrutiny, quite rightly, and all Trumps tactics have done is put the interested parties on the defensive. Unfortunately that is what seems to have happened in Embo as well.

If you consider that Mach Dunes was developed by an Australian (as was the course on Jura come to think about it) and if you will allow me a gross generalisation but Aussies are fairly well renowned for calling a spade a f***ing shovel. Yet both those developments managed to get through without a great deal of public rancour. I don't doubt that there was some detailed and tough discussions to be had with the planners and statutory consultees behind closed doors but they reached agreement and seemed to manage that without a great public hullabaloo. I don't recall either development having a website that rubbished opponents, politicians and anyone else raising concerns but maybe I missed them.

Niall

Mach Dunes was _started_ by an Australian. Southworth (an American firm) bought the project from Mr Keating well before it was finished. But your point about planning is taken.

[David_Tepper]

"I don't recall either development having a website that rubbished opponents, politicians and anyone else raising concerns but maybe I missed them."

Niall -

You have used words like "exaggerated claims," "histrionics," "confrontation," "concerted PR," and "confrontation" to describe the behavior of the Coul Links developers. Now you refer to a website that rubbishes opponents.

Here is the website of the Coul Links developers: https://www.coullinks.co.uk/

If you can find examples there of any of the behavior you have claimed, please identify them for us.

DT


 

[Ian Mackenzie]

"I don't recall either development having a website that rubbished opponents, politicians and anyone else raising concerns but maybe I missed them."

Niall -

You have used words like "exaggerated claims," "histrionics," "confrontation," "concerted PR," and "confrontation" to describe the behavior of the Coul Links developers. Now you refer to a website that rubbishes opponents.

Here is the website of the Coul Links developers: https://www.coullinks.co.uk/

If you can find examples there of any of the behavior you have claimed, please identify them for us.

DT


 

David -


The developers may have also wanted to have a response to the aggressive and, in many cases, erroneous claims of the organized entity, "Not Coul": http://www.notcoul.com/


I believe one of the supposed "leaders" of this movement, Tom Dargie, was the ecologist hired by the Trump Organization to oversee permitting and approvals in Aberdeen. It seems that he may be seeking to wash the "Trump stain" off his soul in Embo currently. I would imagine that he has had great trouble sleeping and defending his reputation over the past several years as he gladly took Trump's (Russian..;-) money before suddenly developing a conscience now that a project is under consideration where he is not being compensated.


The two projects are apples and bananas.


Trump just sees his course as an asset to generate income for the Trump Organization. Or, in this case, losses to offset gains at Mar-a-Shag-o and Trump DC Hotel....;-)


One of the developers of Coul Links has been investing his own money in the area for over 7 years. Has finished two projects already that employ ~50 local residents. He also has purchased property and lives in Dornoch and is a member at RDGC.


As you know better than almost anyone here, the locals approve of Coul Links by 90%+. If they did not, the developers would not proceed.
The most vehement detractors of the project are those who sit behind computer screens from hundreds or thousands of miles away and project their predetermined opinions (via the internet...AKA "trolling") on others before returning to eCommerce shopping on Amazon....;-)

[Guy Nicholson]

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".

Thing is, the "one or two" discussion always starts from today's facts on the ground, never yesterday's. So it's one or two, then one or two more, until the comparable sites are all gone.


I've had this conversation a couple of times with a golf developer who appreciates nature -- we've never come to a satisfying conclusion. We're at that stage of global development where there's constant tension over land use and it can't be reduced to simple principles. Interesting topic.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Thing is, the "one or two" discussion always starts from today's facts on the ground, never yesterday's. So it's one or two, then one or two more, until the comparable sites are all gone.

I understand that perspective, and in many respects I agree.


My only issue is the environmentalists' view that once a golf course is built, the Dunes are ruined, or gone.  If the course is properly designed and managed, that's just not true.  Some of it is maintained, but the native flora and fauna still thrive around those fairways, and non-golfers often have access to the property as before. 


Many golf courses co-exist quite well with the community, as SNH eventually learned at Machrihanish Dunes.  But they talk as if we are out to rape the land and make every course into the image of Augusta.  Which, by the way, has been Augusta's worst influence on the game.

[Adam Lawrence]

Thing is, the "one or two" discussion always starts from today's facts on the ground, never yesterday's. So it's one or two, then one or two more, until the comparable sites are all gone.

I understand that perspective, and in many respects I agree.

My only issue is the environmentalists' view that once a golf course is built, the Dunes are ruined, or gone.  If the course is properly designed and managed, that's just not true.  Some of it is maintained, but the native flora and fauna still thrive around those fairways, and non-golfers often have access to the property as before. 

Many golf courses co-exist quite well with the community, as SNH eventually learned at Machrihanish Dunes.  But they talk as if we are out to rape the land and make every course into the image of Augusta.  Which, by the way, has been Augusta's worst influence on the game.

I agree entirely with this post, and for me it is the heart of the debate, as I tried to explain in reply 18 on the previous page. The truth is that golf, properly designed and managed, can be an excellent steward of sensitive sites. And that is why the work of people like the Golf Environment Organisation is so important, because they create an opportunity for serious dialogue between the golf and ecologist communities, in which these cases can be made without just talking in headlines. GEO, for example, was strongly opposed to the Trump project, because of its effect on the mobile dune. So the message to the environmentalists is -- we are not only with you, we are of you.

[Ronald Montesano]

Are we on about private dunescape or public-access dunesland? Certainly if access is restricted or even denied to the public, there is a justifiable outcry.

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm not sure I see the difference, except that if it is public land then presumably the only potential developer would be the public sector, or at least someone who had the public sector onside?


Environmental constraints apply equally to public or private land.

[Sean_A]

Adam

The key aspect is if projects are managed and properly designed things have a decent chance of working out well...forgetting about economics of course.  I am not one to automatically assume archies, construction companies and maintenance teams will hit on all pistons all the time, in fact I am very skeptical.  On the other hand, I am also skeptical that some of these plots really are special and should have mega protection.  I too am very convinced golf and public good/public recreation/public amenity can work like hand and glove, but I think the planners should be extra careful, diligent and demanding of proper compensation for loss of any amenity value and of requiring infrastructure funding...including paying for independent monitoring to ensure planning conditions are met.  Bottom line, its a risk and folks have to decide if a new course is worth the risk. I am inclined to lean toward presumption of no development on sites of special interest unless all the environmental conditions seem like they can be met and the business case makes sense for the local area, wider area and country.  It will always be a balancing act, but at some point I have to believe the tourist money won't be increased...money will simply be shifting between areas without an overall gain for the wider area or country.  I do think an overall strategy of tourism (to include golf) needs to be developed by the UK and the Home Nations.  I suspect that in Scotland golf tourism is a major contributor to the overall take from tourists. What isn't clear is how much added value the new courses bring to the table.  I also suspect that golf tourism is a miniscule percentage of Scotland's GDP. 

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

Are we on about private dunescape or public-access dunesland? Certainly if access is restricted or even denied to the public, there is a justifiable outcry.

At Coul Links, the land is privately owned.
The current course routing only touches the dunes on two holes.


The developers' plan includes enhanced nature paths for those (non-golfers)seeking to walk the property and access the beach.
They are also allocating 50,000 pounds/yr. for maintenance and harmful species control within the SSSI. If you're keeping track and comparing, that's 50K more annually than has ever been spent in the past.


The opinions and views of those opposed to the project must certainly be respected. I just would like to know where their caring passion has been for the site in the past while invasive species crept in to threaten the eco-balance.

[Niall C]

David

In the current version of the Coul Links website they give John Finnie (politician) a bit of a bashing and there have been various press releases issued by the developer and comments in the press made by them having a go at various groups who have lodged objections expressing concerns. So in terms of exaggerated claims (as per claims of biggest development in Sutherland ever etc), concerted PR (press releases, courting of support from politicians and press interviews), and confrontation (the stooshie with John Finnie) I'm happy to stick to what I've said.

With regards to my comment on histrionics, if you read it in context you'll see that was more a reference to Trump or at least should have been seen that way.

Now anyone reading this might wonder what exactly is my beef. It's certainly not because I'm anti-American as hopefully my American friends, including you, can testify. Neither is it because I'm a rampant environmentalist, although I do share the same sorts of concerns as most of the population.

My concern quite frankly is that once again we have another sensitive planning application where the decision process seems to be in danger of being subverted away from being decided on its merits or demerits. As someone who has working in the property industry in this country for the last 30 years I find that fairly depressing.

Niall

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

I hear what you are saying. No doubt the Coul Links team has used the press to promote the project. Clearly the opponents of the project have also been very active in using the press and the internet to promote their views. That is the world we are living in these days.

The point I have been trying to make is that the level of hyperbole/bombast/confrontation/histrionics associated with this project is, at most, a very small fraction of what surrounded Trump Aberdeen. In addition, the Coul Links team has made a substantive effort to engage & inform the local community of their plans for the project. You appear unwilling to acknowledge this.

With regards to John Finnie, it must be noted that politicians representing the Dornoch/Embo area have also took exception to Finnie's comments.   

In a sense, the dynamics of Coul Links are almost the opposite of Trump Aberdeen. In the later, the local establishment was against that project, but was overruled by the the national "powers that be." With Coul Links, it appears the local establishment is for the project, but the opposition to the project is coming at the national level.

DT     

[Ronald Montesano]

For us in the states, public (state) land is typically accessible by the commoner. Private (owned) land is not. If the public (state) land turns into a golf course, non-golfing commoners lose their access to it. They can't just stroll about when they like, as happens at times in Europe.

[Peter Pallotta]

A process fraught with delays, and with more than a little rhetoric, hyperbole, hypocrisy, envy, sucking-up, and self-interest (enlightened and otherwise) thrown into the mix. But a *process* there is, and that's good. It's messy, no doubt -- but it's the kind of messiness that's better than the alternative, ie the top-down, unilateral, unchallenged, insider approach that money and power and influence has always/tradtionally preferred to take.
 

[Tom_Doak]

For us in the states, public (state) land is typically accessible by the commoner. Private (owned) land is not. If the public (state) land turns into a golf course, non-golfing commoners lose their access to it. They can't just stroll about when they like, as happens at times in Europe.

Ronald:


One of the great things about Scotland (and only Scotland) is that the "right to roam" across private property is codified in law, as long as you're not invading privacy or doing damage.  This is not necessarily true in Ireland or even England.

[Adam Lawrence]

For us in the states, public (state) land is typically accessible by the commoner. Private (owned) land is not. If the public (state) land turns into a golf course, non-golfing commoners lose their access to it. They can't just stroll about when they like, as happens at times in Europe.

Ronald:


One of the great things about Scotland (and only Scotland) is that the "right to roam" across private property is codified in law, as long as you're not invading privacy or doing damage.  This is not necessarily true in Ireland or even England.

It is in England, now. Law was changed by the Blair government