Two days remain to vote in the Communities for Coul ballot. A sample ballot paper and accompanying letter explaining the reason for the ballot can be viewed in pdf format lower on this page (Home page). It is unclear how the letter could meet any standards of impartiality that would normally be expected to give a ballot credibility.
Communities for Coul has published answers to questions submitted during their 'Town Hall' Zoom meetings. Why more of the questions were not answered during the meetings and some questions were edited is not explained. See list of questions and answers at
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab8398c86-2929-484d-89bf-4ceac71c9124&fbclid=IwAR2t1X_ODM_T_5ZqssPfTi6fWiTekjMiIAU2UGxSRo-frsT46j6F3VmMdHI#pageNum=1
The fourth and final Communities for Coul 'Town Hall' Zoom meeting continued in the same vein as editions one to three. A meeting fronted by a highly partisam Chairperson. Questions from attendees edited to avoid the issue raised. A meeting closing early as no further questions acknowledged.
The commitment that any questions that there was not time to answer live would be followed up directly by email has not been honoured. Answers are still due to questions asked a week earlier. Communities for Coul appears intent on avoiding any questioning that tests its narrative. How can the public make an informed yes or no decision in the imminent ballot that Communities for Coul has declared will provide it with a mandate?
The third Communities for Coul 'Town Hall' meeting, on the 24th with the focus on Embo, appeared to be another exercise in avoiding scrutiny. Some questions from the public were edited. The meeting was closed early due to no further questions being asked by the public when in reality several questions from attendees were awaiting answers.
May 18th and 19th saw Coul Links golf course proponents Communities for Coul conduct the first two of four 'Town Hall' meetings on Zoom. The first meeting focused on the projected financial benefits for Golspie; the second on the benefits for Brora. C4C has not published the number of attendees.
Presentations by directors of C4C were followed by question and answer sessions. The Golspie meeting drew few questions from attendees. The Brora meeting was rather different. There was no time available for at least 2 genuine questions that Zoom registered from those attending. The Q&A session was competely taken up by 8 unattributed questions that were very sympathetic and drew well rehearsed answers. Presumably the host merely relayed material she was fed by the C4C director controlling the Zoom meeting. Answers to the genuine and unchallenging questions posted by attendees are still awaited.
Communities for Coul has commissioned Civica Electoral Services to run a ballot from 28th May to 11th June asking the residents of IV25, KW9 and KW10 for their support for a golf course at Coul Links. A yes vote is to be used as C4C's mandate to make a planning application on behalf of the community. Whether a referendum has any validity when any dissenting voices have been given no forum or opportunity to present their views is open to question.
It will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the directors of Communities For Coul have announced that MIke Keiser, the developer behind the initial Coul Links application, has been "selected" to build the golf course. The Northern Times reports that Mr Keiser has agreed to fund and build the course should planning consent be granted. In return the "community" will be given a seat on the board. What the community might be and who would perhaps self-select to represent it is not made clear. The source of funding and the designer "selected" for the proposed Calzean Dunes course at NIgg are yet to be announced.
STRI (agent for the failed first attempt to build a golf course on Coul Links) has submitted a scoping application on behalf of the proposed NIgg golf course development. The project is titled Calzean Dunes. Alba Ecology, also involved in the first Coul Links proposal, is providing natural heritage input.
Given the previous involvement of the agent, STRI, in the Coul Links project and the use of the word "Dunes" in the course name being something of a MIke Keiser signifier, is it too fanciful to imagine that Calzean Dunes is perhaps a revised first piece in the jigsaw of a Mike Keiser devised golf coast? Nigg is very likely to be a less contentious piece than Coul Links proved; an achievable project while Coul Links continues to be quietly pursued by proxy as the second piece in the jigsaw. Perhaps the course layout shown in the submitted masterplan is not simply indicative. Perhaps it is a fully mapped naturalistic layout in the style of, say, Tom Doak. Time will tell but if Mr Keiser and a designer of the calibre of Mr Doak were to be involved the already persuasive marketing story of a lost golf course revived becomes a certain success.
The Press & Journal reports that a scoping request to The Highland Council is imminent for a golf course on the site of the historic Castlecraig Golf Club at Nigg. Though it is a rare Scottish example of a 'climbing dune' system, the site has no major environmental designations so the hurdle to overcome will be the current zoning of some of the land for industrial/storage use rather than the extreme sensitivity to environmental damage present at Coul Links.
On 22nd March, the eve of the anniversary of a fire on Coul Links and the day that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service announced it was escalating its wildfire warning from "very high risk" to "extreme risk", Invergordon Fire Station tweeted that one of its tenders had been called to a wildfire at the north end of Coul Links. The Fire and Rescue Service reported that "an area of grass approximately 1,000 square metres was burnt by the fire which is an area of special scientific interest".
In its weekly email, From the Manager's Office, circulated on 12 February, Brora Golf Club, through the club President, declared that it will be supporting the Coul Links development. This decision was reached "after a discussion amongst committee" (presumably minuted given that they are advocating the creation of what could well be a direct competitor rather than the "catalyst" touted by the previous developers). Club President Andy Stewart is also a director of Communities for Coul Limited. He brushes aside the high potential for a conflict of interests by simply stating that "everyone is aware of my dual role".
On 17 February, Brora Golf Club added a news page titled "Brora support for new Coul Links plans" to its website. (see link lower on page)
By special resolution dated 20 January 2021, Communities for Coul Limited deleted its original articles of association and replaced them with a revised version. The new articles state that the company is not for profit and that the objects of the company are to carry on activities which benefit "the community". Specifcally, but not exclusively, this benefit will be the creation of local jobs through the construction of a golf course at Coul Links.
The Press & Journal reports that Communities for Coul has reached an agreement with the owner of Coul Farm for the land to be leased to the community long-term, for a peppercorn rent, should (planning) permission be granted. It is unclear what is referred to by "the community". Communities for Coul is a private limited company.
On 30 January, golf course within Coul Links opposition group Not Coul released a statement via Facebook concerning the groundless complaint to CIEEM (see news 23 January) designed to discredit Not Coul Chair Dr Tom Dargie. https://www.facebook.com/groups/266150027087512/
The complainant has responded via Twitter claiming that "my opinion was NOT judged as wrong" and that CIEEM operated a "very one sided process" (he also suggests that "Dr Dargie should respect the process").
The Press & Journal is chosen by Coul Farm's owner to publicise his intention to build a hotel consisting of up to 20 lodges and a reception building at the farm overlooking the links. Mr Abel Smith is quoted as saying he "will be submitting a planning application for the first phase of the project imminently. However, we will not start any form of construction until Coul Links Golf Course is approved".
Mr Abel Smith describes the lodges, (the first phase will be 4 bedroom units), as "unobtrusive". The Press & Journal decribes the project as "A £20 million eco hotel" though Mr Abel Smith uses the term "eco-style", perhaps mindful that the credentials of an "eco" hotel might be somewhat compromised by the fact that a golf course in the dunes at Coul Links, on which the hotel would depend for guests, has been recognised at Public Inquiry as likely to cause permanent damage to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
The announcement of the hotel plan might help to explain the protracted nature of discussions NatureScot has had in reaching agreement with Mr Abel Smith on a management regime to protect the SSSI land in his ownership. Presumably Mr Abel Smith has kept NatureScot informed of his plans for a hotel, as it might create issues of drainage into the SSSI, and of the fact that the hotel is contingent upon the building of a golf course at Coul Links. A golf course now coincidentally proposed by Communities for Coul. Perhaps Mr Abel Smith and NatureScot will reach a management agreement that will be implemented until literally bulldozed in favour of a golf course. How much of NatureScot's time, and therefore taxpayers' money, has been wasted?
The Chairman of Communities for Coul is reported as saying that the eco hotel plan boosts the campaign for the golf course.
On 6 September 2020, The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) received a complaint leveled against its member Dr Tom Dargie, one of the co-ordinators of NotCoul and lead on the Sand Dune Vegetation Survey of Scotland 1994-2000: National Report.
The complainant, from Dornoch, accused Dr Dargie of "Lack of judgement. Lack of objectivity. Serious gaps in knowledge. Lack of expertise when claiming otherwise. Little if any reflection when proven wrong." And claimed that "The result of the Inquiry is not relevant to my complaint, I simply wish to focus on the behaviour and actions of Dr Dargie relative to the CIEEM Code during the period under review" (2016-2020). The complainant included more than 100 individual instances of alleged misconduct.
On 8 December, The Preliminary Investigation Panel of the Professional Standards Committee of CIEEM delivered the finding that the investigation had found no evidence to suggest that Dr Dargie had breached the Code of Professional Conduct "and, in particular, no evidence of a lack of professional judgement or an absence of professional integrity". Not a single claim of alleged misconduct was found to be credible.
The complainant appealed. On 11 January 2021 the Panel found the appeal to be groundless, "the Panel independently and unanimously concluded that there was no new evidence on which to base an appeal". Total exoneration.
During the debate of the original golf course proposal including at Public inquiry, Dr Dargie's professional reputation was the target of sustained sniping. This complaint to a professional body sinks lower still. Most charitably this formal complaint might be viewed as a vexatious swipe from a sore loser. In the light of recent developments, it flirts with being seen as a cynical attempt to remove Dr Dargie from the field prior to a revived campaign to site a golf course within the SSSI at Coul Links.
At https://www.communities4coul.scot a group of East Sutherland and Ross-Shire individuals serving as directors of Communities for Coul Limited (a private limited company incorporated on 18 January 2021) present a case for a golf course at Coul Links very similar to that explored at Public Inquiry with an amplified call for jobs for the young and much made of the deprivations caused by Covid19. That the pandemic, like terrorism in the past, has shown in stark relief the economic vulnerability created by a reliance on golf tourism is ignored.
Possibly the original developers strongest argument, that a Keiser/Coore/Crenshaw golf course piggybacking on the reputation of neighbouring Royal Dornoch Golf Club would build a viable golf tourism destination, is now abandoned. Is an invitation to tender aimed at "developers with the skill and sensitivity to create the world class golf course this special site warrants" going to convince as a cast-iron marketing certainty?
This re-skinned plan from Communities for Coul perhaps misses the pointers delivered by The Reporters and by Scottish Ministers. In the right hands, a brilliant, environmentally sensitive and marketable golf course at Coul Farm would be an asset to the local economy. As success would depend on attracting golf visitors away from other Scottish golf tourism hubs, a golf course at Coul may be of local economic benefit but could not be considered of national economic importance so would fail to overcome the restrictions placed on development within a site with the environmental protections Coul Links enjoys.
Have Covid/Brexit convincingly shifted the weight of economic advantage to outweigh the established environmental damage inherent in a golf course at Coul Links? If not, perhaps Communities for Coul might profitably depart from the insistence of Bill Coore that the course sits in the dunes or it sits nowhere. If a creatively marketed golf course on the slopes of Coul Farm were to be positioned as an ecologically harmonious neighbour to a visitor-friendly nature reserve within the SSSI, the year round influx of visitors to the area would dillute the current seasonality, be more diverse in demographic, interests and spend and be less vulnerable to international circumstance. The cause of more, better and reliable jobs for local young people deserves far more original thought to realise the potential of Coul than "let's repackage building on the dunes" again.
In a letter published in The Northern Times (print edition), Councillor McGillivray returns to commending his efforts to revive plans for golf on Coul Links. The "three lines of investigation" he has followed "to see if there is any give in any part of the system" have met with discouraging results.
1. He has been assured that the original plan for the golf course cannot change because the international reputation of the designers will not permit this.
2. The Highland Council cannot accept another similar application for at least two years from refusal of the last application.
3. Scottish ministers will not review their decision.
As a councillor, Mr McGillivray would have been aware that the substantially similar golf proposal outlined in the Embo Junior Football & Athletic Club screening request that he submitted would not be considered by Highland Council planners. He would have been aware of the time and consequent expenditure that would have been required of Highland Council planning, SEPA and NatureScot in responding to his request.
In his letter, Councillor McGillivray also presents his council register of interests, a register that he has neglected to officially update this year. His list makes no mention of his Chairmanship of the Embo Junior Football & Athletic Club.
Meanwhile, a revivial of the golf course proposal cannot have made a positive contribution to NatureScot's efforts to conclude a management agreement with the owner of Coul Farm to ensure that further deterioration of the Coul Links habitats within the SSSI is halted.
The Northern Times reports that The Highland Council Planning Team Leader has sent an email to Councillor McGillivray alerting him to discretionary powers available to the planning authority to refuse to deal with an application when a similar application has been refused permission within the previous two years and there has been no significant change to the relevant parts of the development plan since that decision.
The Northern Times quotes the email, "Having discussed the details of the proposal as noted in the screening request with our solicitor, I must advise that the planning authority would be in a position to consider use of such discretionary powers should an application be submitted within two years of the date of the previous application being refused by Scottish Ministers in February 2020."
In a self-penned article published in The Northern Times on 9th October (no link available), Councillor McGillivray confirms that he "recently revived the Embo Junior Football and Athletic Cub (EJFAC), dormant for many years" and that "It has provided an initial vehicle to open up the discussion on Coul Links". The councillor submitted the screening request to the planning office naming the applicant as EJFAC.
There appears to be no requirement for The Highland Council to verify the legal status, or the existence beyond a name on a form, of an applicant making a screening request. Having, in his declared role as Chairman, signed the request on behalf of the club it might provide some confirmation of the club's credentials if the chairmanship of Embo Junior Football & Athletic Club were to be recorded in the councillor's register of interests. This current omission shouldn't be problematic if the club were to confine itself to acquiring floodlighting for junior sporting activities in Embo but isn't ideal if the chairman involves the club in the pre-submission screening process for a multi-million pound golf development. Doubtless updating the register takes time. Councillor McGillivray's chairmanship of Embo Trust (involved in the first Coul Links golf course planning application) is still recorded in his register of interests though he resigned in January 2020. After more than twelve years as a director, his resignation went unremarked in The Embo Trust public Facebook presence.
The Northern Times reports Councillor McGillivray as saying, "I have had no personal contact with the original American investors since the spring and have no idea if they are still interested in funding any part of any Coul Links development". This begs the question by whose permission did Councillor McGillivray use the design work of Coore & Crenshaw in his screening request?
The same Northern Times article https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/coul-links-course-in-the-frame-again-213744/ also reports Councillor McGillivray saying that the Embo Junior Football and Athletic Club (EJFAC) had been dormant for a considerable time but was being used "to provide an initial vehicle to open up the discussion on Coul Links". It must be assumed that the current management committee of this long-dormant club has sanctioned the involvement of their junior football and athletic club in what has the clear potential to be a contentious, lengthy, expensive and, if the conduct of the first Coul Links golf course proposal is repeated, acrimonious planning process.
Although EJFAC has been dormant, Chairman McGillivray has been able to satisfy The Highland Council that the club is a legal entity, perhaps incorporated, eligible to make a screening request. The identity of the community groups that will later pick up the baton to submit a planning application is still to be revealed.
On 25th September (published 30th September) The Highland Council Principal Planner delivered the screening opinion, in response to the screening request, that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required for the development described.
As it would be risky to rely on a cut and paste from the EIA prepared for the first Coul Links golf course application, one that failed to convince at Public Inquiry, the community groups intending to submit a new application for the site face potentially considerable costs to prepare the required EIA for what inevitably will be a controversial project.
A petition opposing the second golf course proposal has been launched at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-coul-links-protected-nature-from-destructive-deja-vu-golf-course-1 9,564 signatures were collected in the first 48 hours of the petition going live.
The most visible of the online petitions opposing the original golf course proposal attracted in excess of 92,000 signatures. For comparison, an online petition supporting the first golf course proposal mustered 606 signatures in total.
A location plan for a 14 hole par three golf course has been added to the documents supporting the new screening request. Will yet more of the dune system laid to turf prove persuasive? In its initial EIA screening response, NatureScot summarises "We advise there will be significant effects on the environment from this development. In its current form, we are likely to object to this proposal as it will undermine the integrity of Loch Fleet SSSI".
On 26th July a screening request presaging a planning application was submitted to The Highland Council (validated on 4th September) for a golf course and attendant infrastructure at Coul Links. https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QE8IQ6IH0HZ00 At the core of this potential application is the same golf layout, over the same ground, wreaking the same damage as the one found unacceptable at public inquiry. Now it is proposed to add a par 3 course though a layout for this is not detailed.
The request was made in the name of Embo Junior Football & Athletic Club by its chairman Councillor Jim McGillivray. The request states that "Should this application be proposed it will be submitted by a consortium of community groups (unnamed) local to the East Sutherland region." Balancing the local involvement aspect that might play well with The Highland Council with the national interest case vital to influence Scottish Ministers will be a challenge. Is the economic case for a golf course fronted by Councillor McGillivray as convincing as the case for a golf course associated with the marketing and public relations might of Mike Keiser? A case that was outweighed by the inevitable damage to an internationally recognised site of environmental importance.
Can The Highland Council find sufficient merit in this further proposal that would cause The Scottish Government to backtrack on its view that "Reporters have concluded that the harmful impacts of this development to protected habitats and species would outweigh the potential socio-economic benefits.
"This proposal does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan and runs contrary to Scottish planning policy's emphasis on protecting natural heritage sites and world class environmental assets"?
The applicant chose not to appeal the Ministers' decision to refuse permission for a golf course by the deadline last Friday.
The local golfing infrastructure that the applicant sought to enhance is currently facing a crisis as the visitor revenue on which Brora, Tain and Golspie golf clubs depend is severed by the impact of Coronavirus-Covid-19. These historic golf courses may struggle to survive.
On 23rd March a fire destroyed a significant area of vegetation on Coul Links. Not Coul reports that the burn area covered 8.5ha and that the largest part of the Coul Northern Brown Argus butterfly population has been severely affected. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/266150027087512 and final image in gallery page.
The would-be developers of the golf course at Coul Links publish a statement via The Northern Times claiming that the decision to refuse to allow the project to go ahead was politically motivated.
Golfweek reports Mike Keiser as saying, "I'm moving on. I have many other projects".
"If ever a place encapsulates sheer degenerative despair in a single miserable and depressing landscape it must be Coul Links." Opening with an understated appreciation of the unique, species-rich dune system on his doorstep, golf course advocate Highland Councillor Jim McGillivray, (East Sutherland and Edderton), has written to John Finnie MSP to "propose the immediate establishment of the Coul Links Action Plan (CLAP)". Referring to SNH, RSPB, Scottish Wildlife Trust, The National Trust for Scotland, Buglife, Plantlife and Scottish Walkers, he suggests that "now is not the time for people such as these to inflict great economic damage and then slither south in exultation".
Councillor McGillivray neglects to mention whether he has sought approval for his CLAP scheme from the owner of the miserable and depressing landscape.
Planning permission for the application to build a golf course on Coul Links has now been formally REFUSED by Scottish Ministers.
The decision letter can be viewed at https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-decision-na-hld-086/
Planning Minister Kevin Stewart said: "Reporters have concluded that the harmful impacts of this development to protected habitats and species would outweigh the potential socio-economic benefits.
"This proposal does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Highland Wide Local Development Plan and runs contrary to Scottish planning policy's emphasis on protecting natural heritage sites and world class environmental assets.
"The Scottish Government has considered the reporter's findings carefully and agree with the recommendation that planning permission should be refused."
The would-be developers have withdrawn their website and social media presence.
The DPEA today sumbitted its report for the consideration of Scottish Ministers. (Pdf of report can be found at the foot of this section.)
The DPEA confirms that the reporters are close to completing their report and hope to be able to submit it to Ministers in the next few weeks.
On 25 September the coalition of environmental organisations opposing the development wrote to the Reporters outlining concerns over the lengthy delay in the Applicant's closing submissions. This was met by an email dated 3 October from Moray Thomson for the Applicant rejecting any concerns or notion of unfairness and desribing the coalition letter as "actually a clear attempt to make representations on the terms of those submissions". Both the coalition's letter and the Applicant's email will be forwarded to Ministers along with the report. There is still no estimate of when that might be.
Email correspondence with The Scottish Government DPEA reveals nothing conclusive on estimated timing for delivery of the report. The reporters "are currently working on the report but are, unfortunately, not in a position to be able to advise when it is likely to be ready for submission to Ministers".
it is now more than three months since Mr Keiser stated in a No Laying Up podcast (10 May, episode 213, minutes 12.00 - 17.00) that "we are three, four, five months away from starting" to build a golf course at Coul Links. He also reported that The Highland Council "came to" Mr Warnock saying "we would love it if you built a very good golf course in the Highlands of Scotland". Whether The Highland Council envisaged the incursion into a SSSI of such environmental sensitivity is unknown. Whether Mr Keiser's confidence that the ministerial planning decision will go his way, and soon, is well founded remains to be seen. But as the months slip away, supporters of the Coul Links project may be joining opponents in wishing that Mr Coore had found the inspiration to route his legacy Scottish links course over less contentious ground.
More than 15 weeks beyond the original deadline stipulated by the reporters, the applicant's closing submissions have been delivered. At paragraph 1.32 on page 22 (of 721), "It is acknowledged that the Applicant's closing submissions have taken longer to produce than anticipated at the closure of the Public Inquiry. Sincere apologies are tendered for the inconvenience that may have been caused to the Reporters as a consequence. As the other parties to the Inquiry have no right of reply then it is not considered that there has been any inconvenience caused to these parties and, in any event to the extent that the Objectors' representatives are complaining about the lateness of the submissions this has to be considered in the context that the misleading nature of the Objectors' closing submissions has been a very significant contributor". Whether the reporters care to be guided by directions as to what "has to be considered" remains to be seen.
The DPEA website still offers no indication that the applicant's closing submissions have been received 14 weeks beyond the original deadline. There is no published record of the applicant's motives and reasons for delay being interrogated. Whether there will ever be a point at which the reporters determine that the fairness of the public inquiry has been compromised to the extent that it is rendered redundant remains unexplored. However, the would-be developer would appear to be careless to the possibility that it is leaving itself increasingly open to the question of whether it is sufficiently competent and respectful of public process to be entrusted with the stewardship of Coul Links.
Still no indication that the DPEA has received the applicant's closing submissions in their entirety or an explanation for the further delay. If the inquiry process was not being portrayed "in its best light" two weeks ago, the light has become ever less flattering with the passing of the days. Progress can be followed at https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883
Nothing so far published on the DPEA website to suggest that the applicant has met their agent's "best estimate" for submission of the closing submissions's missing chapters.
The applicant's agent, Moray Thomson, has communicated to the DPEA that his "best estimate" for the date of submission of the final tranche of the applicant's closing submission is Friday 12 July. In an email response, Fiona Manson for the DPEA, writes, "The reporters have asked me to convey their unease about the repeated and significant delays in the submission of your closing submissions. It does not portray the inquiry process in its best light, and it does not assist them in submitting their report in an efficient and timely manner". Ms Manson adds, "Therefore you should be aware that there may be significant further delay before they are able to complete their report".
Representing the applicant, on 21st June Moray Thomson of Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP communicated that he was "confident" that the remaining chapters of the submissions would be fully drafted early last week allowing submission "no later than Friday 28th June". His confidence appears to have been misplaced as no further closing submissions have been lodged.
For those who see parallels between the Coul Links development and that at the Trump International Golf Links at Menie in Aberdeenshire, Scottish National Heritage has recommended that the Trump links be removed from an existing site of special scientific interest (SSSI) as the the golf course had "destroyed" the sand dune system, causing permanent habitat loss. BBC News reports that the Trump Organisation reacted by calling the move a "stitch up".
On 21st June the applicant informed the Reporters that the remaining chapters of the closing submission will be provided no later than 28th June.
QC for NotCoul finally committed frustration to paper and complained to the Chief Reporter that the applicants have taken control of the process. "We are severely prejudiced by a combination of the unexplained delay, and by the assumption that whatever is needed, whenever is needed, for whatever reason to suit the applicant, it is the applicant's for the taking." The applicant's response was not conciliatory and entirely consistent with their attitude to date. No reasons for the further delay to submission were offered.
On 25th June, Fiona Manson, for the Reporters, responded to NotCoul that the Reporters shared the frustration. No criticism or sanction of the applicant was mentioned or implied. The Chief Reporter does not agree that the applicant has taken control of the process from the Reporters.
If the applicant was in control of the process, they still are. The exchange can be found at https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883
Another week and still no sign of the applicant's missing chapters. The submitted material places much emphasis on unpicking the opponents' evidence and credibility. To the extent that, though they have yet to finalise their own submission, the applicant declares to the Reporters that "unless it is spelt out in black and white in the Report to Scottish Ministers that there are serious shortcomings in the evidence and case presented by NC (NotCoul) at Inquiry, including serious issues of credibility and reliability, then the written evidence and NC's closing sublissions will be presented as though the evidence was accepted as not having been undermined". As the applicant continues to set their own timeframe for writing closing submissions, what might have passed as a pursuit of thoroughness runs the risk of looking rather too like arrogance when what they do commit to paper is advice to the Reporters.
Chapters 1 - 7 of the applicant's closing submissions received by DPEA. Progress can be followed at https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883
The applicant has again failed to submit closing submissions. They advise that material will be submitted next week.
The applicant has advised that their closing submissions will be lodged on 5th June, more than six weeks after the original deadline.
Chapter 14 of the applicant's closing submissions delivered today to the DPEA, almost nine weeks after the close of the public sessions. A date for delivery of the remainder of their closing submissions is yet to be confirmed. Should it not be a real concern to the applicant that any of the parties opposing the golf development now have understandable grounds for questioning the fairness of the inquiry process and grounds entirely of the applicant's making?
On 21 May, 11 days after the extended deadline for their closing submission expired, the applicant's representative contatced the DPEA to report that they would submit a single chapter of their closing submission on 22 May. The other chapters will follow next week. "The preparation of the chapter on Socio Economic evidence also took far longer than initially anticipated as the approach to drafting was driven by the need to properly ventilate the policy related issues of relevance to the question of national significance," was offered as explanation. Whether a golf course on Coul Links is a good thing or a bad thing, the process of arriving at a decision must be fair. An applicant that would appear to hold such scant regard, with apparent impunity, for the stipulated schedule observed by other parties, runs the risk of undermining the credibility of any decision in their favour. Are the would-be developers being done any public relations favours by the authors of their closing submission? Perhaps the reporters will smile on their efforts and the contents will be worth the extraordinary wait.
The DPEA has written to the applicant's legal representative to point out that their closing submissions to the public inquiry are now overdue. It would appear that the extended deadline has been missed.
On the afternoon of the day before the already extended deadline, the applicant's representative requested a further 14 day extension for submission of their closing submission. Amongst the reasons given for the request were, "Counsel was not able to dedicate herself to the drafting process for the first 2 weeks immediately after the inquiry ended" and "the drafting of the chapter on socio economic evidence has taken considerably longer than envisaged". On the 29th of April, the office of the reporters responded expressing disappointment with the delay but seeing "no alternative but to agree" to the request. Other parties, some with comparatively meagre finance and resources, produced their closing submissions to deadline and might well have benefitted from a three week extension such as that now afforded to the applicant.
The deadline for the applicant's closing submission has been extended to 26th April.
Closing submissions from all parties other than the applicant and The Highland Council due to be submitted to the public inquiry reporters this Friday. The applicant has a further two weeks to finalise their concluding statement.
Final day of public inquiry.
Moving in to the fourth, and what is scheduled to be the final, week of the inquiry, the only socio economic arguments yet heard have been those put forward by some of the individuals marshalled by councillor McGillivray's LACG.
Second week of public inquiry lost a day due to illness. The reporters used this as an opportunity to visit Coul Links and walk the site of the proposed golf course. Webcasts of each daily session can be found at https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts
Public inquiry starts.
The DPEA has published a provisional programme for the public inquiry.
Week 1: 26 February – 1 March 2019
Inquiry session: natural heritage
SNH (2 witnesses). Applicant (6 witnesses total).
Week 2: 5-8 March 2019
Applicant continued (Professor Pye on Tuesday 5th). Coalition (4 witnesses). Not Coul (3 witnesses total).
Week 3: 12-15 March 2019
Not Coul continued (Professor Hansom on Tuesday 12th).
Inquiry session: socio-economic impact
Applicant (2 witnesses). Not Coul (2 witnesses). Professor Bell (for LACG) on Friday 15th.
Not Coul continued (if necessary). Scotways/Ramblers (2 witnesses). Local Area Community Groups (13 witnesses).
Hearing session: conditions
The Scottish Government has published an Advice and Guidance note (12 January 2019) on "Implementation of Scottish Government policy on protecting Ramsar sites". https://www.gov.scot/publications/implementation-of-scottish-government-policy-on-protecting-ramsar-sites/ The DPEA has notified all inquiry participants that they have until 12 February to make any changes to written statements on policy matters in the light of the revised SG guidance.
There is some freshly edited drone video of Coul Links at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV8sQRhWWPk The commentary is not impartial. The video also appears on an updated home page published by opposition group NotCoul.
All parties, with one exception, have lodged their inquiry and policy statements within the deadline set at the pre-inquiry meeting. https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883 The applicant has failed to observe the deadline. The reporters have accepted this disregard for the agreed timetable. Away from the official process, at a time when communication from the would-be developers could be informative for everyone interested in the future of Coul Links, the applicant's blog and twitter feed have been silent since 22 October.
With all parties waiting for a Scottish Government statement of clarification on policy, on 29 November The Highland Council requested that the date (5 December) for exchange of further written submissions, inquiry statements and statements of agreed matters be delayed. The DPEA responded on 3 December requesting parties to stick to the timetable as " the reporters note they have no information as to when any Scottish Government statement or clarification is to be issued".
DPEA confirms Carnegie Hall, Clashmore as venue for the inquiry for want of any alternative. Circulation list of participating parties published.
Harper Macleod LLP, solicitors to SNH, has written to DPEA to report that SNH has been in dialogue with both the applicant and the Scottish Government on the issue of an appropriate assessment of the impacts on the Ramsar site. "SNH recognises that this is a matter relating to Scottish Government policy. We understand that the Scottish Government intends to provide clarification on how it expects its established policy for the protection of Ramsar sites to be implemented and SNH intends to await that clarification." It would appear that the Scottish Government is unable to formulate a protocol for Ramsar site appropriate assessments within a timescale set by its own recorders in advance of its own inquiry.
A note, dated 5 November, listing the points arising at the pre-examination meeting was circulated to all parties on 7 November. The inquiry is to start on 26 February (venue to be decided) and run for a probable four weeks of Tuesdays to Fridays. At the pre-examination meeting the applicants and SNH agreed to advise within 21 days their positions on an appropriate assessment specifically addressing Ramsar considerations. It would appear that The Scottish Government has no established protocol for the production of an appropriate assessment of the impact of a proposed development on a Ramsar site.
The Planning and Environmental Appeals Division has written to all interested parties to advise that, "Further to the agenda dated 17 October 2018, I can now advise that (subject to the discussion at the pre-examination meeting) the reporters are proposing that the inquiry be held during the weeks beginning 25 February and 4 March 2019".
The Plannng and Appeals Division has circulated an agenda for the pre-examination meeting.
The pre-examination meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 31 October 2018 at The Carnegie Hall, Clashmore, Dornoch, IV25 3RG.
Via the developer's website Mr Abel Smith, the landowner of Coul Links, publishes an open letter stating, "I wish to ensure that access to the site is undertaken strictly in terms of the approved Scottish Outdoor Access Code". Anyone seeking access to the application site should first contact the development Project Manager "in order that he may coordinate and manage the visits".
The Planning and Environment Appeals Division has written to all who made previous representation to the planning authority inviting their participation in a hearing or enquiry session(s) at a date to be advised. "The reporters have now looked at the documentation available and decided that a hearing or enquiry session is required to assist in writing their report." All details about the appeal can be found at https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=119883
Kevin Stewart announces, "As Planning Minister, I have called in the application as the proposal raises issues of national importance in relation to natural heritage issues and its compliance with Scottish planning policy and requires further scrutiny". He added, "it is right that the decision is taken at the national level". (The letter to The Highland Council notifying the call in can be found with other documents lower down this page.)
This bogey at the second for developer Todd Warnock prompted him, via the developers' blog, to comment, "Whilst this decision delays bringing significant economic and environmental benefits to the area, we welcome the opportunity to set out again the compelling case to create a world class golf course in east Sutherland".
Local opposition group Not Coul have used Facebook to publish a brief explanation of how the call in is likely to be handled ...
The papers will be passed by Ministers to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), who are in Falkirk.
A case officer will be appointed and then one, or maybe two, Reporters will be assigned.
The DPEA officials will write out to everyone who objected and ask them if they want to take part in the Public Examination of the application.
Once people have responded, a Reporter will then look at the material already available and make a preliminary judgment about which aspects needs an Inquiry Session (this involves cross-examination), a Hearing Session or Written Submissions.
He/she/they will then convene a pre-examination meeting locally and will hear what people have to say about the initial choices.
Once that's over, a decision is made on an inquiry timetable - typically a few weeks out from a pre-exam meeting.
The Examination starts on an appointed date and carries on until finished. A week or two at most.
The Reporter(s) writes up the evidence and sends their report with a recommendation to Scottish Ministers, who will then determine it in their own time.
Scottish Wildlife Trust and a coaition of environmental bodies have written to the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention seeking intervention. (See letter below)
Scottish Government - "Ministers had an initial 28 day period to consider the application for a golf course at Coul Links after Highland Council notified them it was minded to grant planning permission. In order to fully consider the application ministers are extending that period by a further 28 days from 1 August to consider whether or not to call in the application for their determination." Todd Warnock, for the developers, responded by saying "The Scottish Government is right to take its time to consider the issues. After more than three years of thorough consideration of the project we are happy to wait a few more days".
National press reports on the destruction wreaked on a SSSI protected dune system by the Trump International golf course in Aberdeenshire and a timely reminder that Trump stated that the site would be "environmentally enhanced and better than it was before" just as Todd Warnock has declared that "Coul Links is an extraordinary site ecologically and our plans will immprove it".
Further clarification at Westminster on Ramsar protection in England but, in the face of numerous submissions flagging up the failings of the Highland Council position, no call in from Scottish Ministers.
The Highland Council is reported to have informed the Scottish Government that it is minded to grant permission for the planning application. The 28 day window available for calling in the application opens now.
The World Commission on Protected Areas asks the Scottish Government to urgently call-in the planning proposal, insisting the golf course will destroy the integrity of rare coastal habitats.
On BBC Good Morning Scotland, Todd Warnock continues to emphasise that the planning officer recommended refusal as a statutory requirement triggered by a single "narrow" Scottish Natural Heritage objection. See the 30 May news item below for a brief summary of that "narrow" objection.
Planning Committee gives consent to Coul Links golf course development. Congratulations to Todd Warnock: a par on the first marked with some truly presidential sentiment at https://www.coullinks.co.uk/single-post/2018/06/20/COUL-LINKS-PLANS-PASSED-BY-COUNCILLORS
At midday today, The Chair and members of The Highland Council North Area Planning Committee were alerted to the fact that, to date, the complete Appropriate Assessment required for developments impacting on Ramsar sites (afforded the same protection as Natura sites) has not been concluded. Nothing has been published since Scottish Natural Heritage offered assistance on 25 May.
For the development to be approved, this Appropriate Assessment must conclude that an adverse effect on the integrity of the site will not occur and can be ruled out. Claiming economic benefit is not one of the Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Importance that would open the door to planning consent. The law does not give The Highland Council any discretion.
In a further consultation response, SEPA maintains its previous planning position on the wetlands outside the Loch Fleet SSSI and defers to SNH on aspects within the SSSI. (In its consultation response SNH objects to the planning application.)
Public comments on The Highland Council planning website objecting to the Coul Links development: 1,851. Those supporting the development: 348.
A coalition of environmental groups, (Buglife, Butterfly Conservation Scotland, Marine Conservation Society, National Trust for Scotland, Plantlife, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Trust), has written an open letter to the First Minister calling on her to use her powers to urgently call in the application.
The only account we can find of the evidence that prompted the deferral of a decision is at http://notcoul.com/press.html We are aware that this is a partisan source but material from this source has proven well researched in the past.
The Highland Council North Area Planning Committee today deferred a decision on the application to build a golf course on Coul Links. The developers clearly regarded the tone of the deliberations as positive with Mr Warnock stating that "This is clearly a highly significant milestone in this project. The fact that every council member who spoke was supportive and no council member was prepared to put forth a motion for refusal was deeply gratifying."
World Environment Day - the United Nations' core effort to encourage awareness and action for the protection of the environment.
In his blog Mr Warnock, for the developers, reports that "the recommendation to refuse permission for the Coul Links development was expected". He insists that the remaining objection from statutory bodies is "narrow" and that "the report to the planning committee is clear that without this one objection, the application would be supported".
Report by the Area Planning Manager to the Highland Council North Planning Applications Committee recommends refusal of the Coul Links golf course planning application. See full report under the planning section lower on this page. Committee meeting 5 June 2018.
It is recommended the application be Refused subject to the following reasons for refusal: 1. The application is contrary to the provisions of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policies 28 (Sustainable Design) Policy 57 (Natural, Built and Cultural Heritage) as the proposed development would result in a significantly detrimental impact on the Loch Fleet Site of Scientific Interest and Loch Fleet Ramsar Site, designated for its sand dune habitat. In particular, the Coul Links support some of the best quality SSSI dune slack habitats in Scotland and the proposal, in its current format, will result in significant and permanent loss of sand dune habitat, particularly dune heath and dune slacks and impacts to other species which depend on it. Although mitigation is proposed the residual losses are extensive and likely to be permanent. In addition, the proposed development will create a high level of disruption to natural dune processes, such as dynamism, due to large dune areas becoming stabilised. It will also result in significant levels of habitat fragmentation, with the course infrastructure spread throughout the dune system. Furthermore, translocation of habitat is unlikely to be successful and therefore not an appropriate technique to safeguard a protected area of such natural environmental complexity and notable dune quality.