| Moaning [message #982895] |
Fri, 28 April 2006 08:15 |
|
|
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=197370 &command=displayContent&sourceNode=197368&home=y es&more_nodeId1=136245&contentPK=14393745
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982898 ] |
Fri, 28 April 2006 16:03 |
|
Thomopac wrote:
> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=197370 &command=displayContent&sourceNode=197368&home=y es&more_nodeId1=136245&contentPK=14393745
>
>
Like building a house on the edge of an airport then complaining about
the noise.
Are these people total morons?? If you buy a house that is next to a
golf course, then, yes, the view is wonderful, but you *have* to expect
that golf balls may be landing in your yard or through your windows.
Now, if the same Town Council decided to scrap the golf course, because
of these stupid people, and open the land to development, then you'd
hear more screaming from the same morons who are losing their 'view'.
David
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982903 ] |
Sat, 29 April 2006 07:44 |
|
"Thomopac" <thomopac [at] thomopac.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aZWcnSGhqI4UJczZSa8jmw [at] karoo.co.uk
> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=197370 &command=displayContent&sourceNode=197368&home=y es&more_nodeId1=136245&contentPK=14393745
We had a similar problem at a previous club of mine...The course was
built and an estate of £1m houses built around some holes. When balls
started ending up in gardens they then started screaming and got some
holes changes due to "Health and Safety Issues".
One interesting issue...when a ball went through a conservatory the
golfers insurance would not pay as the house had been built after the
course was there and, therefore, the risk had been accepted by the
householder.
Another point...when the houses are sold the first line of the advert
usually reads...."overlooking xxx Golf Club"
guess they want it all.
AlanC
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982910 ] |
Sun, 30 April 2006 13:28 |
|
"Mike Collinson, the council's head of leisure, said the green on the
first hole at the Sutton Park course was only 15 metres from the
boundary. The recommended distance is 60 to 65 metres.
The council is considering moving the hole 50 metres away from the
boundary and erecting a screen to block wayward shots."
I'm not a course designer. Is this correct, that a green shouldn't be
within 60 metres of the course boundary? Or, is Mr Collinson informing
the readers that the Council has a planning policy that they will not
locate their own greens inside that distance? If so, I guess the
council has shot itself in the foot. When the planning committee
viewed the plans for the houses, they would have assumed, quite
reasonably, that the greens would not be near to the houses, so they
gave the go-ahead.
Although it should be a case of the buyer beware, it appears that the
house owners have simply identified a failure of the council to abide
by its own planning policy, and that they are now demanding compliance.
I would too.
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982911 ] |
Sun, 30 April 2006 14:11 |
|
Kev Nurse wrote:
> "Mike Collinson, the council's head of leisure, said the green on the
> first hole at the Sutton Park course was only 15 metres from the
> boundary. The recommended distance is 60 to 65 metres.
>
> The council is considering moving the hole 50 metres away from the
> boundary and erecting a screen to block wayward shots."
>
> I'm not a course designer. Is this correct, that a green shouldn't be
> within 60 metres of the course boundary?
Quite acceptable for a green to be located close to the course boundary.
Examples would be #16, #17, #18 Old Course. I'm sure there are many
more, but those are the obvious ones that come to mind.
>Or, is Mr Collinson informing
> the readers that the Council has a planning policy that they will not
> locate their own greens inside that distance? If so, I guess the
> council has shot itself in the foot. When the planning committee
> viewed the plans for the houses, they would have assumed, quite
> reasonably, that the greens would not be near to the houses, so they
> gave the go-ahead.
Since the course was there prior to the homes, I'd have thought, in this
case, that planning permission should have been denied to build homes so
close to those greens.
>
> Although it should be a case of the buyer beware, it appears that the
> house owners have simply identified a failure of the council to abide
> by its own planning policy, and that they are now demanding compliance.
> I would too.
I don't know, Kevin. It just irritates the hell out of me when I see
homeowners peeing and moaning over golf balls in their yards etc, when
they were stupid enough to buy a house in that location, where a golf
course existed prior to building.
There is fault on all sides, the Council should have spent a few more
pounds and perhaps consulted with a golf course architect, or cheaper
yet, just asked for input from a few golfers who would have been more
than willing to advise them on proximity locations for new homes. To my
mind all three, the Council, the Builder/Developer and the Homeowner
share responsibility, but I bet it is the poor taxpayer who will
shoulder the extra costs of relocating these greens.
David
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982913 ] |
Sun, 30 April 2006 21:08 |
|
Hi David,
It would appear that the council's planning policy is that any public
(council) golf course will not have any green within 50 metres of the
course boundary. Its not a bad policy because it should prevent balls
from crossing the boundary. Clearly, those people associated with the
course are/have not adhered to the policy.
I'm tempted to believe that the house builders and the new owners knew
that the greens were too close to the boundary and they done the deals
on the basis that the council would have to sort out the problem. The
local press are simply adding fuel to the fire.
I certainly agree with you that people should take responsibility for
their decisions to buy houses near to golf courses, main roads and
airports, etc.
Regards
Kev
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982914 ] |
Mon, 01 May 2006 00:06 |
|
I have noted all the comments with interest. Before I retired I was a
manager of a water department and to service rural villages with sewerage
systems we made a point of building the sewerage treatment works as far away
from the village as possible.
Initially there never was a problem but in the course of time developers
realised the potential of house building with sewerage services available
and so built closer and closer to the treatment works.
As you can imagine eventually the houses (not just in one but in several
villages) were so close to the works that the new owners suffered some smell
and fly nuisance. This in turn led to the us having (at expense of all
customers) to cover the works, provide odour masking or in one case
completely rebuild a works.
It seems to me that developers can get away with almost anything. There is
little point in blaming the planners as so often local councillors are
influenced by friendly developers and over-ride planning reservations.
"Kev Nurse" <kev [at] kevnurse.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1146424081.479719.124590 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hi David,
> It would appear that the council's planning policy is that any public
> (council) golf course will not have any green within 50 metres of the
> course boundary. Its not a bad policy because it should prevent balls
> from crossing the boundary. Clearly, those people associated with the
> course are/have not adhered to the policy.
>
> I'm tempted to believe that the house builders and the new owners knew
> that the greens were too close to the boundary and they done the deals
> on the basis that the council would have to sort out the problem. The
> local press are simply adding fuel to the fire.
>
>
> I certainly agree with you that people should take responsibility for
> their decisions to buy houses near to golf courses, main roads and
> airports, etc.
>
> Regards
> Kev
>
|
|
|
| Re: Moaning [message #982916 ] |
Tue, 02 May 2006 12:36 |
|
David Sneddon wrote:
>
> Quite acceptable for a green to be located close to the course boundary.
> Examples would be #16, #17, #18 Old Course. I'm sure there are many
> more, but those are the obvious ones that come to mind.
>
You'll see another very close to the boundary at this year's Open, RL's
17th (which will be played as the first for this tournament)
|
|
|
