Casebook: In Depth - Replacement hole denied at golf course owing to safety concerns

Planning, 27 June 2008

The proposal sought to replace the seventh hole with a new one on sloping agricultural land at the edge of the course. An elevated tee would be created leading down to a new raised green, behind and adjacent to which would lie an earth bund, rough grass and a bunker.

The inspector remarked that PPG17 highlights the need to avoid significant loss of amenity to residents or neighbouring uses from recreational proposals and to give careful consideration to public safety, especially children's. He agreed that the force of a struck golf ball could severely damage people, animals or property.

Relying on design safety guidance prepared by a specialist company, the council argued that the risk of golf balls being hit beyond the course boundary was unacceptable. The inspector gave significant weight to this, noting that it was a neutral document seeking to provide practical advice to minimise the risk of golf-related accidents and maximise safety.

He acknowledged that the appellant had sought to resolve safety concerns with the existing seventh green but noted that no risk assessment or safety audit had been carried out for the present proposal. He reasoned that less able players would find it hard to reach the green and this difficulty would be exacerbated by the downhill character of the intended hole.

The safety guidelines urged designers to allow for any downhill element in calculating the distance between the green's edge and sensitive boundary or access routes, he observed. The proposed distances involved in the appeal plan were significantly less than the recommended minimum, he found. The proposal would create an unacceptable and significant risk of damage or injury to users of the access track, he found.

DCS Number 100-055-571

Inspector Andrew Seaman; Hearing.