What are the differences between designing a course in the UK and Europe?

I think there’s very little difference in design terms - but the bureaucracy in some countries is more complicated - thankfully, we have had few problems achieving permits and consents for our projects overseas. In arid climates the big issue is water sourcing and supply, which is now becoming just as big a problem in UK.

In Spain when I was working at La Zagaleta 10 (originally a G&M Ltd project) we had a challenging time convincing the local (Marbella) environmental authorities that the design we were proposing was respectful of the protected river valleys (arroyos). The masterplan we created for the new ‘Los Barrancos’ course was one of the most complicated we have worked on mainly because of the mountainous scenery - with numerous updates and revisions to get to a point of agreement between the client and the authorities.

I think that UK planning laws do make the cost of getting permission for a golf course prohibitive, though. Nowadays you have to provide so much detail and documentation that the golf course has to be virtually designed before making the planning application. This is an unreasonably big risk for any investor or developer.



How do you hope to counteract the advances in golf club technology?

We are now designing golf courses that are longer than any we have designed before, however, our clients, thankfully, expect us to be aware that they still aim to attract as wide a range of clientele as possible, in order to make their project a commercial success. In general, we aim to design new 18-hole courses between 6,200 and 6,600 metres in length. I certainly consider this to be acceptable.

Let’s say that about 5% (estimate) of golfers have the ability to hit drives 250 metres or more, well, I’d say that as they are in minority, although we need to consider their abilities / capabilities, we still don’t need to prioritise them. We design golf courses with numerous teeing platforms per hole (4, 5 or 6 depending upon hole length, location, steepness of slope, prevailing wind, etc.) and this provides multiple flexibility to accommodate all levels of golfer. This doesn’t counteract advances in golf club technology, but it takes it into account.

I am also of the opinion that most courses that decide to embark on hole-lengthening schemes do not necessarily need to do it. Many courses in the UK, in particular, are badly bunkered - by this I mean that fairway bunkers no longer come into play because they are too near the tees, mid-point between landing area and green or too far removed from the green. Many courses could be dramatically improved with a re-bunkering programme and made to be much more challenging to play for all.


Should the ideal par 4 be a long hole or dogleg?

I don’t think there are any formulas for what should or shouldn’t be an ideal par 3, par 4 or par 5. However, there are holes I have played which I would consider to be my favourites. I prefer to play an iron approach into a par 4 hole than a wood, so I’d say a shorter par 4 would be more ideal for me - say 350 to 390 metres.

I think I prefer a dogleg to a straight hole in general terms, however, a dead straight hole which has a carry over a ravine from the tee and has a water hazard placed left or right of the green is more interesting than a dogleg hole that is completely flat.

I create designs that are not formulaic, if the site dictates that the par 4 hole is a short 250 metre left-right dogleg through dense woodland, then so be it. If it is a dead straight 430 metre downhill par 4 with a backdrop of the sea or mountains, then it can still work. It is not the individual holes - we’re talking about 18 holes - that makes the course. It’s difficult to get 18 classic holes on a site, but each hole must have something about it that is memorable and challenging.