Course Development Document. for The Pollok Golf Club

Transcription

1 Course Development Document for The Pollok Golf Club Spring 2018

2 Introdu ction Executive Summary 2 In the summer of 2017 the committee at Pollok Golf Club in Glasgow approached KimberGlen golf course architects to discuss the course and in particular the current quality of the bunkers. It was agreed that the current bunkering at Pollok G.C. does not offer the quality and performance that the members of the club expect and deserve. Bunker hazard position, aesthetic appeal and playability are all critically important elements of a golf course and we are observing an encouraging trend that clubs are becoming more aware that poor bunker styling and performance can lead to golfer dissatisfaction and a reluctance to continue to pay membership subscriptions. It is our assertion that the quality of bunkering on a golf course is probably the single most important defining man-made feature of a course and we have worked with several clubs who have been amazed at the visual transformation of their course simply by renovating their bunkers and updating their style. Bunkers and bunker maintenance are costly activities and when visiting clubs we often find that over a period of many years this has resulted in incremental degradation of both the playability and visual appearance of bunkers. The end result of this is that often bunkers are removed or significantly altered to help free up more maintenance time for other activities, almost always to the detriment of the design and overall playing experience. Techniques aimed at improving the ease of maintenance and playability / consistency of bunkers have been around for many years but in recent years there has been significant advances in bunker lining products. Clubs willing to make the investment in these liners have found a significant improvement in the ease of maintenance and ability to present bunkers in good condition year round. This results in a more content membership and a maintenance crew who have more time to focus on other important maintenance activities which were previously overlooked. By appointing golf course architects the club have recognised the importance of having professional input into the process of improving the bunkers on the golf course. Whereas individuals at the club or on the committee may have a biased view of the importance of certain bunkers our task is to examine the current course as a whole and assess how it may have altered through the passing of time. Technology has certainly changed the way golf is played and there is therefore a need to consider altering bunker positions to ensure that they are still relevant and the playing strategy for each hole is still as the designer originally intended. We are able to match what we see today with what we know about how historical designers approached the process of hazard placement, (in this case Alister Mackenzie,) and present a reasoned document that outlines proposals which will follow a consistent approach and create a blueprint for future course improvements. Our ambition is to work with the club on this comprehensive course development document and hopefully in the years to come implement a series of improvements that raise the standard and quality of the course. The intention of this document is to provide the target for the club to aim for. We fully understand that the proposals may not be achieved instantly but without this broad overview, individual changes or fixes are not likely to be linked to the broader picture and opportunities to make the course better can easily be lost. By using the information and ideas contained in this document any changes can be made in a co-ordinated, informed and structured way. Inevitably course development documents, by their very nature, are more inclined to pick up on negative aspects of the course since these are what we want to improve. We hope that you find our remarks well considered and constructive rather than dwelling on the possible failings of the current offering. At KimberGlen we are firm believers that a club s greatest asset is its course and we believe that it is critically important to have an exciting, aesthetically pleasing, safe and relevant challenge on a course that is presented in the best condition that it can be. Golf Clubs earn their reputation through the quality of their course and word spreads quickly about well presented course improvement work. Our ultimate goal is to assist the club to safeguard the future of golf at Pollok Golf Club and it is within this context that we present the following Course Development Document. Currently Pollok Golf Course has 69 Bunkers. The size and shape, style, playability, performance and their strategic influence all vary widely across the golf course. It is obvious that over a period of many years a golf course undergoes a gradual process of change. Committees come and go, maintenance crews are continually altering, trends and styles are constantly evolving and through all of this the grass and course landscape continue to grow. Year on year small alterations occur but go unnoticed until many years later it becomes obvious that things have dramatically changed. This applies to all features on a golf course including green sizes, and fairway widths and alignments, but is probably most evident in the bunkering. Add to this ad hoc bunker addition and removal process that often occurs at golf clubs and very quickly a course can become very different from the style and look of the course that was originally conceived. Design strategy is rarely considered when these incremental changes are made and the original design intent is gradually watered down or even lost completely. 1. Review the current bunkering of the golf course and assess it against Dr Alister MacKenzie s other design work and his recorded design philosophy. 2. Identify significant historical bunker alterations through the use of historical imagery and club photos / paintings. 3. Analyse the current bunker style and suggest options for reintroducing a more classic heritage style of bunker design. 4. Recommend bunker liner options and highlight pros and cons of each. 5. Prepare outline proposals for the reconfiguration of bunkering on a hole-by-hole basis to improve the aesthetic appeal of each hole and reinforce strategic values. This will look at specific issues with each hole broken down into the following categories:- Strategic Hazard Positioning Examine the strategic importance of existing bunkering and how it influences the player. Identify opportunities to enhance the strategy of each hole through bunker reconfigurations Th e Brief The club is rightly proud of its course and heritage and has identified that the bunkers are in need of renovation to offer a better product for their members to retain and further secure their reputation as one of the country s leading parkland courses. In addition to the club s desire to renovate existing bunkers they also understand that some bunkers are not currently correctly located to influence today s golfer and the strategic positioning of some bunkers should be looked at as part of the process. Following an initial meeting with the club a brief of priorities was drawn up between the club and Kim b e r Gl e n as follows; 6. Identify what bunkers can be removed where they are only a consideration for the weaker golfers. 7. Ensure that hazard positioning allows the course to be sufficiently defended against the better golfers. 8. Consider whether the current bunker size, (and variation in sizes,) is appropriate for this site. 9. Layout changes or other design proposals do not form part of this document although small alterations to fairway alignments and green surrounds are proposed in certain locations where bunkers are being removed, added or altered. This will help to reinforce the strategy whilst also improving the definition of the course. 10. Consider cost implication of the proposals and ensure that proposals are cost considerate. 11. Prepare an initial budget estimate for the project to include for the installation of various recommend liners. 12. Offer a realistic timeframe for the implementation of the project and consider how to minimise construction disruption. 3 Aesthetic Appeal The aesthetic appeal of bunker is not just examining the shape of the sand area and the bunker lip but its entire surrounds and how the actual bunker integrates into the larger landforms whether this a green complex or fairway / semi-rough landform integration. Technical Performance This covers elements of particular bunkers that may need to be addressed for the bunker to function properly. There may be a drainage issue in or around the bunker or a specific shape the doesn t allow easy maintenance of the bunker and / or its surrounds. We will also highlight bunker visibility issues within this category.

3 General Over view of Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths Course Setting and Mature Vegetation Integration - More recent planting techniques - 4 Whilst it is always subjective and will often depend on several outside factors such as the way we play or the weather conditions, it is always important to assess the way a course feels from a player s perspective. We have made several trips to Pollok Golf Club to play and evaluate the current course and also to consider the various options and opportunities that exist to improve the bunkering. On each occasion we have been impressed with the general level of maintenance and our trips this summer and autumn showed that these high standards are maintained throughout the year. As keeping an overview and broad perspective is a large part of our process we would like to comment on some of our general observations regarding the course since these assist us to form our opinion of the bunkering and why it has become the most important issue currently facing the club. Overall we found the golf course to be a very engaging test of golf. The layout is very strong and the routing works its way around the land and mature tree copses in an interesting way which gradually reveals the full extent of the property to the golfer. Unusually for parkland courses in urban areas there is an abundance of width and space which is a terrific asset as it allows great variety in hole design and strategy. Whilst we have learned that flooding can be an issue on the lower holes in the winter time we were pleased to see that generally the course drains well and as a result the playing surfaces can be kept in excellent condition throughout the playing season. With the above points in mind we concur with the committee s opinion that broad-scale changes to the course are not necessary as the challenge continues to be relevant and enjoyable for the modern golfer and his equipment. The routing has stood the test of time and we would expect it to continue to do so. One comment by a committee member that stuck in our minds was that he said that during team matches the home team tend not to gain too much of an advantage as the whole routing is laid out in front of you, That is to say that there isn t much quirk in the routing where a local knowledge of the course can be particularly beneficial. That isn t necessarily a bad thing but we do think it would nice to introduce some more intrigue or mystery into the golf design through the re-positioning of hazards and the creation of some more risk and reward, shot values. In that regard we note that there have been very few design alterations in respect of hazard placement since the early 2000 s when the game jumped forward much more significantly than it had done in the previous years. Since 2002 some fairway bunkers have been added to catch the longer players and a few approach bunkers have been altered but in all cases their strategic potential has not been realised as they are all orientated parallel to the line of play rather than diagonally across it. This prevents the opportunity to create risk and reward strategy and detracts from the definition of the golf course. There is currently a large variation in both size and style of bunker and some of the newer fairway bunkers that were added are unnecessarily large placing a significant burden on the maintenance team. The main focus of this report is on bunkering. The club have rightly identified that there is a lack of consistency to the style, size, strategic value and performance that needs to be addressed for the future satisfaction and enjoyment of the membership. By commissioning a course development document the committee have not only identified that there is an issue to address but have clearly understood that it is in the best interests of the club to seek professional advice in order to provide an unbiased and thorough appraisal. This report will look at each hole individually to assess the current situation and offer an opinion as to how the hole could be improved. We do so whilst keeping an overview of the whole course thus ensuring that the course remains balanced in terms of length, difficulty and drama. The club is rightly proud of its history and that the course was laid out by Dr Alister Mackenzie but we feel that some of his heralded design philosophies have been diluted through the passing of time at Pollok. G.C. This does, however, mostly relate just to the bunker positioning, their integration into the surrounding landscape and their impact on the playing strategy of a hole, and therefore we feel very confident that we can restore this aspect of the golf course to its former glory. Although the historical context did not form part of our scope of work we feel it is important for us to understand the background of the course so that we can be sure that we are offering the right advice for the future and retaining and enhancing the aspects of the course that has gained it s reputation to date. The following SWOT, (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Constraints,) briefly highlight of our first impressions of the course and the property. The course opens with a grand elevated tee shot and this theme continues throughout the round. The holes have been cleverly routed around mature tree copses with specimen trees playing a vital role in the strategy and definition of some holes. Although there is not significant elevation change across the whole site there are many smaller elevation changes within holes and the golf course has been routed superbly to take advantage of this. Width of Golf Corridors - The feeling of width and hole separation on a golf course helps to give the course a feeling of grandeur and this is certainly the case at Pollok as each hole feels distinctive. Surrounding holes rarely intrude either physically or visually and this is a major benefit of the routing. No Real External or internal safety issues - There are only a few instances where a shot from one hole could stray onto a neighbouring fairway, (perhaps the 1 st and 18 th are the most obvious example.) Similarly the external boundary is both well protected by vegetation and well away from the centreline of all holes. The ROW that plays on the slice side of the 16 th presents a safety challenge but as this is not a heavily used path it can be successfully managed by signage. Course Conditioning and General Level of Presentation - Our fist impression of the course is that the greenstaff do an excellent job of presenting the course in top quality condition and the club s reputation is certainly enhanced by the level of conditioning. Significant time and effort must be lost by maintaining the huge sand areas on some holes and reducing the size of some bunkers to a more appropriate size will allow better presentation of the bunkers and more time to focus on other areas. Drainage Capability of Soils - Whilst some lower lying sections of the course around the 13 th, 14 th and 15 th are susceptible to flooding on occasion, the remainder of the course generally drains better than one might expect given the native soils. The holes have been laid out to surface drain water effectively and where it collects in low spots, catch basins and drainage pipe have been installed to efficiently carry excess water to out of play areas. Course Routing - Variety of Par 4 s and 3 s lengths - Whilst it can be argued that only having 3 par 3 s and 2 par 5 s is a weakness of the routing this is balanced by having 3 good par 3 holes and good variation within the par 4 holes, in terms of distance, challenge and aesthetics. Weaknesses Bunker Style / Positioning / Landform integration - (This is the focus of our document and will be looked at in more detail in the following sections) We observed numerous locations on the golf course where more recent tree planting seems to be at odds with the hole strategy or bunker positioning. Examples of this is are on the 4th and 5th fairways where very linear and unnatural lines of trees have been planted perpendicular to the fairway. They have also begun to interfere with the view of the fairway bunkers. Lack of strategic and risk / reward playing options throughout the routing - As a result of current bunker positioning and, more importantly, their current orientation, opportunities to create risk / reward and heroic shot values are limited. Opportunities Green surrounds - We would love to see the green surrounds receiving more maintenance time to bring their drainage performance and grass sward to a level that would allow shorter mowing heights to be consistently achieved. Whilst the focus of this report is on bunkers we would generally like to see more variety in the way the green surrounds are presented to promote more recovery options from around the green. This would go hand in hand with the reduction in size generally of bunkering and improved landform integration of hazards. Maximizing Opportunity - Maximising the strengths of the golf course and identifying and addressing the few weaknesses and threats is the first step to realising the opportunity for the future development of the course. By systematically addressing the weaknesses and turning them into strengths, the club has a tremendous opportunity to improve the aesthetic appeal of the course and elevate is status further amongst its peers. Threats Potential flooding of low lying areas next to the river and river erosion - We have seen from historical photos that the holes next to the river can suffer from flooding during winters of heavy rainfall. We can also see that the river on hole 14 is continuing to erode its banks and will, over a period of years, more heavily influence this tee shot. Growth of Trees and Vegetation - Like all living parts of the course the trees and vegetation will continue to grow and left unmanaged will begin to impact the playability of the course. We can see that a whin bush between the tee and fairway of hole 5 has grown in recent years and is already blocking the view of the fairway from the back tees. Similarly there is a tree in the direct playline of hole 8 that will become a nuisance in future years as the canopy continues to expand. 5 Lack of Par 5 holes and weaknesses in the current par 5 s - Currently the golf course only has two par 5 holes and 3 par 3 s. Whilst this is not abnormal for a Scottish parkland layout and getting the best routing should always supersede trying to force the layout it does mean that the course has a lot of par 4 holes. Again this not necessarily an issue but only having 2 par 5 s in particular does cut down the opportunities for the average player to make birdie and also reduces the possibility for par variation and risk / reward playing options. The current par 5 s do have potential to be great holes but owing to the current bunkering this has not been fully realised. Adjusting the bunkers as suggested in this proposal will add a lot of interest to the routing.

4 Historical Context A photo of the 2 nd hole today taken from a similar position as the painting below indicates a much more interesting strategy for this short par 4 with a risk / reward shot values. Whilst the club has not specifically asked us to examine the history and development of the course over the past century, (since Alister MacKenzie officially opened the reconstructed course in 1924,) we feel it is appropriate and necessary to understand what legacy he intended to create at Pollok G.C. Inevitably through the passing of time, through the changing of committees and greenstaff, through advances in golf technology and through the growth of the trees and vegetation, the course will continually evolve. At Pollok G.C we feel that this change is most evident in the positioning and landscape integration of the bunkers and in the way the bunkers currently look. Therefore, before embarking on a bunker renovation programme, it is important for us to understand what they may have looked like in years gone by and use this to guide our recommendations for the future. As the Pollok G.C website states about MacKenzie s design philosophy: A really great golf course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players. It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill. It must give the average player a fair chance and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert. All natural beauty should be preserved, natural hazards should be utilized and artificiality should be minimised. fairway in order to gain a more favourable angle into the green whereas the safe play from the tee shot is to the left of the bunkers but this will leave a much more awkward angle into the green as the player will have to carry the large angled greenside bunker. If we relate this to the hole we see today we can conclude the at the original playing strategy of the hole has been completely altered and the strategic value of the hole is certainly less than was originally conceived. 6 Whilst not a first rate golfer himself Mackenzie was recognised and often appointed by clubs and developers for his deep understanding of golf strategy and an ability to get the most out of any landscape. MacKenzie missed no opportunity, creating golf courses which, even with today s clubs and balls, leaves no golfer in doubt that MacKenzie s genius was to use the given landscape to brilliant strategic as well as visual effect. MacKenzie was also renowned for the quality of putting surfaces he was able to design. The large and incredibly fast undulating greens, often angled away from the central line of the fairway, were also typical features of a MacKenzie design and remain a dominating legacy of his courses. The angle of his greens in relation to the direction of the fairway resulted in them becoming shallow from front to back meaning landing areas on greens could only be accessed from certain areas of the fairway, forcing the golfer to think strategically from the tee shot. Each of the large greens would have a number of different locations where a hole could be cut consequently influencing how the hole could and should be played on a particular day. His skill as a military camofleur allowed him to make any necessary man made undulations on greens appear as if they were a natural part of the original landscape and topography. The paintings on the opposite page provide a very important historical snapshot of the original golf strategy and bunker style of the golf course. As can be seen from the images the bunkering was a mixture of large and small bunkering as required for the strategy and visual appeal of the golf hole. The larger bunkers had rugged grass fingers which extended into the bunkers to give them shape and interest as well as camouflage the true extent of the bunker area. The top photo of the 2 nd hole reveals that cross and diagonal bunkering played an important role in the strategy of the golf hole. The bold golfer is challenged to hit over the cross bunkers to a narrower part of the In the distance of the same painting we can also see that the 3 rd hole was set up very differently from today. When this painting was drawn the fairway bunkering was positioned on the right of the fairway and presumably the player was asked whether he could carry these traps to gain a better angle of approach. Today there is one largely hidden fairway bunker on the left of the fairway which demonstrates how much the strategy of the hole has changed. The middle picture is a representation of the 4 th hole, presumably playing from the forward tee positions of today s course. The large bunker on the left, (which remains today,) is very evident although it looks like it is perhaps more of a landform that hosts two or three smaller bunkers. The elevated green is clearly visible but there were 6 bunkers guarding the front and sides of the putting surface which made it a much more interesting green complex. In today s arrangement this has been reduced to two large front bunkers which are rather dominating and lacking in shape. We can t tell whether the two current back bunkers were originally designed but we would suspect that 6 bunkers around this green would have been sufficient! We know that the club has recently invested in upgrading the 17 th hole but there is still some debate about whether the current design is fair. The design has certainly evolved since the painting was drawn and the bunkering around the green is quite different. What is interesting to note here is that there is no forced carry to reach the green so weaker players can try to run the ball into the front of the green. However a back right hole location is well guarded by the large front right bunker so the better players always have something to think about. In fact if you look at all three paintings the common theme is that the entrance to the green is not completely blocked and allows a running approach shot. The defence of the hole comes via the positioning and angle of the bunker hazards which create the strategy, defend the hole and add significantly to its aesthetic appeal. It is this effect that we are keen to re-introduce at Pollok G.C. A photo of the 4th hole today taken from a similar position as the painting below shows how prominent and important the large fairway bunker used to be and that there used to be 6 bunkers guarding the green. A photo of the 17th hole today taken from a similar position as the painting below reveals how dramatic the original looked and how well the front bunkering in particular fitted with the landscape. 7

5 Focus on Existing Bunkers and th e general effects of maintenance Before determining what bunker alterations are relevant and necessary it is important to understand what may have happened over a number of years to lead to the current situation where the majority of members agree that the current bunkering is the biggest area that requires improvement on the course. Loss of design strategy over many years of gradual and unrecorded design alterations- As the previous section highlights, over many years and generations a golf course continues to evolve. Trends come and go, committees and greenkeeping staff are constantly changing and the trees and vegetation continue to grow! All of this results in an inevitable dilution of the original design values. An example of how the passing of time has adversely affected the golf design can be seen by comparing the green complexes of the first 4 holes. Each is defended very penally with bunkers front left and front right of the green. This prevents the opportunity for strategic design not only at the green but from the fairway as there is no real advantage of being on a particular side of the fairway to gain a better angle for the approach shot. Fortunately there is now a recognition that ad hoc alterations to the design of a golf course are not advisable and a more holistic approach is necessary. Inconsistency in bunker drainage capacity - As the bunker lips are edged back, steepening the sand faces and exposing a larger earth lip this allows more potential for wash out of bunkers. Additionally the earth lip allows wash-down of soils and silts into the bunker which will eventually collect in the bunker low spot causing contamination of the sand and eventually sealing the bunker base preventing drainage. Inconsistency in bunker performance - In addition to the issues mentioned above which also affect the performance and function of the bunker, as well as its aesthetic appeal, the constant topping up of a variety of bunker sands over many years will also lead to a poorly performing bunker. Different sands will have different granularity, (in size and shape,) and this will lead to the pore spaces between grains of sand eventually closing up and preventing drainage. This photo shows the first bunker on the left of the par 3, 6th hole. It is easy to imagine how the shape of this bunker has been gradually lost owing to continued edging of the bunker lip. As this bunker is elevated above the ground to the left we would expect this bunker to drain well as it is only affected by rain actually falling in the bunker so we can deduce that the problem is likely to have occurred due to the silts and smaller aggregates migrating down over time. These have gathered in the bunker base effectively capping or sealing it and preventing water from draining through. Loss of historic style of bunkering due to many years of maintenance - Maintenance practices inevitably alter a golf course over a number of years. Fairway lines tend to become straighter and bunker shapes tend to become simpler as they are gradually edged back to ensure a tidy presentation. After many years of this practice bunker shapes will be lost, grass tongues which used to give the bunkers their distinctive look and aesthetic appeal will recede and sand faces will become steeper as sand splash forms a build up of sand on the front face of the bunker. 8 The approach shots to the 2 nd and 4 th holes show the penal positioning of bunkers both at the front right and front left of the green. This trend of hazard positioning is prevalent throughout the golf course. The large bunker to the right of the 9 th fairway is almost 40 yards in length but lacks any real strategic or visual impact. 9 Loss of shot values caused by improvements in club and ball technology rendering some bunkers obsolete - Clearly the way golf is played has changed and now even players with slower swing speeds are able to get the ball airborne for a reasonable distance which wasn t always the case. This has resulted in many short carry bunkers becoming obsolete. These bunkers now tend to now penalise the weakest players when they were originally intended to challenge the better players. While we agree these bunkers can now be a waste of resources where clubs have undertaken to remove theses bunkers themselves they haven t considered the design strategy and consequently a large part of the hole design, both aesthetically and strategically, is lost. The approach bunkers on the 5 th hole, (top photo,) are an interesting feature for the golf course but they will only really be in play for the weaker players. They do, however offer great aesthetic potential and with some minor tweaking could be a key feature of this hole. The bottom photo show the fairway bunker on the 14 th hole. This bunker is now completely redundant for the better players and will only catch the weaker player. It is an example of a golf feature that would have been strategically important years ago but now has no impact on the playing of the golf hole for most players. It is also very flat in appearance which makes it virtually hidden from the tee further reducing its strategic or aesthetic importance to the golf hole. The three images on the left taken from Pollok G.C represent the result of many years of bunker edge maintenance. The top photo which is of the left greenside bunker on hole 1 shows how gradually the lip is receding and reducing the tongue of grass which gives the bunker its aesthetic appeal and assists with landscape integration. The middle image shows how continued bunker edging can result in a very simple bunker shape and the sand being almost flush with the fairway with no bowl whatsoever in the bunker base. The bottom image of the bunker to the right of the fairway on hole 11 shows that without any grassy tongues the bunker appears to be awkwardly perched above its surrounding. The picture above shows a newly renovated bunker that has good form and integrates well complementing the green and sitting comfortably within the larger complex. Implementing a similar style at Pollok G.C would complete transform the bunkering from one of the weakest elements of the course to the strongest.

6 Artificial Bunker Liners Bunker lining products have been on the market for many years. Some have been more successful than others but in general they have all had similar issues resulting in stories of dissatisfaction from clubs who made the investment. However within the last 10 years there have been significant improvements in bunker liner materials and a better understanding of what caused previous liners to fail. A few bunker lining products have now proven themselves to be effective in providing fast draining and consistently performing bunkers that are far less maintenance intensive. These products have now been installed extensively throughout the U.K and overseas in a variety of soil and climatic conditions to the extent that we are now in a position to recommend them without hesitation. The following information relates to 4 bunker liners that we consider to be the best available on the market with the best track record of performance and sustainability. Bunker Blinder is completely different from all other liners. Its uses environment agency approved recycled rubber granules mixed with a binding agent throughout. The rubber granules are placed in a pan mixer together with the binding agent which gives the product great consistency and strength. The mixed product is wheeled into the bunker and laid by hand trowelling. This ensures consistency of depth and allows the product to be laid on steep faces and intricate shapes. Once laid the product takes hours to fully cure. The product drains effectively throughout and once cured is durable and resistant to club strikes. Importantly, being a rubber based product it will not cause any damage to the golfer or the club. BUNKER BLINDER by Profusion Environmental As the product name suggests Capillary Concrete is a porous concrete that is spread on bunker bases and sides and has sufficient pore space to allow free draining gravitational water but doesn t not allow sand particles to migrate through to the soil and block the drain below. It is Lytag, (lightweight aggregate concrete,) bound with cement and resin mixed before laying. Once the free water has drained from the sand, only capillary moisture is left. The trick is to keep this capillary moisture on the sand faces for as long as possible. Capillary Concrete can move moisture back to the sand by utilizing special micropores and capillary action. The Capillary Concrete system will help store and restore moisture to the sand faces as it evapotranspirates in dry conditions. This is where capillary concrete believes it has a better system than its competitors as it can preserve ideal bunker playing conditions even in dry conditions. Wash outs following heavy rainfall events can be easily fixed easing the maintenance burden. The product was developed and extensive tested in Sweden and there have been installations all over Europe. CAPILLARY CONCRETE 10 Blinder is laid over a compacted layer of MOT type 1 aggregate. This gives a dry firm base to work from and also forms a drainage medium over the surface area. The blinder product acts as a blinding layer which is designed to bridge between the sand and aggregate thus minimizing the chance of particles moving from one medium to another, changing the drainage characteristics of the engineered bunker base. Blinder is the most expensive lining system on the market but it has had some high profile installations at Beaverbrook and Wentworth Golf Clubs in Surrey as well as widespread installations across the U.K. BETTER BILLY BUNKER The Billy Bunker lining technique has been around since 1994 when the base of the bunker was covered in gravel and then capped with a geotextile which was pegged in position to prevent the gravels from moving. However the problem was always that the geotextile would be snagged by rakes and golf clubs, becoming exposed on the bunker edges and viewed as aesthetically unpleasant. 11 The real breakthrough came in 2009 when they discovered that a manufactured binder could hold the gravels in place eliminating the need for the geotextile liner. The binder would allow water to pass through the stone at over 1500 inches per hour. A major advantage of this system is that one can source suitable / approved gravels from a local source and these can then be sprayed with the binder material therefore this method is much cheaper than the other two methods described on this page. As the system was first introduced to USA in 1994 there is a long history of installations of the product but there are only a few known installations in the U.K. Some notable installations in the U.K are at the PGA Centenary Course, Gleneagles and the RAC club in Epsom.

7 Artificial Bunker Liners Hyline Bunker Liner by John Greasley Contractors At KmberGlen we are completely un-biased when it comes to bunker lining products and we have no alignment with any product or installation contractor. Our intention in this part of the report is to inform the club what modern liners are available on the market and to help the club to determine which product is most suitable for their project based upon cost, effectiveness on their particular site and guarantee offers. These bunker liners are reasonably new to the market but all now have an established track record of installations and performance success. Only 1 company, (capillary concrete,) have thus far prepared an objective report to illustrate the cost saving benefits of their product. Heavy Duty, Triple Layer Geosynthetic Liner HyLine bunker is a heavy weight twin layer Geosynthetic Hybrid liner. The base layer comprises of a puncture resistant woven geotextile to act as a stone barrier. The upper surface layer is a thicker non-woven 200 gauge geotextile. This allows the bunker sand to purchase into the open fibres to provide a good interface. Encapsulated between the two liners is an inert mineral material. This gives the liner a more substantial weight and thickness, thus preventing contamination of sand whilst forming a substantial stone barrier. The extra weight also helps prevent the liner being disturbed, undermined or lifted. Both layers are interwoven together to prevent the inner fill material from moving and to provide additional reinforcement. Being impermeable the bunker drains in a conventional manner to a central drain. This ensures that the sand does not dry out and become unstable. The playability is therefore more in line with traditional non-lined bunkers. Cost / Benefit Analysis of Capillary Concrete: This case study was performed at Delsjö Golf Club in Gothenburg, Sweden. The golf course is located in an area with about an 8-month playing season and generally periods of about 1-4 months of frozen ground and snow conditions annually. Two similar bunkers of 200 m2 were renovated in 2013, one with Capillary Concrete and one without any form of liner under the sand. New sand was installed and the bunkers were in play right away. The bunkers were installed in Nov of 2012 and evaluation made continuously, this study done in March Cost analysis of the bunker project, per bunker cost: 1. Sand cost 25 euro per metric ton sand depth 10 cm (density 1,6 and 10% compaction) 880 euro 2. Clean-out and excavation of old bunker-sand and preparation of base 700 euro 3. Drainage work. Checking and cleaning, replacing pipe in parts and gravel 500 euro 4. New sand installation excavator and trailers 1,300 euro Total cost of traditional bunker without Capillary Concrete is 3,380 euro. Capillary Concrete cost material and installation is 18 euro per m 2 3,600 euros, bringing the total cost for the Capillary Concrete bunker to euro. 12 In order to make a proper assessment of the two options, an examination of the bunkers was made after 4 winters in March of The sand quality of the bunkers was examined and compared. The traditional bunker, (on the left below,) has a significantly higher amount of stones and contamination of fines in the sand than the Capillary Concrete bunker, (on the right below.) Approximately 2-3 cm of sand is added annually to the traditional bunker to keep it playable, and the life expectancy is calculated at 6 years until renovation is due again. The Capillary Concrete bunker did not receive any new sand during the first 4 years and does not require any. The sand does not show any sign of contamination to require additional sand. Verified by the maintenance crew, the Capillary Concrete bunker does not wash out any more than a small area during extremely hard rainfall, and has no contamination from soil at all. The traditional bunker does wash out with every rain incident over 3-4 mm, about 10 times a year and requires tedious, and often not planned for, work to restore sand levels and push back sand. The traditional bunker has used a total of 800 euros of sand during the first 4 seasons. The wash-out repairs by two crew-members cost an average of 48 euros per incident. The life expectancy according to the USGA for a traditional bunker is 5-7 years as the drainage gets more and more clogged, and as the sand becomes impermeable and contaminated. The total cost for 6 years of life of the initial investment for this bunker is 7,460 euros or approximately 1,243 euro per year. During the lifetime of this bunker, the quality of the playing surface gets gradually worse and worse. Unfortunately, this degradation in quality is bad for the golfer and for business, and will create a situation where the quality of the bunker is less than optimal for most of the life of the bunker. No consideration for the regular maintenance costs of raking was allowed for in this study, but it is noteworthy that because of the added moisture control, the Capillary Concrete bunker has seen less sand shifting and subsequently is less work to rake on a regular basis. The Capillary Concrete bunker will last in excess of 15 years, and require no sand to be filled. The lack of wash-out damage is a great benefit that saves money and time for the crew. In a very conservative calculation of 15 years, the Capillary Concrete bunker will have cost a total of 6,980 euro, or approximately 465 euros per year. The added benefit of having a great quality throughout the life of the bunker is not given any monetary value here, and also, this bunker is likely to last even longer than 15 years, bringing the annual cost of this investment down to below 400 euro or less, with a significantly higher quality playing surface during all of the years. 13 The two bunkers in the study. The left bunker following winter is without liner and the right bunker is with liner. The small amount of washout in the right bunker is significantly less than the damage to the left bunker. - Laid directly onto a prepared subsoil base. - Installed in 5.00m wide rolls to minimise joints. - Liner laid beyond the sand area by minimum 300mm and secured under a stacked turf edge - Anchors liner around perimeter - Allows for edging off - Prevents perimeter of liner being exposed Drawbacks of all artificial liner products mentioned: 1. All liners require a suitable drainage system to ensure performance which increases the overall cost of the project, (although bunker drainage should be installed either way.) 2. Significantly more expensive to install than the traditional method of bunker liner, ie: upturned turf. 3. Better Billy Bunker, Capillary Concrete and in particular Bunker Blinder can have a trampoline effect if the sand becomes too thin on the faces so some maintenance is required to ensure a consistent depth of sand. 4. Certain climatic conditions, (Frost, rainfall, high moisture content in the air,) can affect whether the liner can be installed. This doesn t apply to Hyline which can be installed in any weather conditions. Benefits of all artificial liner products mentioned: 1. Prevents migration of sub-surface material and stones that would otherwise contaminate sand. 2. Reduces damage caused by heavy rain events and repair time dramatically reduced. 3. Virtually eliminates contamination caused by washouts and fines that would normally clog up the drainage system after some time. 4. Bunkers drain very quickly providing consistent playing conditions that can be more easily achieved and retained. 5. Does not require regular topping up of sand to retain playing conditions. 6. Designed bunker shapes and sizes are more easily retained and bunker edging requirement is reduced.

8 Bu nker Style Options At Pollok G.C choosing the most appropriate style of bunkering is a crucial part of the project to rejuvenate the course and reinvigorate the membership. Selecting the wrong style of bunker could lead to maintenance issues whilst selecting a bunker style that could be deemed as a trend may look odd in years to come. Selecting the right style, however, will restore the classic heritage look of the course and give it timeless appeal. This is the approach that we would advocate for a club of the stature of Pollok G.C. 14 At Pollok G.C we are advocating a return to more a more classic / historic bunker style. The images on these pages are from 3 courses in the north of England, Moortown, alwoodley and Fulford, all of which Mackenzie was involved with and all of whom have recently embarked on bunker renovation programmes in order to restore the classic look and strategic value of their bunkering. 15 Please note the use of diagonal hazards to enhance strategic value and also note how comfortably all of the bunkers sit within larger landforms.

9 Hole By Hole Analysis 16 The following pages contain a hole by hole analysis of the current situation and illustrate our outline proposals for improvements to the bunkering. It must be stressed that these proposals provide initial high level designs to improve the aesthetic appeal and strategic value of the bunkering at Pollok Golf Club with a view to communicating the extent of works, likely disruption and estimated cost of the project. Should the club wish to proceed with any bunker upgrade work, more detailed design proposals will be required at each proposed location to ensure that the full impact of the bunker work is achieved. 17

10 HOLE 1 :- Ashtree Par Yards Greenside bunker on the left reduced in size to create new bunker with support mounding enhancing visual appearance of the bunker. Additional approach area created at the front left of the green. 18 The first hole provides a strong start to the round. The elevated tee gives the player an excellent view of the fairway which is framed by mature trees on either side. Consideration was given to adding a fairway bunker to improve the visual appeal of the hole but it was decided that, as this is the opening tee shot, it is sufficiently difficult. The green complex offers the opportunity for improvement. The bunker on the left is rather larger than necessary (which increases the maintenance costs) and the bunker on the right feels perched and detached from the green complex. Strategic Bunker Positioning: Greenside hazards are generally effective in their current location although the front right bunker is a little detached from the green. Its elevated lip is effective in hiding the view of the green behind it which will act as visual deception for a pin position on the right half of the green. Aesthetic Appeal: The left bunker is largely hidden from view for players on the fairway and is rather flat in appearance. By contrast the right bunker seems awkwardly perched above the approach level and as such it does not tie in well with its surrounding landforms. Technical Performance: The large size of the left bunker will always make it a maintenance issue as it requires significant attention to present it in good condition year round. Both bunkers however appear to perform reasonably in terms of drainage capacity. Our proposals are intended to reduce maintenance costs of the left bunker by reducing its size whilst also re-shaping it allowing it to be more visible from the fairway. Mounding behind the bunker will allow us to form a more interesting bunker shape and the landform will be more obvious from the fairway. We are proposing to restore the style to a more classic style of bunker design as indicated by the photos below. The right greenside bunker needs to influence the green more and we are proposing to move the bunker closer to the edge of the green and adding mounding behind the bunker to help it fit better into the green complex. To ensure that it influences the player more on their approach shot we are proposing to re-orientate the bunker so that it covers more of the front right of the green. An increased area of approach will now be available to the front left of the green to balance the perceived difficulty. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 102m2 Current right greenside bunker feels detached from the putting surface. Enlarge and re-orientate to bring it more across the front of the green. New bunker will sit closer to the putting surface and will therefore influence approach shots more. Small amount of support mounding required to allow bunker to sit comfortably within the surrounding landforms. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 168m2 Existing left greenside bunker Proposed look for upgraded bunkers 19

11 HOLE 2 :- Lodge Remove existing bunkers on the right hand side of the green. The back bunker doesn t add anything to the green complex or influence the playing strategy and the front right bunker needs to make way to allow the new approach strategy. 20 Par Yards The second hole is a fairly straightforward short par 4. The tee shot plays downhill to a landing zone that is almost entirely hidden from the player although the ground rises again in the approach allowing the player to see the green. The fairway falls from right to left which means that the fairway bunker, (despite its large size,) is hidden from view. The existing green bunkering defends the green reasonably well but with bunkers narrowing the green entrance on both sides it takes away any real strategy to playing the hole. By altering this configuration as we are proposing we feel there is the opportunity to significantly improve this golf hole strategically and aesthetically. Strategic Bunker Positioning: Greenside hazards are set up to narrow the green entrance. This is deploying the same green defence strategy as the first hole, (and many other holes to follow.) The positioning of the fairway bunker is good as it forces the player to think about how far to hit their tee shot but it would be far more effective if the bunker landform can be seen from the tee. The back right greenside bunker is rather redundant and doesn t add anything strategic or aesthetic to the green complex. Aesthetic Appeal: The fairway bunker has no aesthetic value currently and no landform to sit within. The left greenside bunker, although very large, could be easily modified to reduce the size (and therefore maintenance costs) while improving its visual appearance. Similar to the 1 st green the front right bunker seems awkwardly perched and somewhat detached from the green. Technical Performance: It was noted that the fairway bunker and the surrounding area are very wet and the natural fall of the land carries surface water from the fairway directly onto the bunker. The greenside bunkers seem to be performing better in terms of their drainage capability but the large left greenside bunker is particularly maintenance intensive. Our proposals are designed to create a much more strategic golf hole with a far greater aesthetic appeal. It is essential that the fairway bunker is visible from the tee and so we are proposing creating a landform for the new bunker to sit within. This will also help players to judge where the narrowing of the fairway is. We are proposing reconfiguring the large left greenside bunker into 2 much more manageable bunkers whilst at the same time creating additional green surround between them. As this is a short par 4 we are proposing a new bunker in the approach to create a strong diagonal ridge of hazards that create a more strategic approach area. We are proposing removal of the front right bunker as it mainly penalises a weak right shot and instead we are proposing to narrow the mid section of the green to place more emphasis on an accurate approach shot. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 255m2 The large existing greenside bunker is 165m2 in area which is very large. Whilst it does influence the approach shot to the green, its size makes it difficult to manage efficiently. Aesthetically the bunker will be improved through reshaping. We propose splitting the existing bunker into two smaller bunkers with a larger tongue of approach between them. Add a third bunker in the approach to create a strong diagonal bunker line, narrowing the approach and making distance judgement a little more tricky. Replace with a new bunker in the middle right of the green that will narrow the middle section of the green and place a premium on accuracy. Support mounding will help to integrate the bunker shape into the existing green. Retain fairway bunker but reduce size significantly and create more landform for it to sit in. Landform must be visible from the tee shot to make this bunker more effective and influence shot selection from the tee. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 496m2 Following persistent rain surface water gathers in and around the left fairway bunker. 21

12 HOLE 3 :- CowGlen Renovate existing left greenside bunker and create more green surround behind it. Remove back right greenside bunker and create more green surround. 22 Par Yards This is a much stronger par 4 hole with a tricky left to right bend over a rise in the fairway positioned at the turn of the dog-leg. We would expect this hole to be challenging for most players but perhaps much more challenging for the players who don t reach the dog-leg with their first shot. From the tee the fairway bunker is barely visible and the large knoll in the left semi-rough provides more definition. The large dense group of trees to the right of the dogleg mean that any short or sliced tee shot will result in a chip sideways back to the fairway. The green is again defended at the front on both the right and left but the natural slope of the approach coupled with its width provide a fair challenge for the approach shot. Strategic Bunker Positioning: Fairway bunker ideally located to catch an over-drawn drive at yards from the back tee although lack of visibility impacts effectiveness. Greenside bunkers at the front right and left provide a fair challenge but we would prefer to see more of the front right bunker. The back right bunker is completely hidden until the player reaches the green. Being long and right of the hole it is also unlikely to receive a lot of shots and is therefore an unnecessary maintenance cost. Aesthetic Appeal: The fairway bunker has no visual appeal currently but could provide a key visual from the tee. Minor renovation of the left greenside bunker in its current position would create a more inviting visual. The front right bunker has little visual impact from the fairway and the back right bunker should be removed. Technical Performance: Drainage performance of all bunkers appears satisfactory. The base shape of the front right greenside bunker is very flat and barely below the level of the surrounding area. We are proposing to improve the visual impact of the fairway bunker by creating a landform for the new bunker to sit within. By slightly reducing the size of the bunker and re-orientating it our proposals will open up the opportunity to create a pocket of fairway short of the bunker. This will give golfers something more positive to aim at for with this tricky tee shot. Our proposals at the green see us keep the same defence strategy at the front of the green with just a freshen up required to the left greenside bunker. We are proposing to reshape and re-orientate the front right bunker so that is more visible from the fairway. Mounding is proposed to help the bunker to sit better within the green complex and this will allow a run off area to be created to the back right of the green once the existing back right bunker is removed. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 180m2 Re orientate right greenside bunker pulling it more across the front of the green. A small amount of additional material is recommended to improve the aesthetic appeal of the bunker and promote a better integration with the green landform. Renovate existing fairway bunker reducing the size slightly. Add mounding to allow bunker to integrate to the surrounding landform and so that the bunker can be more easily seen from the tee. Small knoll could be removed to allow a different fairway line to be cut. Material arising can be used to create the bunker mounding. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 363m2 23

13 HOLE 4 :- Ta bl e Remove back bunkers and replace with mounding to hide path and visually separate the green from 16 th fairway. 24 Par Yards The expansive width of this fairway and various teeing options and angles offers the opportunity to create a very strategic and interesting golf hole but that potential is currently not being realised. The existing fairway bunker is hidden from the tee shot, (on most tees,) and is too far left to add any real impact to a golfer s decision making from the tee. The elevated green position is interesting but somewhat obscured by the front right greenside hazard. The two back greenside bunkers are hidden from view and don t really have any positive impact on the hole. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The existing fairway bunker is set up behind a group of trees and is completely hidden from the left tee positions. It is more in view from the right tee positions but is still largely out of play despite its huge size. This is the 4th hole in a row where the green is defended by front left and right hazards. This is considered to be a penal set up that prevents any real strategy to be employed. Whilst this is a recognised defence it shouldn t be used to defend every green complex. The back bunkers don t really perform any useful function as they are neither visual or particularity challenging to escape from. Aesthetic Appeal: None of the bunkers on this hole hold particular aesthetic value with the exception of the position and orientation of the front left greenside bunker which can be easily modified in its current position to offer an aesthetically pleasing bunker. Technical Performance: The large size of the left bunker will always make it a maintenance issue as it will require significant attention to present it in good condition year round. The greenside bunkers appear to have a good drainage capacity presumably due to the elevated nature of the green position. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 520m2 We feel there is an opportunity to radically improve the strategic value and visual appeal of this hole with a modest amount of bunker upgrade work. Moving the left fairway bunker more into the wide fairway will allow it to be seen from the tee and have a bigger influence on the tee shot. A new target bunker on the right of the fairway at around 300 yards will only be reachable downwind and by the best players but it adds a good target point from the tee and allows the fairway to narrow and slide between the two bunkers. We believe that this green complex could be one of the best on the course. Its elevated position allows bunkers to be placed naturally in the approach and in doing so the approach can be made much more interesting with increased strategic value. We are proposing to create a diagonal hazard line in the approach and a reduction in size of the existing left greenside bunker will allow a run off area behind it. By removing the front right greenside bunker the approach area can fall naturally to create a front run off slope and finally adding mounding to the back of the green will not only improve the separation of the green from the Right Of Way but create a much more aesthetically pleasing green complex. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 288m2 Reduce and reshape left greenside bunker adding support mounding to allow a run off area to be created behind the bunker. Remove existing right greenside bunker to allow new approach strategy to be deployed. Add an approach bunker to reinforce the aesthetic and create a stunning visual green complex and a trickier approach shot. Create new target bunker on the far right of the fairway. This will only influence the longest players on down wind days but acts as a good target for all players. This also strengthens the right to left dogleg and places a premium on positioning your tee shot for the best angle to approach the green. Fill in existing left fairway bunker and replace with a smaller bunker that influences play more. Support mounding is required to integrate the bunker into a landform and ensure bunker can be seen from the tee. Remove whins which currently block the view of the left side of the fairway. 25

14 HOLE 5 :- Hippenstanes Renovate existing back left bunker adding support mounding to improve bunker integration and visual impact from the fairway. Par Yards Re-orientate front right bunker moving across the front right of the green. Support mounding will again help bunker integration and allow the creation of a run off area to the right of the green. The 5 th tee shot plays to a wide landing zone but this is fair as the hole plays into the prevailing wind. Much of the left fairway bunker is hidden and the right fairway bunker will be out of range for most average players when the prevailing wind is blowing. The approach bunkers which are some 40 yards short of the green can come into play for the weaker players or those who have already found sand with their tee shot but otherwise they are largely out of play, although they do add some good visual deception. Although the green is once again defended on both sides the bunker on the left protects the middle and back of the green which leaves a wide approach area to the front left of the green. Our proposals are intended to improve the bunker orientations and conditioning and promote better fairway definition. Both fairway bunkers are well positioned but much larger than necessary. Therefore adding support mounding around smaller sand areas will allow the fairway to feel like it is moving between these landforms adding definition to the tee shot. Consideration was given to removing the approach bunkers entirely but the land is very flat and it was felt that having a bunker in the approach, although of limited strategic value, adds important definition to the hole and keeping only one of the bunkers also allowed us to move the fairway around them in a much more interesting way. Remove right bunker of the two approach bunkers. Re-orientate left bunker and narrow fairway through this part of the approach to create a stronger aesthetic. Reduce size and re-orientate fairway bunker. Add mounding behind and to the right of the bunker for better landform integration and to be more visually effective from the tee. 26 Strategic Bunker Positioning: Each bunker position on this hole has value and so the focus here is strengthening the strategic merit of the bunkers and their interaction with the fairway and green. Aesthetic Appeal: Clearly an obscured bunker has little aesthetic appeal and we want to ensure that all bunkers are relevant and clearly in view. The right fairway bunker on the right is more visual but we feel that some support mounding will further enhance this bunker and allow the fairway to look like it is turning around this bunker. The shape of the approach bunkers dot add any aesthetic value currently. Freshening up the look of the greenside bunkers would dramatically improve the visual appeal green complex. At the green we recommend reshaping the entire area around the left bunker to improve the drainage situation in this high traffic area. Finally we are proposing to move the front right bunker more across the front of the green to re-inforce the approach strategy. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 378m2 Reduce size by removing the left half of the existing bunker. Renovate bunker and add support mounding to make it a more effective hazard which is more easily visible from the tee. Technical Performance: The unnecessarily large size of both fairway bunkers creates a maintenance issue as it requires significant attention to present it in good condition year round. Whilst the bunker on the left of the green seems to drain well the area surrounding it traps water and as this is a high traffic area it would be advisable to solve this issue when renovating this bunker. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 627m2 Following persistent rain surface water becomes trapped around the left greenside bunker. 27

15 H OLE 6 :- Dams h o t Re-orientate back left bunker and add mounding for landform integration. By re-orientating this bunker additional space is created to form a more effective run off area between the two bunkers. Par Yards As there are only 3 par 3 s on the golf course it is very important to for each of these holes to stand out and the 6 th hole certainly has the potential to do so. The green angle of front right to back left fits the land brilliantly and the bunker positions are well set up to both defend the green and create a pleasing hole visually. Our proposals here are therefore about enhancing this hole to maximize its potential. Strategic Bunker Positioning: As indicated above the bunker hazards are ideally positioned to defend the green and work well with the natural lie of the land and angle of the green. Aesthetic Appeal: The bunkers complement the green complex well. The natural slopes have been well used to place bunkers in that are both effective strategically and aesthetically. Technical Performance: Drainage of the front left bunker needs to be addressed but the other two bunkers seem to be functioning well. We are proposing renovating the three greenside bunkers to further improve their aesthetic appeal. Re-orientating the back bunker will create more space between the bunkers for an increased run off area. Re-orientation of the right greenside bunker will allow it to sit more comfortably in its current position and some support mounding behind it will improve the visual aspect and the bunker s connection with the green. It will also allow a run off area to the back right of the green. Finally altering the mowing of the approach to take in more of the ground in front of the front left greenside bunker will also create a larger run off area and a much more interesting and aesthetic visual for the hole. With these changes we believe that his hole will become a stunning par 3 with challenge and visual stimulation in equal measure. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 154m2 Slightly enlarge right hand greenside bunker and add support mounding to make the bunker more visible from the tee. This will also allow a run off area to be created at the back right of the green. Renovate existing bunker keeping current size and orientation. The visual appeal of the hole would be further enhanced by extending the approach further down the front left of the green. 28 Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 170m2 Existing left greenside bunkers Proposed bunkers with increased run off area 29

16 H OLE 7 :- Lawbush Reduce the size of the right greenside bunker and use existing falls to create a more maintained run off area. 30 Par Yards The first par 5 on the course is a sweeping right to left dogleg. This is well framed by a mature tree on the left edge of the start of the fairway. The fairway bunkers on the right are reasonably well positioned to catch a leaked tee shot. From here the fairway rises gradually to the green. There is a wide fairway between the first and second landing zones that is uninspiring with no real visual definition. Consideration should be given to altering the fairway / semi-rough perimeters to improve the definition. The position of the approach bunkering is effective in defending the approach area although the bunkers lack visual definition or appeal. This hole does offer a good birdie opportunity that will be welcomed by golfers at this stage of their round. Strategic Bunker Positioning: As indicated above the positioning of the bunkers is generally effective at defending the landing zones and the green however their size, orientation and landscape integration are currently poor resulting in bland looking hazards. Aesthetic Appeal: This hole occupies a wide corridor and therefore visual definition is very important. Currently the bunker design does not assist in the creation of a strong hole identity. By adding the mounding around the bunkers as proposed there is the opportunity to enhance the strategic and visual impact of the bunkers. Technical Performance: The large size is again the main issue with the bunkers in that it creates a maintenance problem and many additional man hours will be spent preparing the sand areas. In terms of drainage all bunkers seem to perform well. This hole offers a great opportunity for dramatic improvements at modest cost just by carrying out the proposed bunker alterations. The proposed new fairway bunkers will help the visual definition from the tee as well as narrowing the fairway for the longest players. The approach bunkers whilst effective in their positioning are rather large and with their axis parallel to the hole with little surrounding landform they don t have the visual impact that they could. Our proposals seek to reduce the sand area and re-orientate the bunkers such that they frame the fairway / approach much better. At the green we feel that just reducing and upgrading the style of the greenside bunker should be sufficient to give the green complex a fresh feel with the reduced bunker area allowing more space for a run off area to be prepared offering more shot variety. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 356m2 Tighten approach strategy by reducing the size of the bunker but re-orientating it more across the fairway. Support mounding will further increase the bunker s influence. Similarly re-orientate the right side approach bunker to tighten the approach and force the golfer to take on the challenge or lay up and leave a longer third shot. Create a new, more challenging fairway bunker complex by reorientating the existing second fairway bunker, adding a second bunker at 270 yard run out and narrowing fairway by adding mounding behind bunkering. Remove first fairway bunker on the right which currently only really penalises the weaker players. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 670m2 Existing fairway bunkering Orientation of proposed bunkering 31

17 H OLE 8 :- Warren Renovate existing right greenside bunker in its current position. Par Yards Remove approach bunker. Move and re-orientate left greenside bunker so that it exerts a greater influence on the front left of the green. 32 The 8 th hole is a right to left dogleg that rises to a high point at the landing zone before falling over a ridge back down the green. The mature trees on either side of the fairway offer superb definition. The existing fairway hazard positioning currently penalises a weak sliced shot which is something our proposals seek to address. The green and surroundings area are pretty flat and the existing bunkers don t help to add additional interest as they are very shallow and bland in their appearance. Despite this the hole, and in particular the tee shot, could become much more exciting by adjusting the bunker positioning to enhance the visual definition and strategy. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The fairway bunkers are positioned to catch the weaker drives and the better players are not really challenged to consider their shot from the tee. The fairway bunkers are also very shallow and don t really offer much of a challenge to escape from. To the better player this is not really a difficult shot to recover from. Greenside bunker positions provide reasonable defence of the hole even though their appearance lacks visual appeal. Aesthetic Appeal: Bunkers are all particularly shallow both in the fairway and at the green and this detracts from the visual definition of this hole. We are proposing to reconfigure the fairway bunkering to offer an opportunity for a heroic carry over a ridge that extends diagonally into the fairway. This ridge will host two bunkers. The right to left nature of the hole lends itself perfectly to this strategy whereby the fairway is very wide before the hazard and narrows dramatically at a key position to force the golfer to make a decision about what type of challenge they are prepared to take on. Successfully negotiating the hazard will give the player a significantly shorter second shot than the player who plays short or right of it but with the removal of the first fairway bunker on the right there is plenty space to bail out. With the new fairway hazard position we feel that the approach bunker is no longer required as this would be overly penal on those players who have hit a poor tee shot. Re-positioning the left greenside bunker across the front of the green is sufficient defence of the left side of the green and allows the area where the current approach bunker sit to be regraded to divert surface water away into the heavy rough. The right greenside bunker is well placed and just requires reshaping to improve its aesthetic appeal. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 316m2 Adjust approach cut as shown to enhance visual appearance and allow short approach shots to feed into right bunker. Move fairway bunker to new position which will catch the better players who have tried to take on the challenge but sliced their tee shot too much. Add new bunker complex on the left of the fairway to reinforce the right to left dogleg and add more challenge and visual interest to the tee shot. Mounding required to create a believable landform for the new complex and ensure it has the desired impact from the tee. Remove existing bunker which currently only penalises the weaker players and adjust fairway cut to reinforce new strategy. Technical Performance: The area to the left of the green collects surface water from the entire second part of the fairway and any bunker alterations in this area should consider how to ensure better drainage at the front left of the green. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 423m2 33

18 H OLE 9 :- Par Yards 34 Renovate existing bunker and add support mounding for better landform integration with the green. Half - Way The 9th hole is, in our opinion, the most challenging hole on the front nine. It is a long par 4 that plays generally into the wind. The fairway landing zone is however generous enough to allow most players to hit the fairway or semi-rough and have the chance to reach the green in two shots. The trees that encroach for the second shot are a significant hindrance to anyone trying to reach the green from the right rough or fairway bunker as the overhanging branches make this angle of approach very narrow. The large fairway bunker on the right edge of the fairway is almost 30 yards in length. Whilst this may therefore catch a number of shots, the size of the bunker means that most players have a relatively easy recovery shot and better players can easily recover from this bunker and reach the green with their second shot. We spent considerable time discussing design options for this hole before deciding on our proposals. We recognise that this is a tough hole and wish to retain the challenge for the better players but also offer the weaker player the opportunity to make bogey with relative ease. Strategic Bunker positioning: The left fairway bunker will catch the odd shot but is largely redundant and unspectacular in form. The right side bunker is effectively positioned but consideration should be given to the fact that a player is already reasonably penalised for leaking a tee shot right due to the overhanging branches they will have to negotiate for the second shot. The green is very effectively bunkered in terms of their position and impact that this has on the golfer s approach shot. Aesthetic Appeal: The fairway bunkering is poor in appearance. The left bunker is poorly orientated and very shallow and the right bunker is aligned parallel to the fairway which means that it s visual impact is not as dramatic as it could be. Minor tweaking of the orientation of the greenside bunkers will help them to provide a more integrated green complex with more visual impact. We therefore decided that a new fairway bunker set within a defining landform to the left of the fairway at around yards would provide sufficient challenge for a good golfer but probably not influence an average hitter. We concluded that by placing a bunker here it may force some player to the right in order to avoid the bunker and this will leave them a much harder approach shot to the green due to the overhanging tree branches and the angle of the green. We intend to further tighten the entry to the front right of the green by re-orientating the front right bunker. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 205m2 Re-orientate and renovate existing front right bunker to cover more of the front of the green. Remove existing right fairway bunker on this challenging hole. Any player who is on the right of the fairway or in the semirough has a difficult task to find the green as he is semi-blocked by the trees so this is deemed as sufficient penalty for missing a drive right. Add new fairway bunker within significant new landform at yards distance from the tee. This will become the main challenge from the tee but those who successfully negotiate it will have the best approach angle to the green. Remove existing left hand fairway bunker which is hidden from the tee and largely out of play for the better players. Technical Performance: The large size of the right fairway bunker present a maintenance headache. This is the largest bunker on the course and is at least double the size that it needs to be. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 441m2 35

19 H OLE 10 :- Par Yards Su nken Fence The back nine starts with a good par 4 that plays generally downwind. The large variation in tee positions makes hazard positioning on this hole more tricky. The main feature on this hole is the large swale on both side of the ditch that runs across the entire front of the green. As the ground leading up to the ditch is very flat the presence and location of the ditch has to be learnt by the members and this provides one of the only real hidden quirks of the layout. The spread of existing bunkers does make the tee shot quite disconcerting as the player is not really sure which bunker will affect their playing ability. We would prefer to employ a simpler and more obvious hazard strategy that reinforces how the designer wishes the hole to be played rather than a more scattered approach to hazard positioning. We are proposing to create a more aesthetically pleasing tee shot by re-orientating the first two bunkers and adding support mounding to each to enable the bunkers to take a much more interesting shape. The green complex on this hole is interesting and well defined and only small bunker tweaks are required to make it a stand-out green complex. Renovate existing greenside bunkers and extend approach cut more around the left bunker to improve green complex aesthetic. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The first two fairway bunkers are well placed to impact playing strategy and influence the player but the third bunker 30 yards short of the ditch is not really necessary in our opinion. The green hazards complement the green design well and only minor tweaking is required to create an excellent green complex. We don t feel that the bunker short of the ditch is necessary, and only really penalises players who have already hit a poor tee shot. As we ve already stated the green complex is interesting and hazards well place, therefore renovating the bunkers in their current situation will be sufficient to lift the visual appeal and create a high quality green complex. Remove fairway bunker which only penalises those players who can t reach the green in two shots. Move left fairway bunker so that it is in range for more players. Add support mounding for landform integration and to ensure good visibility from the tee. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 291m2 Renovate existing bunker and add mounding to improve landform integration and aesthetic appeal of the bunker. Aesthetic Appeal: As this part of the property is very flat the bunkers and the landforms that they sit within are key to adding definition and visual appeal to the golf course. Unfortunately the current bunker shapes are quite bland and the lack of support mounding results in an ineffective aesthetic that doesn t help to define the hole. Technical Performance: The drainage of all bunkers is satisfactory which is good news given the low lying and flat nature of this hole. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 472m2 37

20 H OLE 11 :- Crookston Existing right greenside bunker is mostly hidden by the rising ground and the tree canopy. Move and re-orientate so that it sits more in the slope at the front right of the green becoming more visible for the approach shot. 38 Par Yards This is another hole where the current fairway bunker positioning has little impact on the better players and unfairly penalises the average hitter. With the bunkers positioned between 185 and 225 yards from the back tee and well to the right of the playline they are irrelevant for lower handicap players. They are also partially hidden from view by trees which further reduces their influence. Whilst the fairway narrows dangerously on the left there is plenty of space currently for a player to hit a fairway wood, or even driver to the right edge of the fairway. This does leave a trickier approach angle but this would be preferable for most golfers rather than laying back and bringing the bunkers into play. The approach shot up the hill is tricky for judging distance, particularly as it is into the prevailing wind as this tends to stall the ball on uphill shots. Strategic Bunker Positioning: As noted above the fairway bunkers should be moved to influence the better player as they currently only penalise the weaker golfers. The green is well defended, not only by the bunkers but also the mature tree that overhangs the right half of the green. Aesthetic Appeal: As the fairway bunkers are partially hidden from the tee they have little impact either strategic or aesthetically. The greenside bunkers are strangely perched at the top of the hill when it would be more natural and aesthetically pleasing to have them set into the slope. Technical Performance: As can be seen from the picture below the construction of this bunker is poor as it has no lip and is therefore just a perched area of sand. We feel that this hole has significant potential to be one of the most interesting holes on the course by altering the bunker positions. We are proposing to remove the current fairway bunkering and create a new fairway bunker complex supported by mounding on the right of the fairway at a distance of yards from the tee. Having the bunkers at this distance will only impact the better players but it will also help to define the right edge of the hole and narrow the fairway at a key distance for the better player putting a premium on accuracy for those who are trying to hit the ball further. At the green we are proposing to make the right of the green more challenging to hit but create a larger approach on the front left of the green by moving the left bunker further into the green. This will strike the right balance between challenge and visual appeal and will turn this hole into a strong par 4 both visually and strategically. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 229m2 By moving and re-orientating the left bunker hazard an increased area of approach is available at the front left of the green whilst the middle of the green will be better defended by the bunker. Mounding is essential to ensure visibility of the bunker complex from the fairway. Narrow the fairway at yards by adding 2 fairway bunkers set into new mounding. This will ensure that better golfers will have to consider their tee shot more carefully and the prudent play will be to lay up short of these bunkers accepting that it will result in a longer second shot. Remove both existing fairway bunkers which currently only penalise poor tee shots by weaker players. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 311m2 The first fairway bunker is almost flat and also has no lip so it appears like an area of perched sand rather than a bunker. 39

21 H OLE 12 :- Corkerhill Add support mounding behind the bunker on the left to improve its integration with the green Par Yards surrounds and allow it to be more visible from the tee. 40 It is unusual for the second par 3 on the course to be so late in the round but it is worth waiting for. This is a tricky but interesting hole that requires a good tee shot to hit the green. If you fail a tricky recovery no doubt awaits as the land falls away to the sides and back of the green. The bunkers are effective in their defence of the green and the bunker on the right is a good example of how a well positioned bunker fits seamlessly into the complex. By contrast the slopes around the bunker on the left are quite severe which makes the bunker sit awkwardly. Strategic Bunker positioning: As suggested above the positioning of the existing greenside bunkers is effective to defend the green. Aesthetic Appeal: The right greenside bunker is seamless in its integration with the green complex and the surrounding land. The bunker on the left, by contrast, sits awkwardly perched above its surroundings. Technical Performance: No comments, both bunkers are adequate size and have good drainage capability with possible positive outfalls to lower areas. As we commented on the 6 th hole, as there are only 3 par 3 s on the course it is important that each stands out and has its own identity. Another consideration is to have a good balance of par 3 s in terms of how the approach angle is set. The 6 th and 17 th have approach angles that favour a drawn shot and currently this hole is virtually straight on to the player. Our proposal is to use the natural ground to the front right of the green to locate an additional bunker which change the visual dynamic of this hole, encouraging a shot from left to right to help balance the shape of the par 3 s. This is more of a visual trick rather than requiring a faded shot but the hole would benefit from the additional bunker to enhance its aesthetic appeal. To improve the green complex further we are proposing to add mounding behind the left greenside bunker so that it appears more connected to the green complex. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 162m2 Renovate existing greenside bunker in its current position. Add a further greenside / approach bunker creating a more interesting visual dynamic for the hole. Adjust approach cut to reinforce an approach angle from the left. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 138m2 41

22 H OLE 13 :- Haggs View Reduce in size and renovate right greenside bunker adding mounding to allow bunker complex to be more aesthetically pleasing and integrate more with surrounding landforms. Remove existing back left bunker 42 Par Yards It is a quirk of this routing that some of the best opportunities for strategic design are on the holes which dog-leg from right to left and this hole is another which presents a wonderful opportunity to create a very strategic or heroic option from the tee that is not currently being taken advantage of. With the fairway defence being set at a distance of 240 yards from an elevated tee position the weaker hitters are being challenged and the better players have relatively little to consider. The small narrow green is certainly one of the most quirky on the course and offers good variety of challenge on what is otherwise a pretty easy hole currently. The green is probably narrower than we would normally recommend and this can lead to wear issues but it certainly does demand accuracy from the approach shot. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The current fairway bunker positioning has little strategic value provided you can carry the ball more than 240 yards. If you cannot then the bunker positioning is very penal. The greenside bunkers are effective to defend the narrow angled green but the scale of the right bunker is perhaps inappropriate being too large for the size of the green. Aesthetic Appeal: The right fairway bunker is partially hidden from the tee and its shape doesn t add anything to the hole definition. The left fairway bunker is perched above the fairway but it does provide good visual definition from the tee. With some minor reshaping work the greenside bunkers could create a pleasing green complex. Technical Performance: The large right fairway bunker is virtually flat and is poorly constructed without any real shape or features. Whilst we haven t observed the performance of the greenside bunkers in the winter we would expect this area to drain poorly and it is heavily overshadowed by mature trees so light and air circulation is likely to be poor. This hole naturally lends itself to creating risk and reward options from the tee. Our proposal seeks to take advantage of the right to left dogleg by positioning bunkers to create a diagonal line of hazards through which the fairway will flow. This creates hazards at different distances from the tee and ensures that all levels of ability are challenged to think about their shot and execute it well to gain advantage. Playing short of the fairway bunkers leaves a longer approach to the demanding green. The green is small and our feeling is the it does not require three medium size bunkers to defend it. We are proposing to defend the front left of the green by renovating the existing bunker in position and defend the middle of the green by reducing the size but shaping a more gathering bunker on the right. This allows more run off areas in the front right and back left areas of the green adding to the variety to the type of recovery shot that must be played. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 304m2 and create run off area. Renovate existing left greenside bunker in its current position. Create more run off approach area behind knoll to the front right of the green. Add two diagonal bunker hazards to reinforce the dogleg and add challenge for players wishing to take on a bold play from the tee. Remove existing left fairway bunker. Renovate existing fairway bunker in its current position reducing sand area and adding mounding behind it to help create the visual impact of the diagonal line of hazards. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 364m2 The first greenside bunker on the left is trapping water during summer rainfall events so we would anticipate that the winter situation is worse. 43

23 H OLE 14 :- Par Yards Rhannan Remove existing back left bunker and create run off area Another right to left dogleg hole that offers the better golfer a considerable advantage over the average hitters. On playing this hole for the first time the biggest surprise is just how far left one can hit a tee shot and be in good position for the approach shot. Whilst we would never seek to stop people from taking on this option as it is one of the few risk / reward tee shots on the course, we feel that there is currently no real risk to taking on this shot and this provides too much of an advantage to the long hitters. It is a pity that the vegetation on the inside bank of the river cannot be cut to permit a better / fuller view of the real landing zone for drives but this must be viewed as a quirk that offers home advantage. We wish to create a better balance of risk and reward on the tee shot of this hole and therefore propose to add a bunker set within a significant landform on the left of the fairway. To create this strategy we need players to think more carefully about their tee shot and wish to create more anticipation as to whether they avoid the bunker or not. In any case, as there is no real penalty for aiming slightly further right, this will become the prudent play. The green is heavily guarded by 4 bunkers but their positioning is rather penal with no bailout and errants shot in any direction, (short, long, left or right,) are likely to end up in sand. The green is beautifully angled to set up hazards strategically but this is not reflected in the current arrangement of bunkers. Renovate existing right greenside bunker adding mounding to improve its appearance and landform integration. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The fairway bunker is almost completely redundant only affecting the shorter hitters who don t have the ability to try to carry the edge of the river. It should therefore be removed. As mentioned above the hazard positioning at the green is penal rather that strategic and any errant approach is likely to find a bunker. At the green we see the opportunity to add much more strategy to the approach shot by reconfiguring the arrangement of bunkers, altering the best approach angle and creating a run off area to the back left. This will not only add strategic value but will create a much more interesting and visually unique green complex. This also allows a wider walk off area, spreading out the wear and making it easier to maintain a healthy sward. Re-orientate and renovate existing front left bunker in position. Remove right approach bunker and replace with a diagonal bunker hazard. Adjust the approach cut to reinforce the strategy and create a more strategic green complex that will also be more aesthetically interesting. Add a fairway bunker to catch drives that have been too bold from the tee. Further work would be required to determine its visibility, but even if players cannot to see the bunker they will learn that being too brave from the tee may result in finding this bunker. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 283m2 Remove existing fairway bunker which is rather detached from the target line and only penalises the weaker player. Aesthetic Appeal: The fairway bunker has no aesthetic or strategic value and should be removed. Whilst the current bunkering at the green has more aesthetic value than some other complexes the front right bunker is still rather perched in appearance. Technical Performance: The fairway bunker and back left and right bunkers are poorly shaped and orientated and therefore they don t add anything significant to the hole currently. Wear is also concentrated between the two left greenside bunkers making it more difficult to maintain a healthy sward. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 383m2 45

24 H OLE 15 :- Bridge Renovate existing left greenside bunker in position but reducing the sand area and setting it more into the existing slope. Par Yards Re-orientate and renovate existing right greenside bunker in position but moving more across the green. Add new approach bunker on the left edge of the fairway to narrow fairway at second turnpoint. 46 This is a demanding hole where a long drive requires an accurate tee shot to have any chance of success. The dogleg is well guarded by the mature trees on the right and framed and balanced beautifully by the mature specimen to the left. Having successfully found the fairway a long second shot still awaits. Disappointingly the second half of the hole doesn t offer the same visual drama as the tee shot and, similar to the 7 th hole, there is not much definition between the first and second turnpoints. At the green the bunkers once again seem excessively big and unnecessarily perched above the green. As this is an elevated position we would expect that the bunkers could sit much more naturally in the green surrounds rather than obscuring the green surface. Strategic Bunker positioning: The approach bunker on the right is generally well positioned although once again the orientation is parallel to the line of play which diminishes its visual impact and strategic influence. The green is defended by bunkers at the front right and left. This is an effective strategy as approach shots into this green will range widely from 3 woods and long irons right the way through to short pitch or chip shots. This make strategic hazard positioning much more difficult. Aesthetic Appeal: The approach bunker and the two bunkers at the green would all benefit from renovation work to improve their landscape integration and aesthetic appeal. The approach bunker is unusually large but despite its size offers very little in the way of visual impact on the hole. A smaller, well shaped and well integrated bunker could improve the visual appeal and be easier to maintain. As mentioned above it is somewhat disappointing that there is a lack of visual interest for the second and approach shot when compared to the drive which is much more visually inspiring. We considered many options as to how to improve the second shot on this hole including creating a ridge of bunkers that split the fairway somewhere between the first and second turnpoints but as this hole is on a gradual incline it would take significant work to achieve the desired effect and not block the view of the green. As this is a bunker review only we have scaled back our proposals to make the best of the current situation but feel that there is still much more opportunity available to improve this hole which could begin the push for home in more dramatic style. Currently we are suggesting that the existing approach bunker should be reduced in size, re-orientated more across the line of play and support mounding should be added behind. We are also proposing to add a second approach bunker on the left, set into the slope, so that it does not block the view of the green behind it. At the green we would like to the see the left bunker set more into the slope at the front of the green and the right bunker re-orientated to have a larger influence on the front right of the green. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 362m2 Reduce size, re-orientate and renovate existing bunker. Add support mounding to improve bunker aesthetic and ensure it is visible from the fairway. Consideration was given to adding a fairway bunker at the first dog-leg point but it was deemed that, with the mature tree overhanging the left edge of the fairway, the tee shot is sufficiently challenging. With the new hazard positioning in the approach and at the green the hole is sufficiently defended and we would prefer to encourage players to have the option to hit driver on this long hole as opposed to feeling like the fairway is too narrow to risk using a driver. Technical Performance: The large size of the approach bunker and the left greenside bunker probably leads to maintenance issues with the length of time it takes to maintain this large sand area. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 433m2 47

25 H OLE 16 :- Dowgate Renovate existing left greenside bunker and add mounding to improve bunker aesthetic. 48 Par Yards The 16 th is a relatively short dogleg par 4 but it requires a well positioned tee shot to ensure a clear second shot into the green. The existing fairway bunker is positioned at around 180 yards which we would not normally recommend but in this instance it performs an important function of assisting the safety of the Right of Way and 4 th green. As the fairway bends from right to left up the hill the actual turnpoint is mostly hidden from the players view from the tee but the large specimen tree that indicated the right and side of the green offers the player a good aim point. The green is nicely framed on the left by the tree protecting the 17 th tee and on the right by the large specimen tree that lies between the back of the green and the 3 rd back tee. As with many of the other existing bunkers the right greenside bunker seems to sit awkwardly and doesn t flow well into the green surface with some very steep slopes which are difficult to maintain. The green and natural slope of the land falls away to the right but the top of the bunker is unnecessarily high which results in this very steep faced bunker. The bunker on the left of the green has a completely contrasting style as it is strangely flat. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The fairway bunker is again really only penalising the weaker player but in this instance we feel it must remain to help protect the ROW and other players on the 4 th green. In particular the right greenside bunker dominates the green complex and is effectively placed to catch any approach shots that fall off the front right of the green. The left bunker which defends the mid section of the green is also well placed. Aesthetic Appeal: The sand in the fairway bunker is visible from the tee which is good but the shape of the bunker is rather bland. The right greenside bunker certainly dominates the visual of the green but this is more because of the awkward way it seems to fight the lie of the land. The left greenside bunker is flat in appearance and has no real definition. Technical Performance: It is often said that a bunker should be a half shot penalty but on this hole the fairway bunker and left greenside bunker offer no real penalty at all and contrastingly the steep slope on the right greenside bunker makes it probably closer to a full shot penalty. Proposals to alter the bunker positioning on this hole to improve the playing strategy are somewhat limited due the lie of the land, existing trees and proximity to the ROW. Therefore the focus on this hole needs to be improving the aesthetic appeal of the existing bunkering. Adding a second fairway bunker and placing mounding to create a believable landform will help to define the right side of this hole as well as assist with safety considerations on the slice side. The greenside bunkers are well positioned and coupled with the mature tree which overhangs the left side of the approach offer sufficient challenge and interest. Renovating the greenside bunkers will make the approach to this green much more visually stimulating and improving the playability of the right greenside bunker will promote a fairer recovery opportunity for those who miss the green right as well as making the ongoing maintenance less challenging. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 265m2 Renovate existing front right bunker to improve visual appearance, ease the steep slopes & allowing a run off area to be created behind it. Add new fairway bunker and integrated mounding to further protect ROW and create better separation from the 4th green. Re-orientate and renovate existing bunker in its current position. Integrate into the new mounding reinforcing the visual from the tee. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 241m2 49

26 H OLE 17 :- Avenue Renovate existing back left bunker in position so that its style mirrors the style of the other new bunkers. Par Yards Remove middle bunker and reshape area to form a run off area. This hole has already undergone a relatively recent renovation and there are mixed feelings about the new green complex. Our opinion is that having three bunkers across the approach is perhaps a little penal for the average club golfer. The shapes that have been created however would allow easy renovation of the bunkering which would significantly improve the aesthetic appeal of this hole bringing it in line with the quality of the other two par 3 s. Strategic Bunker Positioning: We are aware that there has been a lot of debate within the club regarding the fairness of the bunker that sits directly in the line of play. However we feel that without this bunker the hole would be very bland and rather lacking in challenge. This is the penultimate hole and players should be expecting to be challenged at this stage in their round. On this hole we are proposing to remove the middle bunker of the three and to create a run-off area at the front left of the green. The existing landform lends itself well to creating this and it then allows the remaining bunkers to be much more effectively designed. The far left bunker just requires renovation to upgrade the style and we are proposing to re-orientate the bunker in the direct line of play such that it is more diagonally positioned. This will allow the approach fairway to be reconfigured to reveal a much more classic strategy and stronger visual indication of how the shot should be played. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 96m2 Enlarge and renovate front bunker orientating it to create a diagonal hazard across the line of play. Adjust fairway and approach cut to improve the aesthetic of the hole and allow the approach to feed balls in from the right. 50 Aesthetic Appeal: Bunkers sit more comfortably within the surrounding land and in particular the two bunkers on the left are well integrated into the surrounding landform. The bunker in the middle is in need of renovation to make more of a statement. The green surface itself provides a significant challenge on this hole which seems out of keeping with the other green surfaces on the course. Technical Performance: In contrast to many of the other greenside hazards the sand area of these bunkers is much smaller. This should help to prove that the shaping around the bunkers is equally important to the effectiveness of a bunker as the actual sand area. These bunkers sit much more comfortably in the landscape than many of the other greenside bunkers on the course and although we still feel that the bunkers would benefit from a fresh look they are a good example of the importance of landscape integration. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 138m2 Existing 17th hole green complex Proposed 17th hole with larger run off area 51

27 H OLE 18 :- Hom e Move left greenside bunker closer to green edge adding support mounding for better integration into the green complex. 52 Par Yards From the seldom used back tee this is a challenging tee shot to a narrowing fairway. In many ways the same applies from the forward tee positions since the fairway continues to narrow all the way up the hill. Any tee shot that is on the left edge of the fairway or the semi-rough has a tough second shot with the overhanging trees increasing the difficulty of the approach shot. The best line in is from the right of the fairway but it is tricky to get a tee shot to stop in that area. The elevated green makes distance judgement with the second shot particularly challenging as players have to adjust their approach to allow for wind and elevation change. It is certainly a tricky closing hole but it currently lacks visual drama and there is also no real strategy to intrigue the golfer. Strategic Bunker Positioning: The fairway appearance and the strategy of the hole in general would benefit significantly by having a fairway hazard. The left greenside bunker is mostly hidden from with and is somewhat detached from the green complex and therefore has very little influence on the player. The right greenside bunker is much more visible and is a reasonable defence of the front right of the green. It is rather a small bunker though, (in fact the smallest on the course by sand area) and therefore its influence is limited. Aesthetic Appeal: The left bunker is mostly hidden from view for players and therefore has very little influence. The visibility could be improved by bringing it closer to the green edge. The right bunker is a better example of using the natural terrain to make a bunker look like it belongs however its small size limits its effectiveness and the area run off area immediately behind it is rather penal as it is completely hidden from the players view. Technical Performance: The small right hand bunker feels out of keeping with the scale of most of the rest of the bunkers on the course and has a very steep sand face which will be difficult to maintain. Our goal here is to improve the visual appearance of the closing hole by adding a fairway bunker set into the slope on the left of the fairway. This proposed positioning will put it out of range for most from the back tee but from the medal and regular tees this bunker will have an influence. It is expected that this will add visual definition that is currently lacking on the tee shot and the alterations to the fairway cut brought about by the addition of this bunker will also make a significant visual improvement. At the green we are proposing to enlarge and soften the shape of the right greenside bunker, bringing it more across the front right of the green and adding mounding behind it to improve the landscape integration. Adding support mounding will also lessen the potential for approach shots to be carried off the green via the severe hidden run off behind the bunker. Finally we are proposing to bring the left greenside bunker closer to the green and also add some support mounding to help tie it into the green complex and make it more visible from the right half of the fairway. Proposed 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 157m2 Enlarge and re-orientate right greenside bunker adding support mounding behind to soften tie-in to the green ensuring that approach shots won t run off the right edge of the green as easily. Add a new fairway bunker set into the base of the slope on the left hand side of the fairway. This may be out of the reach from the Championship tees but will definitely influence shot selection from the medal and regular tees, particularly for the better players. Existing 3D area of bunker hazard, (Lined Area): 107m2 53

28 Full Course Development Proposals 54 55