Clubs happy to pay going rate for L'Ancresse course

The most important question is:

Is a 'fair share' –

a. 50% of an unsubstantiated budget of somewhere between £80,000 and £248,800 for an extravagant wish list of maintenance items for an area of the Commons not used by and of little concern to the clubs? or

b. The logical and professional opinion of an eminent chartered surveyor, specialising in golf courses who, after taking into consideration many similar courses in the United Kingdom, states 'a fair fee for L'Ancresse golf links lies between £32,000 and £35,000 per year'?

The golf clubs do not want to negotiate in the media, however they would like to take this opportunity to place in the public arena facts that correct some factually misleading comments made by others.

The clubs wholeheartedly accept that it is only fair that they should pay the going rate for the land that they use. They should pay no more than the going rate. To be asked to pay more is to apply a tax on golfers.

Continually articles mention that the Vale Commons Council receive £100 per annum for the use of the area of land used as a golf course at L'Ancresse. This is the figure that the VCC and the States of Guernsey agreed at the commencement of the original agreement. What is seldom mentioned is that the clubs offered in 2006 (more than 10 years before the end of the agreement) to terminate the current agreement and immediately commence to pay to the States the commercial going rate. Only the intransigent stance of the VCC has prevented that happening. The States/VCC has lost out, to date, by somewhere in the region of a quarter of a million pounds.

As mentioned above, research commissioned by the clubs indicates that the going rate for a golf course similar in nature to the L'Ancresse links is somewhere between £32,000 and £35,000. After the clubs were encouraged to compromise by the Culture and Leisure Department, in an effort to finalise a deal, they made an over-generous offer which was included in an offer from C&L to the VCC. We are informed that the VCC have rejected this offer. The clubs' offer is currently still on the table to C&L.

The VCC are keen on the 'user pays' principle.

Leaving aside the amount of money requested by the Vale Commons Council for maintenance, the view that as the golf clubs use approximately one half of the Commons they should pay one half of the cost is a very simplistic approach. It should be noted that the amount requested by the VCC is solely for the section of the Commons the clubs do not use. Therefore on the 'user pays' argument as the clubs do not use any of this portion of the Commons they shouldn't pay. Nevertheless the clubs have made a generous offer in excess of the going rate for the use of the course and to take on the obligation to maintain that area and administer the running of the course at no expense to anyone else.

It would be unconscionable to expect members of the clubs to pay for maintenance of the half of the Vale Commons on which golf is not played and particularly areas in private ownership. If people own areas of the Commons, not forming part of the golf course, then should they not pay for the maintenance of the areas they own, rather than requiring others to do so?

The financial demands made by the VCC originally started at £30,000 per annum and have escalated dramatically, with little explanation, over the years since discussions began.

The most recent demand by the VCC, unsupported by substantiated documentation and heralded as 'an arrangement whereby there may be an element of risk sharing, as between the VCC and the golfers' purports to offer an element of risk sharing while in effect the document anticipates an increase in income over the £80,000 previously demanded.

The figures submitted by the VCC in the document suggest that the VCC could receive £248,800 per annum from the golfers (30,000 rounds at £2.50 + 20,000 rounds at £5.94 + £55,000 annual fee = £248,800).

If the total number of rounds played by club members and others totalled 30,000 rounds then on our estimation the VCC would receive £130,000. If the total figure was 35,000 rounds then the VCC would receive £142,500.

We are at a loss to understand how such an increase could be seen as being more attractive to the golfers.

The VCC suggest that their 'active promotion of the municipal element of the course' could result in rounds by 'non-members' totalling 20,000.

This figure is totally detached from reality bearing in mind that the number of green fees purchased last year was 430. They are projecting a wildly over optimistic increase of more than 45 times the current figure. Last year's figure is not a rogue figure. The average over the last three years is 411 and over 10 years 650. This reduction in numbers is in line with the current world-wide trend of a decline in the playing of golf. If Commerce and Employment, who have officers skilled in promoting tourism, were to promote golf tourism then experience elsewhere in the British Isles and beyond would suggest that it would not be productive to the extent that the VCC envisages.

We are aware that at the moment the VCC receives £30,000 from the Environment Department. We are not aware of any uproar as to the level of maintenance which the VCC carries out annually on the Vale Commons.

The paper suggests that the VCC 'assume responsibility for the active promotion of the municipal element of the course' thus enhancing tourism. There is no reference to this power or function being vested in the VCC under the Ordinance of 1932. Should the VCC be taking on the role of promoting golf tourism with no expertise and where would the monies be found to carry out such a promotion year on year?

The VCC continue to fail to understand, or maybe just refuse to accept, the meaning of 'municipality', which has been the case for the course ever since 1947.

Pay and play was available for all non-club members at the course prior to 1990. Then the States, exercising municipal control and being worried about overuse of the course, instructed the clubs that visitors' green fees should only be issued to visitors to the island who were members of a golf club and not to any Guernsey residents. The clubs, since 1999, have improved the quality of the course and its environment at considerable expense and therefore have been able to reverse that significant limitation.

The two clubs are not immune to financial difficulties. The implications of these proposals will severely affect the viability and future of both clubs.

We would remind everyone, and indeed emphasise, that the L'Ancresse course is open to visitors to the island to play golf with just a few restrictions such as tee closures to enable competitions, team matches, etc. to be played.

Local residents who are non-members, including those without a handicap, can play six rounds per annum. They are, of course, subject to the same restrictions as apply to visitors. These restrictions are no more onerous than those applied to all club members not participating in the competitions etc. Furthermore, there is no clamour from non-members to increase the number of times they are allowed to play each year and they respect the fact that competitions are a normal feature of the sport.

There is no exclusivity, anyone can apply to join either of the clubs and their applications are properly considered. There is no waiting list at the Royal Guernsey and a minimal list at L'Ancresse.

We note, in a recent Press article, that the president of the VCC considers their word as law and we find it amazing that he believes that it is inappropriate for Her Majesty's Procureur to give advice to deputies or the VCC, which is in effect a creature of the States.

JOINT NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE,

L'Ancresse and Royal Guernsey Golf Clubs.