MEMAG Meeting Minutes
Date: 31/05/2012
Location: SEPA, Inverdee House, Baxter Street, Torry, Aberdeen AB11 9QA
Attendees:
Bill Ritchie (Chairman) (BR)
Alan Garvie SCF (AG)
Keith Newton AC (KN)
David Ogilvie SEPA (DO)
Mark James (Secretariat) (MJ)
Sandra Gray (Secretariat) (SG)
Apologies:
Andy Rosie (SEPA)
Sarah Malone (TIGLS)
David Bale SNH
Invited:
David Watson (BCC)
Wishart McBride
Welcome and Introductions
1. The Chairman welcomed those present to the meeting and thanked SEPA for hosting the
meeting. Sandra Gray (MEMAG Secretariat) was introduced to the attendees and the
Chairman advised that FRM Ltd would continue to operate the secretariat and that SG would
be taking a more active administrative role.
2. DO explained domestic arrangements and fire procedures.
3. Apologies as noted.
4. The Chairman noted that there was no representation from the Community Council at the
meeting. KN informed the group that Wishart McBride had resigned from the Community
Council. KN agreed to write to David Watson to encourage future attendance.
Action: KN to write to David Watson to encourage future attendance.
Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
5. The Minutes of the last meeting were approved by email and lodged on the MEMAG website.
Actions arising:
Action points from MEMAG meeting 11th April 2012:
6. 24 – Monitoring Costs - The Chairman highlighted the importance of this item. Monitoring
costs to date had been minimal, mainly because of the frequent visits to the site by the
Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) and their subsequent substantive reports. It is unclear
exactly when the ECoW contract with TIGLS will end and the Chairman agreed to make
enquiries with Sarah Malone.
The group agreed that monitoring costs going forward would necessarily increase and MJ
queried whether TIGLS fully understood the monitoring element and associated cost
implications. The Chairman referred to a previous meeting with George Sorial regarding
future monitoring requirements and reminded the Group that in September 2010 a draft
position paper; “Monitoring Purposes and Arrangements”, had been circulated to all involved
in MEMAG including TIGLS. Hardcopies of this paper were handed to the meeting attendees.

1

 Although MEMAG had accepted the draft, it was a general outline and further refinement may
be required as monitoring requirements are defined.
It was made clear that the cost of monitoring would increase once the course construction
had been completed and there was a need to reemphasise to TIGLS the importance of
establishing a well-founded environmental monitoring programme post course construction.
The group noted that the absence of TIGLS representation at recent MEMAG meetings was
unfortunate but, on a positive note, contact had been made with John Bambury (JB) who is
the new LINKS Superintendent. Contact with JB will provide an important link with TIGLS in
the future with regards monitoring at Menie.
It was agreed that the Chairman would send the minutes of the meeting to TIGLS with a
covering letter highlighting salient points and noting the attendance issue.
Action: Chairman to send the minutes of the meeting to TIGLS with a covering letter
highlighting salient points and noting the need for TIGLS representation at MEMAG meetings.
7. 25 - Hydrological Data and Monitoring – The Chairman noted that gaps remain in the
Hydrological information and database. The Chairman had hoped to provide a list and map
for this meeting from Fairhurst and partners, but this had not yet been provided. The
Chairman will reiterate a request this information.
AG asked who would monitor hydrology going forward? The Chairman replied that this had
originally been envisaged as SEPA but DO explained that SEPAs internal resources in this
area were already heavily committed. The Chairman stressed the importance of resolving
this issue and DO agreed to discuss options with Andy Rosie.
DO confirmed that from a SEPA perspective, there had been no compliance issues with the
development to date and therefore SEPA had not been required to react from a regulatory
perspective.
The Chairman acknowledged that hydrology was not a statutory issue, but stressed that it
was fundamental to all other areas of dune management. As such, establishing the extent
and integrity of the hydrology baseline data was a priority.

Action: Chairman to reiterate request for hydrological data from Fairhurst’s.
Action: David Ogilvie to discuss SEPA resource allocation to assessing hydrological data.
8. 39 – Otter Reports – status – The Chairman explained that Esie O’Mahonay was to provide
the otter report and noted that this had been sent to ECoW on 19/07/2011, but had not been
copied to MEMAG which was the original agreement. The Chairman agreed to follow up.
9. Action: Chairman to reiterate request for otter report to TIGLS/ECoW

10. DO noted a press inquiry directed to SEPA/SNH and Marine Scotland asking if there had
been any environmental issues associated with the development of the golf course. The
Chairman confirmed that the question had not been raised with MEMAG.
11. KN highlighted that there had been some interest within the Council regarding the need for
monitoring activity, but was of the view that the ECoW reports were sufficient to cover the
period to date. AG thought that more questions were likely to be raised over the forthcoming
weeks over the access road. DO agreed.
12. There was general acknowledgement that interest in the golf course development was likely
to increase in the period leading up to its opening. KN noted that there had been very few
inquiries thus far and that this might generally be taken as an indication that the development
had not infringed environmental or planning regulations.

2

 13.
With respect to the potential for a general increase in requests for information, MJ felt that the
website was fit for purpose but noted that if there were a large number of enquiries then there
would be a cost associated and that TIGLS must be reminded of this.
The Chairman added that it would be pro-active to provide TIGLS with details of the MEMAG
remit as a reminder/update and reminded the group that in June 2011 MEMAG provided
Sarah Malone with a paper “The Work of MEMAG”. The Chairman agreed to re-word/update
the paper and DO agreed that this would be useful as a periodic update.
Action: Chairman to update the “work of MEMAG” document and send to TIGLS

Notes on activities since last meeting
14. The Chairman had visited the site several times since the last meeting in April 2011 which
included assessing the implications for the Coastal Dune Ridge at the natural erosive area
east of the hole 4 fairway.
The Chairman used to attend monthly site meetings between ECoW and the course builders
and found these very useful and informative, but expressed disappointment that these
meetings had ceased.
He continued that MEMAGs relationship with ECoW was excellent, but had been informed
that their contract with TIGLS did not extend to covering the cost of their attendance of
MEMAG meetings.
KN questioned whether the ECoW reports appeared on the MEMAG website? The Chairman
advised that the ECoW reports were contracted by and prepared for TIGLS and copied to
MEMAG for information. MEMAG was at liberty to query these reports and to seek
clarification but they were not put onto the MEMAG website.

Review of reports from ECoW
15. The ECoW had produced several reports since the last MEMAG meeting; 12-19. The reports
had been circulated to MEMAG members by the Secretariat for information and comment.
No comments have been received.
16. The Chairman referred to a question raised by David Bale and Alan Garvie about ecological
statistics that had been referred to in the ECoW reports. He explained that he had discussed
this with Sarah Malone and that she had indicated that she had recorded this information as a
personal file note for her own purposes.

Future liaison with ECoW
17. The Chairman will enquire as to the end date of the ECoW contract with TIGLS.
He reiterated that MEMAG had an important role to play in maintaining continuity in the
provision of ad hoc advice between the end of the ECoWs contract and the implementation of
robust monitoring procedures. He stressed the likely importance of the relationship with John
Bambury during this transition period.
Action: Chairman to clarify with TIGLS the end date of the ECoW’s contract and any relevant
transitional arrangements.

3

 Opening and operation of Golf Course: Implications for MEMAG
18. The Chairman stressed that over the next 12 – 18 months the monitoring process should be
shown to be achieving its objectives.
The baseline database provided by Ironside Farrar, which is now held on a spreadsheet by
MEMAG, should be added to and knowledge gaps identified. DO asked whether the database
was fit for purpose? AG asked whether it had been referred to in the Public Inquiry? The
Chairman explained that the Public Inquiry documents ran to 24 volumes, but that he had
identified a section, T15, that listed the complete environmental information provided by
Ironside Farrar at the time of the public inquiry. This information is very comprehensive but
there is no detailed knowledge of what has gone on since the collation of the data for the
Public Inquiry.
The Chairman proposed that he check the database held by MEMAG with the details in T15
of the public enquiry, and then add relevant information to the database to bring it up to date,
identifying knowledge gaps and provide a summary to MEMAG.
Note: The committee were reminded that our database consists of title and date only. The
actual reports are not held by MEMAG.
The Group agreed.
Action: Chairman to compare base line database spreadsheet with document section T15
and provide summary report of data gaps. This might have some small secretarial cost
implication.
Operation of MEMAG Committees
19. The Chairman explained that when MEMAG was proposed, it was based on the St. Fergus
and SOTEAG models which included the formation of a second independent committee to
oversee the monitoring process.
The Chairman suggested that for MEMAG the formation of a monitoring committee was not
necessary at this stage. He highlighted the expertise around the table and amongst the
MEMAG members and suggested that MEMAG could ‘buy in’ advice ad personam if and
when required.
A second monitoring committee could be formed if it proved desirable in the future. KN noted
that the Terms of Reference did call for two committees, but acknowledged the body of
expertise on hand and could not see the benefit of a second committee at this stage.
AG queried whether there were any other golf courses that could be compared with Menie?
The Chairman said that Machrihanish had been used as a comparison in the public enquiry.
AG and KN agreed that it was helpful to draw on experience to continue to establish best
practice.
There was general agreement that MEMAG should, at this stage, not establish a second
committee, but move forward on the basis that additional expertise could be requested as
required.

AOB
20. The Chairman noted that MEMAG financial procedures were working well. SG confirmed that
there were no issues to report.
21. AG raised the following question:
“Is it possible to open the site as a golf course in the absence of at least some of the other
ingredients for which planning permission has been granted, such as a vehicular access for

4

 members of the public to enter and leave the site and a car park. This could be a legal issue
and/or one for MEMAG to consider its impact on the monitoring framework e.g. how does the
absence of a suitably surfaced car park and access road, connected to the public road impact
on compaction, run off and landscape?”
KN commented that Reserved Matters Consent and Full Planning Consent were in place for
the operation of the championship golf course. He added that full planning consent was in
place for the roadway and that this was now at an advanced stage. AG agreed that the works
on the road were well advanced and he could now see that the roadway should be complete
by the opening of the golf course.
The Chairman noted that the access road might become a point of interest if the run-off
cause any problems. DO advised that SEPA monitoring would continue, but the situation is
different to that anticipated as the hotel complex and housing plans are currently ’on hold’.
22. The Chairman tabled some early thoughts on what monitoring projects could be taken
forward as follows:
•
•
•

Translocation of wetlands habitat. Reference to be made to the ECoW reports.
Coastal Dune Ridge (CDR). Focusing on sensitive areas.
Hydrological data gaps and definition of monitoring requirements.

DO suggested that MEMAG needed to now focus on developing and taking the monitoring
process forward.
The Chairman stated that further monitoring ideas from members would be welcomed.
MJ – suggested the Group needed to define its monitoring plans together with indicative cost
before the next MEMAG meeting.
AG offered a suggestion for a monitoring topic:
•

Aberdeenshire Coastal Path – its relationship to the development and subsequent
impact on the dunes.

Date of Next Meeting
23. Action – Secretariat and Chairman to canvass for dates, probably in late July – mid August
for a meeting / site visit.
Action – Secretariat to discuss with the Chairman possible dates for a specific monitoring
ideas meeting.
END

5