MEMAG Meeting Minutes
Date: 11/4/11
Location: Menie Lodge
Attendees:
Bill Ritchie (Chairman)
Alan Garvie SCF (AG)
David Bale SNH (DB)
Keith Newton AC (KN)
David Ogilvie SEPA (DO)
Mark James (Sec.) (MJ)
In Attendance:
Esie O’Mahonay – SOL (EM)
Apologies:
Andy Rosie (SEPA)
Sarah Malone (TIGLS)
Invited:
David Watson (BCC)
Welcome and Introductions
1. The Chairman welcomed David Ogilvie representing SEPA on behalf of Andy Rosie. DO is
the local Unit Manager and will now be the permanent SEPA representative on MEMAG.
2. Apologies were received from Andy Rosie (SEPA) and Sarah Malone (TIGLS). David Watson
(BCC) had been invited and was scheduled to attend the meeting.
3. The Chairman noted that MJ had recently been appointed as the Operations Director for the
Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS) and as part of his
agreement with his employer; the University of St Andrews, he would continue his work with
MEMAG and the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum.
Minutes of last meeting and matters arising.
4. The Minutes of the last meeting were approved by email and lodged on the MEMAG website.
Actions arising:
Action points from MEMAG meeting 23rd November 2010
5. 45 - Action: The Chairman to visit the site and respond to Mr Menlove on behalf of MEMAG
– completed. No further response comment received.
6. 53 - It was agreed that another MEMAG site visit should be arranged to coincide with the
next MEMAG meeting in early 2011 – completed.
7. 54 - The Chairman requested some initial assistance from SEPA in reviewing the
hydrological data.
8. 65 - Action: CS (Caroline Simmers – SEPA) to ask AR for some initial SEPA assistance in
reviewing the hydrological data.

Action points from MEMAG minutes 13th April 2010

1

 9. [23] Action: NH agreed to provide an inventory of TIGLS data holdings to MEMAG to include
information such as: title, content, date, where held and in what format. NH noted that
requests for the provision of data should be routed through TIGLS with specific reference to
need and use. Not completed but overtaken by subsequent events.
10. [26] Action: MJ to circulate a proposal to MEMAG re database development, archival and
GIS linkage. This action will be progressed once the inventory of data holdings is supplied to
the Secretariat.
11. [28] A draft data management agreement form was circulated for comment. This action will be
progressed once data access requirements are clarified.
12. [34] The Chairman noted that there was a need to compile an archive of the photographic
records of the site as this would be an important future resource for MEMAG.
13. [35] Action: Secretariat should begin to collate this material. Other members of MEMAG
were invited to supply any photographs that they might hold. In progress. Collated Secretariat
and Chairman’s recorded images. JW to discuss with ECoW re access to their images – no
further response.
14. MJ explained that it was unlikely that the ECoW would provide an archive of images but
would be willing to respond to specific requests for images if required. Collation of images
supplied by the Secretariat and other MEMAG members would be an on-going action.
15. [91] Action: AR and DB to provide the Secretariat with possible nominations [for Advisory
Group] as soon as possible with a view to MEMAG making an appointment by mid summer.
Some names suggested but on-hold.
16. DO queried the role of MEMAG in relation to TIGLS and the ECoW. The Chairman explained
that MEMAG was convened as part of the planning consent for the development of the golf
course and MEMAG’s role is to provide independent oversight to ensure that the development
does not cause adverse environmental change – beyond that permitted under the terms of
the planning consent.
17. Although not envisaged at the inception of MEMAG, at this time and until the conclusion of its
contract with TIGLS, the ECoW was fulfilling some of MEMAG’s role by providing on-site
assessment of the construction phase of the course development. As such, some of the
monitoring work anticipated as part of MEMAG’s role had been deferred.
18. However, it was noted that TIGLS and the ECoW meet on a weekly basis to discuss both
previous and forthcoming work. In addition, the Chairman attended monthly management
meetings to ensure that MEMAG remained appraised of any salient issues.
19. TIGLS also engaged the Chairman in the provision of ad hoc advice which was formally
reported to MEMAG and reports lodged with the Secretariat.
20. Monthly ECoW reports are circulated to MEMAG for information and comment as soon as
they are received by the Secretariat.
21. It is likely that the Monitoring Committee, as an independent group of experts, would be
appointed nearer the time that longer term monitoring work would commence.
22. There was general discussion related to defining the remit of future monitoring work. As
outlined in the provisional monitoring strategy and other background documentation,
monitoring would be required to detect any adverse environmental effects on areas
contiguous to the development site – including those areas designated as inviolate within the
boundaries of the site. Further, that monitoring (normally short term) through the ECoW and,
where appropriate, MEMAG through its ad hoc protocol, to ensure environmental best
practice would continue to be undertaken.

2

 23. It was acknowledged that long term monitoring would need to stand the test of being
“reasonable” but TIGLS should be reminded that there would be a requirement for increased
monitoring activity once the initial construction phase was complete – and that there would be
increased costs associated with this activity, as agreed in the original MEMAG budget
projections.
24. Action - Chairman to indicate to TIGLS the need for increased monitoring activity and
anticipated increase in costs at least six months in advance.
25. There was general agreement that understanding and monitoring the hydrology of the site
would be critical and was a priority in terms of establishing the scope of the baseline material
and any on-going data collection (also see 44 to 49, below).

Review of reports from ECoW
26. The ECoW has produced three reports since the last MEMAG meeting – 9,10, and 11. The
reports have been circulated to MEMAG members by the Secretariat for information and
comment. No comments have been received.
Report 9
27. DB queried the method of soil mixing on the grounds that it would, in principle, be difficult to
reconstitute the site to its “original” state should the development not be completed.
28. EM explained that green composted waste from off-site had originally been the method
approved for producing a mix of sand and organic matter suitable for growing grass for the
fairways and greens. However, as this mix proved unsuitable, it was agreed that local topsoil
could be used to replace the green composted waste material.
29. EM went on to explain that for logistical reasons the soil mixing was taking place on-site and
that any unused material would be removed.
30. KN confirmed that this practice had been cleared by the Council and SNH.
Report 10
31. There was general discussion related to the works undertaken to prevent further erosion of
the inter-tidal stream bank of the Blairton Burn which was threatening the area of the green at
Hole 3.
32. DO expressed concern that the works had been undertaken and licenced retrospectively.
33. EM explained that due to acceleration in the rate of erosion post December 2010, urgent
action had to been taken. Initial advice from the ECoW suggested that no licence for the work
would be required. However, subsequent inquiries revealed that a licence from Marine
Scotland would be required as the area in question was below Mean High Water Spring Tide
level.
34. DO indicated that SEPA were statutory consultees referred to under the Marine Scotland
Licence for this work and that is was important that in future prior consent should be given to
ensure that appropriate measures, in keeping with the site, were undertaken.
35. EM assured the Group that Marine Scotland had approved the revetment work that had been
undertaken and that the Group would be assured about both the need for and the solution to
the problem during the site visit which would take place after the meeting.
36. DB was of the view that given the ephemeral and dynamic nature of the dunes at the
southern end of the site, some of these issues could have been foreseen.

3

 37. The Chairman referred back to the original description of this area and noted that it was
recognised that “special management” would be required in the vicinity of the outlet of the
Blairton Burn and there was no defined coastal dune ridge in this part of the site.
Report 11
38. The Chairman requested that TIGLS provide MEMAG with copies of the Otter Reports.
39. Action – EM to lodge copies of Otter Reports with the Secretariat.
40. AG – requested feedback on the archaeology reports.
41. EM – noted that the archaeologist had reported nothing of interest at present.

Budget - November 2009 – March 2011
42. The Chairman reminded the Group of the agreed provisions and the protocol for managing
the MEMAG budget. He confirmed that since a Bank Account and a system of proforma
invoicing of TIGLS quarterly in advance had been established, an appropriate cash flow was
being maintained.
43. The need to alert TIGLS to a significant increase in costs related to monitoring activities at the
conclusion of the current construction phase was reiterated.

Hydrology Report
44. A summary of the Fairhurst Water Quality Report had been circulated to the committee by
email on the 4th April 2011. With the agreement of KN the hard copy of the report was tabled
and each member was given a copy of the covering letter from the TIGLS Lawyer and the
executive summary of pp 1 to 12. This report, plus a map, was considered to be a most
valuable addition to the MEMAG database. Nevertheless questions were raised as to its value
for other hydrological information, especially relating to subsurface movements and water
table variation – both critical to environmental conditions.
45. It was agreed that The Chairman and DO, who was given, on loan, the hard copy of the
report, would meet with a SEPA expert to assess the hydrology report in detail and the need
for further hydrology monitoring. The Chairman will also contact Fairhurst directly to ascertain
whether any other baseline hydrology data has been, or is being, collected.
46. Action – Chairman and DO to meet with SEPA representative from Dingwall to discuss
hydrology data requirements. MEMAG to cover the cost of travel to/from Dingwall if required.
47. EM noted that irrigation systems were now in place throughout the site and that water would
initially come from the well field. In the future, it was possible that run-off would be collected
from the roofs and hard standing areas of the development. It had been proposed that
storage reservoirs might be installed under the car parks.
48. There was general discussion related to the possible implications of capturing run off.
49. Action – It was agreed that EM and The Chairman would discuss the possible implications
of the proposed water harvesting strategy and other aspects of hydrological conditions in the
links and dune areas as a preliminary to further discussion of “hydrology” as a key
environmental and ecological control at the next meeting of MEMAG.
AOB
50. EM welcomed the opportunity to take the Group on a tour of the site and invited the Group to
visit at any stage in the future.

4

 Date of Next Meeting
51. Action – Secretariat to canvass for dates in October.
52. Meeting closed – followed by site visit.

5