Background
My letter of 10 May provided a status report of the course rejuvenation project to renew our greens and tees and address the problem of balls hit out of bounds. It said that we had tested the original concept design and after some field trials found that risks may be associated with the shared green proposal of holes 11 and 3. The outcome being that the major change to our course may simply be the shortening of the 3rd hole to a par 4 for general play from the white tees for men and retaining the par 5 from the existing championship tee. This meant a par 70 for general play and par 71 from the championship tee. The men’s tee and women’s tee were to be bought forward and lowered considerably.
This proposal, including sketches of each hole was outlined for a general viewing by Members in June where we sought feedback and provided an update on scheduling plans. A display was set up in the Meeting Room and several presentation sessions were programmed where Members could attend and discuss the plan with Members of the Technical Committee[1] and Directors. I also wrote a note on 5 June explaining the evolution and status of the course redesign. This is on the website.
Visit by Phil Jacobs and deliberations of the Technical Committee.
The timing of the presentations was to fit with a visit by Phil and followed by meetings with the Technical Committee and Board reviewing alternatives. Phil was due to be with us at the end of June. Enter the Department of Home Affairs, we were rocked to receive a copy of the Departments letter of 29 June addressed directly to Phil indicating that his application for Temporary Work (class GA, sub class 400) Visa was refused. The letter was issued from the Australian High Commission in Pretoria saying that the application had been referred to the Visa Application Character Consideration Unit in Canberra. Phil, who had previously been granted a Visa to visit us in Australia and to other parts of the world, is at a complete loss to understand the refusal.
The Player Group responded quickly and assigned Danny Obermeyer to the project while keeping Phil as the appointed architect. Danny has applied through an agent for a Visa, we are not expecting any delays and Danny is spending time working with Phil as he waits for his Visa to be granted. They have worked together on other courses for the Player Group. We are hopeful that Danny will be at Pennant Hills this month.
I have written to Hon. Clare O’Neil MP, the Member for Hotham and Minister for Home Affairs asking for clarity. Our own member, Julian Leeser MP has been helpful, however Julian points out that it is a difficult issue when Dept. of Home Affairs is involved.
Member Presentations – 5 Feedback Points and Responses
The sessions held in June were well attended and the constructive feedback is helpful, many took the trouble to record their views in writing and the Technical Committee made notes of Members assessments in each of the sessions. The main opinions or reactions included:
- Great initiative, welcome project, get on with it.
The project is a great initiative and there is a positive, enthusiastic desire among members to get it done. This latest setback on the Visa, on top of the previous Covid restrictions is unfortunate. However, the primary objective is getting it right, it is not a race against time.
- The proposal to reduce 3rd to a par 4 yet allow a blue tee to remain is not wise. It is a deception to retain length and par 71 without completely solving the problem of balls hit out of bounds.
In the early presentations several members made it clear that they did not think par 71 was necessary, others tended to favour retaining par 71. In response, the Board was working toward the best possible redesign in terms of improving interest and relief as advised by the Architect. After consultation, we have abandoned the concept of retaining the blue tee on hole 3 and are proceeding with redesign this hole as a par 4 with the tee sunk down in around the same position as the current red tee. It will not be an easy par 4.
- Members indicated that par 70 or 71 was neither here nor there, the problem is the challenge that might be created in the future if the balls hit out of bounds continue and cause authorities to force a change that may reduce the par of our course to 69 or even 68 with obvious and unwelcome consequences for the course rating and slope. Members were surprised with the number and frequency of balls leaving the perimeter of the course.
Submissions received by the Board argued that if we proceeded to par 70 and further change was forced upon us by authorities due to the number of balls leaving the perimeter on holes 1, 2 and/or 5 (particularly 1), then we may end up needing to make changes that result in a par 69 or even par 68. This should be avoided.
The Board and the Architect agree that we should avoid radical and unnecessary change to what is known as the 1937 course number 5. We are a Member’s garden course and golf should be enjoyable, played over various interesting holes without being too difficult on a normal competitive set up. Bunker redesign, relocation of some bunkers and removal of others will provide visual improvement and lower operating costs. Changes include increased green sizes without excessive undulation with small directional changes to tees.
- The women who attended indicated that the focus seemed to be on the men’s course and that more consideration and communication might be provided to the outcome for women.
A committee drawn from the Women’s Executive will be invited to discuss the revised proposals before the final concept is agreed.
Likely Final Design
Phil Jacobs was previously instructed to proceed with detailed design of the 14 greens that would not be impacted by his proposed options to holes 3, 4, 7 and 11. This work nears completion. We have since discussed the approach to shortening the 3rd hole and possibly extending the 12th hole by shifting the green more toward the existing 2nd green while moving the 2nd green some 50 meters down the hill. This change does two things, it creates a more interesting slight dog leg second hole thereby reducing the out of bounds issue and considerably strengthens the par 5 12th hole. This configuration may require two limited size screen fences between these holes and Copeland Road. They might be like the now redundant fence on the Pennant Hills Road side of the existing 3rd tee.
The logic of the par 71 submissions have appeal, it future proofs the charm of our course should we ever need to redesign a perimeter hole. Accordingly, the Board has reconsidered the original plan to extend hole 7 to a par 5 and shifting the 4th tee back toward the existing 3rd green. The length of that new 4th hole would be much the same as the existing Blue tee being 176m, White 169m and Red 154m. The 7th hole would extend to 450/460m around the same length as the existing 1st and 12th par 5 holes. The consideration of this change in the review of the concept design questioned the wisdom of losing the index 1 of the most difficult hole on the course to a supposedly an easy par 5 just to retain a par 71 course. Whilst the new 7th will certainly not be index 1, analysis indicates it will remain a difficult hole. It will not be an easy par 5 as was suggested.
On that note, it is worth reinforcing the view that the outcome of the redesigned course should not be evaluated based on an individual hole or two, rather the focus should be on retaining the overall degree of difficulty and appeal of our course as well as increasing the interest of all 18 holes.
We are now waiting on the Visa for Danny Obermeyer, his visit to the course leading to further discussions by our Architect and the Technical Committee resulting in a recommendation to be considered by the Board. The best possible or optimum redesign in the view of the Board shall then be put to Members prior to proceeding with the project.
Funding and Timing
The plan was always to start in the second half of this year, the work was to commence in the coming spring after the planned visit by Phil Jacobs in June and a final design being presented to Members this month. That schedule has been revised and the start date pushed out to early 2024.
The note on 5 June also discussed the outlay of the project indicating that it could cost around $4.5m over the three-year period. Forecasts suggest that it can be funded from normal cash generation supplemented within our existing bank lines. The risk being that budget over runs and unforeseen events have a habit of interfering with the best plans and there is no contingent source of additional finance. To overcome this, and to reduce the reliance on short term bank debt, the Board planned to publish an Information Memorandum (IM) to Members qualifying as “sophisticated investors” and invite them to subscribe for an issue of two and three year unsecured notes. Had we been turning soil as planned the IM would have issued this month. It too, has been deferred to early 2024.
The Board is disappointed that we need to defer the start by 6 months but it is clearly in the interest of a better outcome. We look forward to presenting the final design as soon as is possible.
Good luck with your golf.
Michael Rowan
PRESIDENT
(1) The Technical Committee reports to the Board and comprises Michael Rowan, Damian Maguire, Neil Rolfe, David Blackshaw, Liam Ash, and Barnaby Sumner. The Technical Committee has no authority to act other than is sanctioned by the Board.
Filed under: Uncategorised
