Masterplanning

Masterplanning develops the concept diagram to the next level, ?and establishes the projects physical scale and footprint.

Expanding on the visionary conceptualization with specific detail, masterplanning presents the project's land use balance and spatially represents what is to be created in a precise manner, though still at a relatively large scale. The masterplan should balance an appropriate density and form of development with natural and viable landscapes and ecosystems, in a layout that is optimal for the site. This stage is crucial in defining the overall environmental load of the project, and in retaining and enhancing functioning ecosystems that mitigate the load, so as to deliver a net environmental gain.

The masterplan will allocate distinct land-use parcels and reveal the spatial relationships between them, as well as define course routing configurations and human access patterns.

Although in theory masterplans allow for further iteration and refinement, in practice it is important to get the first published version of the plan right. This is the vision that investors and developers tend to fix in their mind's eyes.

The masterplan’s apportionment of the land directly impacts the sustainability of the development. Decisions made at this stage determine whether or not the project will successfully balance financial, community and environmental needs. Too much wild space, and the project might not pay. Too much concrete and manicured amenity grass, and there may not be enough space for ecosystems that function, biodiversity that can survive or unique landscape characteristics.

A more naturalized development is beneficial financially — particularly in integrated resort and residential developments. Thinking carefully about maximising the quality of the development's water and land (known as the blue and green) will also have a positive impact on housing and course asset value — a good example of how sustainability can be equated to quality.

By allocating 70 per cent of the land to housing and 30per cent to the golf course, a more sustainable ratio would be 40 per cent housing to 60 per cent golf course. “Losing” 30 per cent of land does not mean losing 30 per cent of potential homes, as good overall design can intensify density (versus the sprawling nature of many golf communities) while creating exceptional features in the course and overall landscape that will better absorb and help sell those houses at higher individual premiums.

The scale of natural areas, whether around or integrated into the golf course — ideally both — must be sufficient to support viable, biodiverse populations, especially species targeted for conservation. In addition, natural areas should be able to deliver valuable ecosystem services, such as continual treatment and enhancement of water quality. For example, an integrated network of connected habitats, extending to join up with off-site natural areas, allows wild populations to access more resources.

Competing goals that interfere with efforts to balance land use should be resisted. For example, sensitive natural areas might be located precisely where intensive development is most desired, and constant pressure for higher-density development can compromise the retention and creation of viable ecosystem networks or preclude sufficient space for natural, lightly engineered systems. Oversized clubhouses or housing on visually sensitive high points can also compromise sustainability. In contrast, a course that maximises natural areas as part of enhancing the golfing and overall lifestyle experience can increase value while reducing construction and long-term maintenance costs. Some of the courses highlighted throughout this document are among the most prestigious in the world precisely because of how they balanced development need with environmental consideration.