‘Backroom’ lobbying on Coul Links golf plan under fire

The Scottish Government has been secretly lobbied to give the go-ahead to one of Scotland’s most fiercely disputed planning applications, according to emails seen by The Ferret.

A file released under freedom of information law reveals that the deputy first minister, Kate Forbes, and the public finance minister, Ivan McKee, were urged to approve plans for a new golf course on a nature conservation site famous for birds and butterflies at Coul Links in Sutherland.

An email was sent to the ministers from a Highland Council address in November 2025 saying that the golf course would help “drive substantial community wealth building”. Ministers are currently considering the development for a second time.

The Scottish Greens described the email as "backroom lobbying that tries to bypass the rules”. It raised “serious questions about whether the process is being run fairly,” they said.

Campaigners argued that all engagement on planning applications should be open and visible. They said they deplored any actions “which step outside the established legal procedures.”

The Scottish Government insisted it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application. A decision would be announced “in due course”, it said.

Coul Links (photo thanks to Andrew Weston/Not Coul)

Coul Links is a beautiful and internationally important site for wildlife near the village of Embo, north of the Dornoch Firth. Its unique sand dunes are a home to birds such as teal and wigeon, as well as plants, butterflies and other insects, and are protected by law.

A proposal for turning the site into a 18-hole golf course was first put forward by two American businessmen, Todd Warnock and Mike Keiser, in 2016. It was opposed by environmental groups, went to a public inquiry and was rejected by the Scottish Government in 2020 because of the damage it would do to “protected habitats and species”.

But in 2023 a second planning application was made by a group called Communities for Coul, which was working with Warnock and Keiser. The Ferret reported that the group was attacked as an “astroturfing front”, and that Keiser had donated to a climate denial group in the US.

In December 2023, Highland Council voted narrowly in favour of approving the development, against the advice of officials. The application was called in by the Scottish Government and went to a second public inquiry in November 2024.

The government’s planning reporters sent their confidential recommendations to ministers in August 2025. Since then ministers have been considering what to do.

Now a file released under freedom of information law discloses that someone with a Highland Council address emailed Forbes and McKee on 11 November 2025. The name of the sender has been redacted, and is not known.

The email argued that proposals for “significant housing for the village of Embo must be seen in the context of the existing planning consent for the neighbouring Coul Links eco-hotel and the long-anticipated $50 million (£36m) Coul links golf course which awaits ministerial approval.”

The developments would together “drive substantial community wealth building” and promote “people, place, prosperity”, the email said. This was “an economic issue of national importance” which went “far beyond the remit of a constituency MSP”, it added.

The email was shared between Scottish Government officials, whose names have also been redacted. One asked for advice on “the most appropriate way to take forward”.

Another official said that the government’s response would be that it couldn’t comment on a live application. But the official then referred it to a colleague saying: “You have some involvement with this and wondered if you had any contribution?”

The Highland Green MSP, Ariane Burgess, urged ministers to decide on Coul Links based on the evidence, and “not backroom lobbying that tries to bypass the rules”. Trying to “hoodwink” ministers with a housing proposal that had not yet been approved was “a blatant attempt to game the system”, she said.

"These revelations are deeply troubling and raise serious questions about whether this process is being run fairly. If behind-the-scenes lobbying has caused a delay then it's a further kick in the teeth for local people who deserve a fair and open process.”

The local campaign group, Not Coul, argued that the inquiry process existed to ensure “openness, fairness and equal treatment for all participants”. Ministers were expected to consider the outcomes of public inquiries “independently and without behind-the-scenes influence”, said the group’s spokesperson, Dr Tom Dargie.

“Processes of this kind only work if all engagement is open, properly channelled and visible to everyone involved. Where those standards are not respected, the integrity of the process is put at risk, and the credibility of the eventual decision is inevitably called into question.”

He added: “Not Coul deplores any actions by anyone with an interest which step outside the established legal procedures.”

The Scottish public relations firm, Morrison Media, gave a statement to The Ferret on behalf of Communities for Coul. It had “no information” about the email, said a spokesperson.

“But we wholeheartedly agree with everything written. It is heartening to see public officials standing up for the people of east Sutherland.”

The Scottish Government said that the planning application had been called in because of its “potential impact on nationally and internationally important natural heritage assets, and the need for an appropriate understanding of the scale and degree of potential economic benefits arising from the proposal.”

A spokesperson added: “As this is a live planning application, it would not be appropriate to comment, and the decision will be announced in due course.”

Highland Council declined to comment.

Help us keep digging.

If this reporting mattered to you, you can help fund the next one. The Ferret is independent, member-owned investigative journalism, backed by readers who want accountability in Scotland.

Become a member

This article was developed with the support of Journalismfund Europe.