Yes. The side-effects of golf are even worse when chunks of pristine land are gobbled up (e.g. Trump, passim), or people's water supplies intercepted to irrigate (usually relatively) people's play (e.g. abroad mainly).
I do think the world has enough golf courses.
To a certain extent I'd agree. But natural and semi-natural grassland is a valuable habitat that is under threat.
So if it's not broke, don't "fix" it with a golf course.
The principal reservoirs of that habitat are road verges and golf courses.
Not natural grassland.
At least 50% of a golf course will be rough.
Golf "rough" does not necessarily = "natural".
Disturbance is focused on the fairways and greens. Ground nesting birds benefit from the lack of dog walking.
When courses are built on existing areas with intrinsic interest, conditions can be imposed on the planning consent covering irrigation, grass species, the use of chemicals and the management regime for semi-natural areas.
Planning conditions may mitigate impacts. They don't make a fundamentally bad decision right. (That's a general statement that applies to planning conditions, and does not specifically relate to Trump, or any other golf course consent). It is possible to build a golf course and improve things - the new course at Machrihanish is an example. However, it's also posisbly to cause monumental amounts of environmental damage.
I can understand people's aesthetic concerns about large areas being set aside for private recreation.
Not really aesthetics. Highland "sporting" estates spring to mind - landscapes whose widely perceived "beauty" is independent of their widely deplored ownership model and dubious management ethics.
They may also feel that nature is our common heritage, to which we should all have access.
In Scotland we do all have access. See here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/part/1 But nature doesn't think like that, it doesn't want to be disturbed, and golf courses are less disturbed than parks.
The role of golf courses in nature conservation in urban areas is illustrated in this English Nature outline of nature conservation in the Brent Valley.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalengland.org.uk%2FImages%2F16-brent_tcm6-14423.pdf&ei=D8i0UPyXDsrI0AWm64GIAQ&usg=AFQjCNE1GVLDg5LOPn2twUI1VbnWRurmxg
That all depends on your golf course, park and what you're using as a control ...
As I've said elsewhere, as far as I can tell (on the basis of some serious, real-life digging), the nature conservation benefits of golf courses, if and where it occurs, is largely incidental. The fact that some golf courses have some nature conservation interest is not really a defence of golf.