Mangroves in judge’s hands
(CNS): Activists who had gained an injunction against a developer who was dumping fill into the ocean to reclaim land for a condo development are now waiting for a judge to decide the future of the marine environment in South Sound. Justice Charles Quin heard submissions from environmental activist group Protect South Sound and RC Estates, the developer, on Tuesday over the court-ordered cessation of work at the site. The activists won a temporary injunction last week but want it extended until their appeal is heard by the Planning Appeals Tribunal. After hearing the arguments, the judge said he would deliver his decision within the next two weeks, but in the meantime the injunction stays in place.
The developer was given permission by the CPA to extend the shoreline by over 50 feet along 2,000 feet of shoreline in South Sound and to construct a seawall ahead of the development of several condos. However, the activists have appealed the decision as they say the Central Planning Authority (CPA) erred in law when it agreed with the attorney representing RC Estates that the land lost during Hurricane Ivan in 2004 could legally be reclaimed. The activists say that the law states clearly that coastal boundaries are not fixed.
In addition, the decision by the CPA is seen as one which could set a disturbing precedent if allowed to stand, with landowners across the island attempting to reclaim old eroded sea boundaries in accordance with previous surveys.
Despite recommendations from both planning and the environment departments against it, the CPA went ahead and granted permission and the developer began dumping marl into the ocean last week. Aside from the obvious threat to the marine life in the area, the fill was being poured directly onto a mangrove replenishment project managed by the Department of Environment and funded by an outside grant from the United States.
With government applying for and receiving an important international grant on one hand and then giving planning permission for construction in the same spot on the other, the DoE has expressed serious concerns about how that will impact any future international grant or support for the numerous critically important projects the DoE is involved with in an effort to try and save the islands' threatened natural environment.
Related articles:
Mangroves perish under fill (17 October 2012)
South Sound mangrove threat (3 September 2012)
Viewpoints
-
Steve McIntosh(Read more)4
-
Annie Oakley(Read more)29
Latest Classifieds
- WTS: BB Q10...BB Z10 & Samsung Galaxy S4 BBM Chat: 23A0C377
- Work permit as Online Investor (Personal Investor)
- House for sale - Mt Pleasant WB
- \'09 Honda Fit 4sale
- New Blackberry Q10 Gold Plated and Gold Porsche Design (24 HRS BBM Chat:295941E1)
- Town - Extra Large Bedroom with XL Walk-in Closet
- ONE BEDROOM SHARING $325.00
- CINSA RElays
- Retirement plan
- Make Money Now - Easy as ever
Comment Policy
The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of CNS or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by CNS. Read more
Recent Comments
- Ozzie, I woted for you and if
7 hours 32 min ago - Would Mr Hampson, let alone
7 hours 38 min ago - Please provide names and
7 hours 38 min ago - You hit the nail on the head!
7 hours 39 min ago - Do you thing she will look
7 hours 40 min ago - Take what?
7 hours 41 min ago - True enough, but also s.14(4)
7 hours 51 min ago - Agreed!
7 hours 57 min ago - Most of the things you
7 hours 58 min ago - Don't understand your
8 hours 1 min ago
Search





Comments
what mangroves?
what mangroves?
Whether the sea boundary is
Whether the sea boundary is ambulatory or not seems like a very big deal, and it's hard to see how it could be an open issue at this late date. Either the issue is a slam-dunk or the SMB folks had better get in there with their amicus briefs. They could lose 50 ft in the next few days.
why are you allowed to print
why are you allowed to print this stuff? if you read the compass you can hear the developer's side of it. it clearly states that the developer planted 300 mangroves there. so why would he destroy it? he invested thousands of dollars, not just the DOE not just this mysterious donation from the US- the developer as well. He is also using special marl/fill (even though it is not a requirement) to minimise the damage to marine wildlife.
Please if you are going to report something report fact.
it's funny how the previous
it's funny how the previous articles made such a big deal about the US$30,000 that was donated by the US whatever organisation, but completely forgot to mention the $75,000 that the developer spent on this. talk about biased reporting
Post new comment