George Town tourist facility sand raises eco-concerns
Balboa Beach
(CNS): The Balboa Beach tourist facility along the harbour front in George Town has stirred up further controversy after developers recently covered the ironshore at the location with non-beach sand. The tourist spot where the owners have been charging cruise passengers for beach chairs and umbrellas, also offering car hire, selling tours and other services, has raised controversies for some time over potential planning infractions. Further environmental concerns have now also been raised as the imported sand could pose a threat to the marine environment.
Chris Johnson, the owner of adjoining land who is behind the sidewalk enhancements in the area, is livid over what he believes are the constant breaches of planning laws and regulations surrounding the project.
However, a spokesperson for Kel Thompson, the owner and developer of Balboa Beach, has denied all wrongdoing and claims the project is consistent with the ongoing initiative to beautify the George Town Harbour and make the area more pedestrian friendly.
Nevertheless, the Department of Environment has confirmed that it raised concerns with planning about the sand, which is not from the beach, that has been placed on the ironshore because it will be washed into the sea, contaminating the water.
CNS contacted the planning department about the issue earlier this week but we have still not received a response, despite the continuing concerns about the development.
Johnson, who has filed an appeal about the entire project, told CNS that he was “astonished” with the continued issues while an appeal against “his ludicrous development remains outstanding”, as he accused the developer of breaching planning and other related legislations.
“He has removed ironshore and brought in sand on several occasions without permission of the DoE, Johnson said, adding that he was forced to remove an illegal fence to cordon off the property so he could charge tourists for access to the shore.
“He also cordoned off the swimming area in the sea with floats without permission of the Port Authority. There is also no planning permission for the concrete blocks he has built on the ironshore, which are a hazard to all who may enter, and the setbacks of the building breach all known regulations, including a section of the sidewalk partially built on government property.”
Johnson also raised questions about the car park, which he contests was improperly built and is now being used for renting cars. “This car park is a danger to all that pass and an accident is just waiting to happen,” he said, as he called on the authorities to do something.
Meanwhile the spokesperson for Balboa Beach disagreed, stating, despite the attorney general’s assertions last year that there was an error in law when the CPA granted planning permission, that “it has never been proven that there were any breaches of the Planning Law” regarding the project.
“This is a matter which is currently being litigated by the adjacent land owner who has lodged an appeal,” the spokesperson said.
“We can assure you that the continued usage of this property, which has been owned and used by the same family for over seven decades, is consistent with sound environmental practice. This property has been used for launching and docking boats for most of this period, and the records, including those in the Land Information System, reflect this,” the Balboa owners told CNS.
They also stated that in developing the property they have captured all of the water, which previously, together with all the grease and oil from the road, ran into the ocean. “On our own accord, we took steps resulting in this runoff from the public road now being captured on our property and disposed of in a manner that without doubt results in greater preservation of the marine environment.”
The spokesperson also claimed that, following a recent visit, the DoE had “failed to find that our activities were posing any threat or harm to the environment” — a point disputed by a DoE official, who said concerns had been raised with planning about the quality of the sand that will be washing into the ocean.
Save Cayman, a local green organisation, also noted concerns over this type of coastal development. Having registered their concerns with the DoE, they said they learned it was another planning compliance matter.
“We note that prior to the ‘after the fact’ planning approval the NRA and DoE had registered concerns about the development,” the NGO stated. “We take this time to point out that the enforcement of our legislation and the need for a sustainable development plan is vital to prevent irresponsible development as well as to preserve and properly utilise our limited natural resources.”
Category: Local News
You can’t even stop in at Dairy Queen for a quick ‘Blizzard’ anymore! This is totally out of control.
The blocking off and restricting parking has been detrimental to businesses that occupy the land side building. I have frequently been unable to attend these businesses due to total lack of public access parking. Often the parking area immediately in front of the building is also blocked off with safety cones. Why is this travesty being allowed to continue?
General wote buying and spineless governance…usually explains most of this sort of thing.
Further observations include::
1. Taxis continually park on the Thompson sidewalk. Sooner or later there will be an accident;
2. The six foot sign is illegally put on the sidewalk when it should be ten feet from the road
3.Finally why would he rename the beach. It has never been know as Balboa Beach. With all that ironshore he may as well have called it Rocky Balboa Beach. As we all know the wreck of the Balboa is quite a distance away
.
That part of the island was actually called Bar Beach as it was opposite a bar. If my memory serves me correct it was called the Northern Bar, whilst the beach occupied by the fishermen is known as Red Spot Beach.
Slight error here. Bar Beach was in fact known as Bar Bay.
Rocky Balboa. Heh heh heh.
It’s a shame this project has happened for so many reasons-
1. the site is too small to develop (as per planning law),
2. the cabana, building, septic tank and seawall all severely breach all planning setbacks (side, high water mark and road) by more than half,
3. it was more beautiful before as an undeveloped piece of land (with the natural ironshore vista), now a rarity in GT,
4. it is unrentable: the landlord is now renting out the site for high $ and tenants have been going out of business now for months,
5. this is not the type of wham bam tourism the CI government should be promoting immediately outside the RW Terminal,
6. the parking is dangerous and should not of been approved because: a) it breaches the road setback, b) you have to cross a busy pedestrian right of way to access it, c) you have to reverse out onto N Church Street when you pull out, which in turn stops traffic, d) pedestrians are in your blindspot when you reverse out, e) tourist buses are using the parking and blocking the pedestrian right of way forcing people to walk in the road,
7. he has removed coral and ironshore out of the water (marine park / queen’s bottom) with a crane to try and make it more swimable. This carries a fine of $250K by law,
8. the pylons he puts out on the street are 5′ or so within the two 12′ laneways NRA requires for roads. This results in a bottleneck which slows down all of N Church Street traffic,
9. the rope railing around the site is not to code, it cannot support a lateral force, so someone can easily fall onto ironshore,
10. marl as well as sand has been spread all over the ironshore which will run into the marine park causing silt to kill coral,
11. it is not a beautification project (it adds nothing to the community) but instead block beautiful views, is damaging coral, jeopardizing pedestrians, slowing down traffic and making businesses go bankrupt
But….. it’s a Thompson! Where is your humanity?
Well said and nicely summarized.
Reading through the comments here has convinced me of the following:-
The British own these islands.
The politicians know this.
The politicians have not told the people.
Independence will never happen.
Independence will happen when Dart is good and ready. Not before and not after.
what on earth has this to do with the article?
The British do not “ own “ the island, and in many ways would probably be glad to be shot of it as an Overseas Territory. They never developed it as they did their other Caribbean islands as it had little military or naval strategic value – especially with Jamaica only a few hundred miles away.