Mangroves face destruction for land survey

| 17/03/2021 | 64 Comments
Area to be cleared if the application is approved

(CNS): The Department of Environment is urging the Central Planning Authority not to allow speculative clearing of important mangrove habitat in the absence of an actual plan to develop at a site off the Linford Pierson Highway. Pros Plus Construction is seeking permission to mechanically clear and fill a more than ten-acre lot to survey the land for a possible subdivision. But the DoE said the speculative clearing of primary habitat on sites with important ecological and hydrological functions is all too frequent and creates long-term issues. Due to be heard Wednesday, the application would see the removal of seasonally flooded mangrove forest and woodland that has a key role in controlling flooding in this increasingly urban area.

In its submissions to the CPA on this application on behalf of the National Conservation Council, the DoE pointed out that in the same area, within the South Sound Drainage Basin, a site was cleared of mangroves and other primary habitat between 2013 and 2018 but there has yet to be any development application put forward for the site, which is now dominated by invasive casuarina trees instead of the valuable mangrove habitat that was removed.

“Invasive flora such as the casuarina pine and other non-native vegetation do not provide the same ecological benefits and functions as native mangrove forest vegetation that was originally found on site,” the DoE said.

Explaining to the CPA that mangroves function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, helping to soak up the surface-water runoff from pavement and buildings, and that mangrove forests also sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

“Mangrove roots trap carbon-rich plant material in their water-logged soil, sealing it off from the 47atmosphere. This storage of carbon can remain secure for as long as the mangroves remain intact. Removing significant tracts of mangrove habitat not only reduces the island’s natural carbon sequestration potential but the physical act of removing the mature mangroves and de-mucking the site releases captured carbon back into the atmosphere, adding to ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions,” the department said, explaining why primary mangrove habitat should not be removed mechanically for a speculative purposes.

The DoE said that if development is going to be allowed against its recommendations in mangrove habitat, it should only be cleared as the development happens, phasing construction so that ecosystem services can continue to be provided for the longest time possible. Clearing for the purpose of surveying should be carried out by hand on the smallest footprint possible and should be the subject of a separate consultation with the National Conservation Council, the DoE stated in its submissions.

The department outlined further problems with the application, as it is situated in an area that has no comprehensive stormwater management strategy. Concerns have been raised by the technical experts at a number of government departments for several years about the South Sound drainage basin and continuing to allow development in this area without an adequate strategy. In 2015 the DoE, NRA, Planning and the Water Authority experts had all recommended that a consultant should be contracted by government to undertake a hydrological assessment of the basin and devise a management plan.

A memo at the time said that an area management plan was “urgently required” rather than dealing with the situation piecemeal for each development. But six years later, nothing has been done and residential developments continue to be inundated with rainwater during the wet season, a problem that the DoE noted is only going to get worse.

See the details of the application in the CNS Library.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , ,

Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Science & Nature

Comments (64)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DANIEL JOHNS says:

    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot… disappointing is almost tooo mild a term, A concrete jungle is what is developing, as well increased traffic, and well when the next Ivan rollllls thru.. how protected is the Island going to be without the natural barriers..???

  2. Anonymous says:

    Shut up you weirdo’s and leave these fine people alone.

    WE NEED THE DEVELOPMENT!!!!

    Stop before you run off all the investors. At least Mr Thompson and Mr Watler know what is the right thing to do; put it thru.

    • Anonymous says:

      Huh? Have you just woken from a 30 year coma?

    • D. Truth says:

      We don’t need no stinkin’ development! Let me know how I can block those greedy thieves…. AKA “investors”. NONE of them have any consideration for people of the Cayman Islands. If we had honest people in our government this would not happen.

      • Anonymous says:

        11.08, it is these “investors’ called greedy thieves by you, that generate income for the government to provide for your ungrateful a$$ with all the services and without taxing your income…

        • Anonymous says:

          …except the CIG gifts away all the public revenue via 30-40 development waivers doesn’t it? Time for a new economic thesis that is proportionate, transparent, balanced, and contributes to public interests (not developer/foreign investor interests).

    • Anonymous says:

      What’s with the “We need the development?” Are you getting a slice of this pie? Maybe I would like it if I got some really big payola to pack my wallet, but I don’t need money that bad……. and I’m glad I don’t!
      P.S. I’m really sorry that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watler are working so hard to get richer. Maybe they haven’t heard that “Money is the root of all evil”.

      • Anonymous says:

        Silly post and childish quote 6.03
        Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. You have a roof over your head because you or someone else built your shelter.
        Did you have to make a payoff.?

  3. Anonymous says:

    No matter what you FEEL about the environment over 100,00 people will be living in Grand Cayman. Where do you want them? 20 story buildings, only on the 7 mile beach, West Bay, South sound, Red Bay? Come on people think. We have to allow development to the Central part of the island. How about a third town 20 feet above sea level? For the future? Did Texas get a surprise ? People coming south, rich wealthy people you can’t stop them. I don’t care if you put Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc to be MLA ministers they going to agree. We have to go East and develop the Swampland. Before 2050 even if all the environmentalist leave the country it will happen. What jobs will our youth do in this country? Many didn’t want Cruise ship business. Well we see how many people were depending on it now. We have a TV commercial trying to find 100 Caymanians a job by the end of this year???? Are you kidding me? Where are the trade schools? When they finally wake up they will have to leave Cayman to live? Is that what we want? Swampland needs to be use to survive our Caymanian people. Let our smaller island swamp be saved. Every small island in the Caribbean has tourism and development. Unless we want to go back and sell coconut?

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you okay? Sounds like someone is hitting your head with a hammer while you type.

    • I. B. Honest says:

      If I have a choice, I believe I would take selling coconuts!

      • Anonymous says:

        Sure, as long as the government provided financial assistance to you. Someone has to pay for your mortgage, central a/c, cable bill, new smart phone and that Beemer in your driveway!

        • I B Honest says:

          Mr. 1:08 pm, For your information, I don’t have a Beemer, nor central air, nor cable, nor mortgage on my house, nor a new cell phone. I get my social security from the U.S. that helps pay for my groceries and a little gasoline for the Honda. I worked hard ’til I was 65, then got the hell out of the U.S. and came to Cayman Brac. I married a pretty Caymanian cutie and have no regrets. Life is good.

    • Anonymous says:

      Can’t wait till we have a couple of 50 storey buildings in the Seven Mile Beach Corridor. The Dubai of the Caribbean here we come. 1 million people will be wonderful though vehicle gridlock could be a problem the way we build roads here.

  4. “78.8% of respondents feel that environmental needs are not sufficiently considered for new developments”
    Cayman ES21 Survey | Amplify Cayman

    ✨Potential solutions ✨
    credit: Cayman Islands Mangrove Rangers

    🥭 Expand the Central Planning Authority (CPA) appeal requirements to include non-profits and interested parties who live within 5 miles of the proposed developments.

    🥭 Give the public greater opportunities to comment on development applications. For example, allow questions from the public in CPA meetings.

    🥭 Diversify the CPA board by adding qualified scientists and ecologists because right now it mostly consists of persons within the construction industry.

    🥭 Stop secret deals and lack of transparency in development decisions.

    🥭 Require approved applications to fully or partially fund environmental conservation projects.

    What other solutions do you think would help stop over development in the Cayman Islands?

    • D. Truth says:

      Honest leadership would be nice! I will help you vote out some of the azhoals.

    • Anonymous says:

      I did the survey 7 times. Results are meaningless.

      CNS: Amplify have said that duplicates were removed.

    • Anonymous says:

      How many verified Caymanians took your little survey? Describe the verification process.

    • They paved Paradise.... says:

      Review the development plans for zoning and establish green zones that are to be reserved and use compulsory purchase where necessary to compensate existing owners and place these properties into the National Trust.

    • They paved Paradise.... says:

      All large developments should be required to transfer 25% as a green zone to the National Trust.
      Wetlands should be preserved… period.

      • Anonymous says:

        Who gets to say 25% .. why not 15% .. or 50%. Therein lies the problem. Playing God and politics assures a fight against that kind of evironmental flagged communism, economic terrorism and socialism.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Government has to take a serious approach to protecting the environment in Grand Cayman. There is an Environmental Fund, which has millions of dollars in it. Use the money!!! Buy the land!! That way we will be certain that it won’t be flattened. Just buy the lands that are worth persevering! DOE, you should be championing this approach.

    • Lawless Caymanus says:

      Oh dear me no. That money has been used from the start to satisfy CIG’s cash reserve obligations.

      Typical Govt subterfuge. Like when they collect recycling fees on cars, tires and batteries and then dump the money into general reserves.

      It’s like stealing. But allowed because it’s Govt.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is just the first step to building on inland mangroves. It’s private land and their right to develop it. What’s the issue ?

  7. Anonymous says:

    What’s happened to South Sound is already a disgrace. Ugly buildings, greenery disappearing and traffic regularly clogging up the entire area.

    What’s the big circle shaped clearing going to be? I see plenty of work going on there. I hope and pray it’s something better than Concrete Reach by the roundabout.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Survey the “land” via drone!!!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Nothing to see here. Move it along…/s

  10. Anonymous says:

    No one listens to DOE, especially the CPA.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Pro Plus – 0 to 100 in under 10 years! Gardeners to nursery to developers! Are these the same guys? Wow!

  12. Anonymous says:

    It is private land and the owners have the right to clear it. And once they put plans in for development, DOE will oppose almost anything proposed (as will the neighbors).

    If you want land preserved in its completely natural state, then the government, or a private conservation organization, should buy any land it fully wishes to preserve.

    CNS: The problem is exactly this – that people believe that if they own the land they can do whatever they like, laws be damned, which is simply not true and can only be the result of mind-blowing stupidity or greed. If it was true, why bother with the planning process at all? The fact is that what developers do affects a whole lot of other people that have nothing to do with the development. But landowners/developers will continue to do whatever they want until we get a government who holds them to account.

    The following is a repeat of what I put elsewhere. Please make an effort to understand it.

    When the press reports on a development it tends to be because it is large or controversial or both, which means that the DoE will have something to say because that is their part in the process. Often the DoE are not opposing the project but are pointing out environmental issues and how to mitigate them – which is their job. Theoretically the CPA weighs what would be lost against what would be gained as part of the approval process (though in most cases the first part of the equation is just ignored), and takes into account the input from a number of agencies as well as letters of objection. Basically, you are confusing the DoE’s job with the CPA’s.

    • Anonymous says:

      CNS👍👍👍👍

    • Anonymous says:

      The role of the CPA is not to ‘weigh potential losses against potential gains’- the CPA is tasked, in a narrow remit, to consider any application for planning permission in light of the applicant’s compliance with the Development Plan and the Planning Regulations. It may grant variances allowed in several (but not all) regulations but is otherwise required to hew very close to its remit under law- and especially when considering variances. Any (and all) CPA decisions are appealable by qualifying landowners where planning permission grants are seen to be unreasonable, illegal or not in compliance with the Development Plan. It seeks opinion from referral agencies such as DoE (NCC), DoT, WA, NRA, DoEH etc but is not required to comply with any of these opinions or even consider them.

      The problem is that the Development Plan as it stands now, is unresponsive to changing perceptions of what Cayman’s built or developed environment should be like, and how a concerns for environmental retention are to be reconciled with a landowners’ bundle of ownership rights- which includes the right, under certain conditions, to develop his land as he sees fit. It is extremely difficult to retroactively ‘adjust’ development rights on a parcel of land where the bundle of rights and obligations that constitutes land ‘ownership’ in the Cayman Islands, does not allow for such adjustment- or does it? Careful analysis of land ‘ownership’ in the Cayman Islands reveals that one cannot assume that ownership of land is absolute and inviolate, but that compliance with the Development Plan as it is constituted from day to day, governs the use and enjoyment of that land. Putting it simply, one acquires land in Cayman entirely at one’s own risk, and a properly deployed and dynamic Development Plan imposes obligatory compliance risks that every landowner needs to understand.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well with that logic we shouldn’t allow anymore development and just work with the available properties we have built now I can’t waited until my properties quadruple in value yes let’s champion this no more building no more development pretty soon after that we’ll have to stop allowing expats to reside here because they won’t have enough apartments or homes for them to stay in

      • Anonymous says:

        You really believe we don’t have enough apartments/condos in the pipeline??

        Just ask Al’T for a list from Planning that he has already rubber stamped and those that are in the waiting that we don’t know about..

      • Anonymous says:

        Who are you, you simply don’t have a clue as to what is happening, do you? You appear to be quite ignorant, where is your head buried?

    • ANONYMOUS says:

      Another ignoramus “ Bar Room legal expert “

    • Anonymous says:

      Right, but the DOE is trying to make things better for the citizens of the Cayman Islands by taking care of the wildlife and nature. The CPA is more interested in getting as much as they can for themselves…………
      and you know it’s true !!!

    • alaw says:

      12:47 There is an easy solution to this matter.
      DOE should let Property owners know, that they will not do as they would like.
      Before Government COLLECT the big Land TRANSFER FEE!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Have to agree with the DOE on this one..You need to clear the entire property to survey???

    Something stinks here!

  14. Steve says:

    these developers may have long standing relationships with certain political figures which is why they do what they want always.. the more money one has the more privilege

  15. Anonymous says:

    Stop this madness NOW!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.