Controversial West Bay projects rejected

| 30/04/2021 | 50 Comments
Cayman News Service
Location of proposed development on North West Point

(CNS): Two applications for projects that have raised concern in the West Bay district were both rejected by the Central Planning Authority this week. An application to tear down a failing cabana and sea wall and replace it with a house on Boggy Sand Beach and an application for a condo resort on North West Point both presented significant environmental challenges, among other issues, and were declined following hearings on Wednesday, when the developers had been given the opportunity to justify their proposed plans

There were no objectors from within the residential limits against the Boggy Sand application but the National Conservation Council had taken the rare step of issuing a directive to the CPA to decline the proposal, largely because of the catalogue of problems surrounding the existing failing structure, which has already caused significant beach erosion. The Department of Environment experts had said that allowing this application would be negligent as there were simply no mitigating measures that could prevent further problems created at the site as a result of the original error of granting permission for the existing wall and concrete gazebo.

During the hearing the CPA members all appeared to have concerns about the application, and the arguments from the landowners who recently acquired the land did little to allay their concerns. While the CPA chairman queried the ability of the NCC to issue such a directive to turn down any planning application, it was nevertheless rejected. The reasons for this are expected to be outlined in the minutes that will be published later next month.

Meanwhile, neighbours were present to object, for the second time, to the proposal to build 30 condominiums and two house on a site on North West Point that they have persistently argued would have a hugely detrimental impact on their single family homes and was far from in keeping with the area. The objectors said the project which was far too big for the size of the site and would be “massively intrusive” to their home.

The project also presented an environmental issue as a result of a natural fissure in the ironshore on the site, and even under the project’s revised drawings it would reach to the very boundary of this natural crack.

The DoE had raised significant concerns about the project and the need for greater, not less, set-backs because of how active and dynamic this stretch of the West Bay coast is and the issue posed by the fissure. Experts warned that taking climate change and sea-level rise into consideration, the proposed project raises considerable concerns.

The application for a four-storey $12.3 million ‘condo resort’, comprising 30 apartments, a cafe, two oceanfront houses and ancillary features was squeezed into a 1.5-acre site and was as close as possible to the ocean, ignoring the DoE’s warnings.

There were also a number of issues relating to the heights of the buildings, given the slopping of the site, the pressure of parking and traffic, and discrepancies of the actual density of the site.

Share your vote!

How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (50)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know the name of the Project in NWP?

  2. Anonymous says:

    What was most interesting about the NW Point application was the number of ‘variances’ they were asking for citing other projects that got similar ‘allowances’. It speaks eloquently to the problem of precedent that has been set over so many years making developers/CPA feel that the planning rules are just guidelines that should be waived upon request. CPA, or Pact, could simply say that they are ‘resetting’ planning reviews and will do them by the book henceforth without reference to prior approvals. People could still ask for ‘variances’ but without the expectation of getting them they would have to justify each one based on the good of the development (to the community) and not just because someone else got a ‘variance’ first. Otherwise, now, people don’t know which way CPA are going to turn. The old rubber stamp or actually follow the rules. A ‘reset’ puts everyone on the same proper page.

  3. MP says:

    > the CPA chairman queried the ability of the NCC to issue such a directive

    You’d think, given it is their job, that the CPA Chairman would take the 2 minutes to read the Law that grants that ability, and the further points of the constitution that undergird that ability.

    Maybe the CPA Chairman, Mr. Alfred L. Thompson, has other more personally important and conflicting interests that are preventing him from doing the bare minimum for *this* job?

  4. nauticalone345 says:

    The CPA is long overdue for a major shake up! For starters the Chairman needs to go NOW! And a more equal representation of persons with some respect for our environment appointed!

  5. Political funding dividend says:

    2 out of the almost 20 projects now on going in West Bay.Where I applaud the CPA’s new found conscience. However the enormous developments including the New Hospital and certain enormous apartment complexes and the new low End lord of rental units and his fronting Caymanian realator buying up huge tracts Agricultural land coincidentally right next door or in the vicinity is extremely suspicious and very worrisome and should concerned everyone living in these areas. Some including our now woke CPA need to be reminded these projects are still extremely harmful to our environment and not just because they are in land that it doesn’t have a detrimental impact and these developments need careful consideration going forward.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Too little too late if you ask me. I worked in the luxury tourism industry for10 years in Cayman and everyone always said the reason they come to Cayman is because of the limited development, cleanliness, beaches and friendly people. I think the only one we have left is cleanliness. Development has gone crazy, good spots on the beaches are either with properties or hotels and friendly people? ha you used to get your butt whooped if you walked past someone and didn’t say good morning as a kid, now if you say good morning people actually look at you like you have two heads. Ah well- Cannabis legalization protest May 15th

    • Anonymous says:

      Yay bring back beating children for not saying good morning! FFS. Only 10 minutes ago a young lad I don’t know of about 8 walked past me and said good afternoon. Back to your cave grumpy old fool.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Waiting for the stars to fall out of the sky now. First time I heard whats their name deny any development the last 20 years.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The CPA chairman has no respect for the environment. It time for him to go. Hope the new appointed CPA will not consider having him as their Chairman. If you ever been before him it is very obvious his mind is made up before he hears your objections.

    • Anonymous says:

      The CPA chairman is guided and fettered by the planning regulations, not flavor du jour , which today is “the Environment”.
      Don’t blame the messenger, change the law.

      • Anonymous says:

        I think what “guides” the CPA chairman is money. You know…….. that stuff that makes you richer. The CPA is long overdue for a new crew!

        P.S. I would like to know what our new Premier thinks about this!

      • Anonymous says:

        @ 3:49 pm: Bull crap! I think you are not telling the truth!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Ironwood open yet?

  10. JTB says:

    They obviously didn’t order enough bathrooms…

  11. Anonymous says:

    Good job!

  12. Anonymous says:

    Hope they look at the Beach bay hotel project next!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Great news! Hope these decisions stand firm!!

    I live on NWP and have family on Boggy Sand, so I will see!

  14. Anonymous says:

    Young developers who don’t know much about the islands or the storm surge capable at NWP.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Interesting how once PPM are out of power, CPA starts rejecting all of these plans; really shows you who was REALLY in charge. Way to go Panton and PACT! Save our Islands!

  16. Anonymous says:

    Funny what happens immediately we no longer have Alden in charge. Makes you wonder. The law and regulations never changed, have they?

    • Anonymous says:

      Pay attention. Watch and see.

    • Anonymous says:

      Makes it at least appear like direct political influence of board determinations is or was a thing. Right Governor? (Good governance being your responsibility and all that bullshit).

  17. Anonymous says:


  18. Anonymous says:

    Barkers Beach Resort next.

  19. Anonymous says:

    If we don’t build it, they won’t come.

  20. Anonymous says:

    CPA chairman does not like the NCC questioning his policy of “ram it thru” at any cost. Why doesn’t our new premier get rid of that whole “pro development” CPA?

  21. Anonymous says:

    On the Lookout Holdings application – what does an adjournment mean instead of the original abeyance?

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.