Boggy Sand cabana owner makes new application

| 07/07/2021 | 47 Comments
Cabana at Boggy Sand Beach

(CNS): The owner of a controversial concrete cabana that is structurally unsound because it was allowed to be built far too close to the water has made a new application for another cabana on the same spot. The latest owner of this piece of beach, whose recent application to build a house at the location was refused, has filed a new application for another gazebo-type structure, with a kitchen downstairs and a rooftop terrace above, according to a notice on the planning website.

In April the National Conservation Council made the very rare move of directing the Central Planning Authority to reject an application to tear down the current cabana and wall to pave the way for a house because the technical experts at the Department of Environment had warned that there were no mitigating measures that could be deployed to protect any structure on the site.

The application was rejected after the owners appeared but could not explain or justify their proposal and the need to waive all of the set-back regulations that would have been required. The CPA said the applicant failed to demonstrate that there were adequate reasons to allow a lesser setback from the high-water mark or sufficient reasons or exceptional circumstances to warrant allowing the lesser setbacks for the front and sides of the building.

However, it was the CPA that had granted permission for a seawall and one-storey concrete cabana twelve years ago, in the days before the public had access to planning meetings. The DoE has said that this structure has caused considerable beach erosion in the area, which is a critical turtle nesting habitat.

The DoE has now advised that remedial work is required to reduce the negative impact of the current structure but any new structure would continue to cause problems if, as this application does, it more or less covers the same footprint. The application has not yet been scheduled to go before the CPA.

The entire membership of the CPA was changed last week and all eyes will be on the new chairman, Ian Pairaudeau, the former managing director of McAlpine and currently a construction consultant, when he chairs a meeting of the first line-up tomorrow.

See Wednesday meeting agenda here which is still listing the old board.

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 (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Should have put it on pilings with no seawall.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Tear down Marnie Turner’s wall same time.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Have we not learned anything from the Surfside condo?

    • Anonymous says:

      07@8:28pm – Hmmm…while this BS structure is an example of stupidity or greed (or both), it was built some years ago. The Surfside accident was 2 weeks ago. Surely it’s a bit early to learn ANY lessons from that tragedy – except the obvious!

      RIP Surfside Champlain South residents.

      • Anonymous says:

        It was not an accident. Even a hedgehog will see that construction (2016-2019) of an adjacent building literally few hundred feet from the collapsed buildings contributed, accelerated and exacerbated its demise. Basic, high school level physics- energy from demolition, excavation, hammer pile driving etc. doesn’t disappear into an oblivion, it induces vibration. The vibration propagates through the ground and interacts with structures, both above ground and underground.

        • Anonymous says:

          08 @ 10:37am – So, geological seismic professional and dynamic physicist… if it wasn’t an accident then it must be deliberate….and you’re the only one who knows this. Wow!

          The numerous engineering professionals on-site and those involved in the investigation(s) to follow should just re-direct their efforts and resources and listen to you, and just identify and prosecute the hedgehogs responsible. Right, Moron?

          Anyway, never mind my comments, I only have A level physics and certainly didn’t study seismology, engineering and construction/de-construction like you apparently did….or not!

          • Anonymous says:

            Hurt much, damn take something to relax a little bit lol

          • Anonymous says:

            Why Did the Surfside Condo Tower Collapse? Here Are All the Theories.

            Theory No. 2: Vibrations From Construction Next Door
            Across the street — but located in the adjacent city of Miami Beach — is Eighty Seven Park, a new 18-story, 71-unit luxury tower designed by Renzo Piano and developed by Terra, which opened last year. During construction, residents in Champlain Towers complained about shaking and vibrations, with one condo-board member writing to Surfside officials in January 2019 that workers were “digging too close to our property and we have concerns regarding the structure of our building.”


          • Anonymous says:

            Miami building collapse: What could have caused it?

            Could new building work be a factor?
            “Some people believe it is possible that vibrations from the recent construction of the adjacent 18-storey tower block – Eighty Seven Park – may have caused some ground movement.
            Champlain Towers South residents raised concerns in 2019 that they had felt movement and shaking during the construction work, but were told to monitor the situation.”

  4. Anonymous says:

    This should be a compulsory acquisition of the current government, led by a self-proclaimed environmentalist has any testicular fortitude.

    • Anonymous says:


      • Anonymous says:

        We need strong enforcements laws that allow planning to encumber the plot and building under regulation breach. It would also help on beach access , just strong enforcement. When they know we are serious it will stop but right now every one knows we are cupcakes

    • Anonymous says:

      Why should government bailout the idiot who built this by buying the land. Let him suffer his loss which is due to his own arrogance and stupidity.

      • Anonymous says:

        He going pay for the resulting loss of SMB too?

        Caymanians do like to cut off their nose to spite their face.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The foolish man build his house upon the sand.

  6. Structure should be taken down if not next big blow from south/sswest will cause much more serious erosion to take place.I remember the huge public outcry when that was allowed to be built.Anyone remember all the pile driving that went on to re-inforce the roadway there.So many sheets of iron shaking neighbours houses.Quite the event at the time.Take the doggone thing down ASAP.

  7. Anonymous says:

    No civic servants are ever held responsible, remember the top say we have a world class civic servants, all are working hard doing a good job. I wish they could wake up and at least answer their phones.

  8. Anonymous says:

    All CPA has to do is “drag their feet” and wait until it topples into the sea. It will….!

  9. Anonymous says:

    The surfside building should be a warning to all the developments that sea water touches.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well you know, some idiot will always try to play hero chasing a dollar that doesn’t even look in their direction. Smh.

      If the owner can’t hear, they will feel when it falls into the water and the legal chips fall where they may.

  10. Right ya so says:

    You have got to be kidding! This application shouldn’t even be entertained by the CPA and the landowners fined for wasting the Authority’s time.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why do we allow these persons to come here and do these things? They must really sit around and just laugh at us over a good scotch.

      • Anonymous says:

        These persons to come here and do these things – so sure the developer isn’t local? Our home grown guys are pretty good at ignoring the rules for sure.

      • Anonymous says:

        Who sits on Planning Board? Caymanians. Who was green-lighting the likes of FIN etc.? Caymanians.

        Instead of the xenophobic tiresome crap, you need to realize who it was that sold off your island. But that’s probably too bitter a pill to swallow so you point your finger at the damn ‘foriners’

        • Anonymous says:

          I hope you understand the concept of a ‘person with status’.

          Thanks to the many naive decisions and naive people (both local and foreigners) over the years, anybody from abroad could relatively easily obtain status and gain the all the same rights to things locals have without the requirement to renounce any existing citizenships. (Effectively nullifying any Caymanian birthrights)

          Many local Caymanians have sold us out, but it sure does not hail in comparison to the ‘Caymanians’ that originated as foreigners that did and continue to do the same. All under the guise of being a community-building citizen who eventually jumps ship at the first sign of trouble with their loot.

          The ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing, always with a exit strategy whether is fully used or not. Learn the full story please.

    • Anonymous says:

      CPA has to hear the application. That is how the system works. What should happen is CPA should refuse it. Will they? We don’t know. The problem is the CPA approving projects left and right. You can’t blame the builders and owners from trying.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Wonder why it was called “Boggy” Sands in the first place?

  12. Anonymous says:

    You can not fine someone for building a structure which has received all the necessary approvals from government. The blame should be put on the CPA for approving it. And the new CPA, in my opinion, should refuse the new application. If they approve it then it is their fault not the applicant.

    • T says:

      Agreed!! The asshat that approved this in the first place should be the one to remove the debris when this silly thing topples into the sea.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “that is structurally unsound because it was allowed to be built far too close to the water”

    Photo shows the strucutre literally in the water – lol.

    For buildings like this, should it not be handled by the port authority. Its so far in the water it could be a boat. /s

  14. Anonymous says:

    From your article, exerpt below, it seems this was built under Mr Bush and the UDP and under a very different planning board than the last one. It also seems that public meetings of the CPA was started under the board that was just replaced. If correct,then Both points are worth considering when reading the article.

    “However, it was the CPA that had granted permission for a seawall and one-storey concrete cabana twelve years ago, in the days before the public had access to planning meetings”

    • Anonymous says:

      12 years ago would have been an election year so it could have been under the PPM or the UDP. Might be interesting to find out who was the Chairman and members of the planning board and owner of the land at the time to see the connections which might have caused this stupidity to be passed.

    • Anonymous says:

      Bush,UDP, nothing surprising here, backroom deals for friends .
      Thanks again Mac.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Use Environmental Fund cash to buy it and tear it down.

    • Anonymous says:

      Tear it down at the landowner’s cost. The landowner most likely has insurance in place (or should have had insurance) to cover this scenario

      • Anonymous says:

        Not sure about that. I have never heard of an insurance policy against having a building being torn down because prior CPA approval should not have been given in the first place…

        • Anonymous says:

          It is a safety hazard right now. There has to be some law that the government could use to have it removed..

          • Anonymous says:

            It’s called IN THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST by acquisition through the compulsory acquisition part of the Land Law.

    • Anonymous says:

      I fail to see why government funds should be used to purchase something that is built out in the sea where it shouldn’t be. Tear it down I agree with.

      • Len Layman says:

        Government board CPA approved the building of this structure. If they had turned it down it would not be an issue it would have been built. The ultimate blame is with CPA not the owner. But CPA on behalf of the government approved it. People keep forgetting it is not what the developer wants to do that is at fault, it is what CPA/government lets them do that is why we are in the position we are. If CPA would stop handing out variances like they were Halloween Candy we would not have a lot of the problems we do.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just tear it down and remediate the site. If you start arguing over who pays for it, it’ll still be there 20 years from now. You can fight over who pays for it in court none of us have to see that!

  16. Vigilante says:

    These “new owners” appear entirely ignorant of the extent of their brazen disregard for Cayman’s environmentally sound future potential. The only response to a new application should be a requirement to remove the structure and foundation and remediate the site to original shoreline…at their expense, of course. Maybe throw in a hefty fine for good measure…

    • Anonymous says:

      Whilst I agree that the entire structure should so obviously be removed it hardly seems fair that it is entirely the property owners responsibility. The CPA must bear some responsibility for allowing it to be built there no? Perhaps if they were held accountable for their decisions we would have fewer problems like this in the first place?

      • Anonymous says:

        Probably submitted and pushed through by one of the draftsmen on the previous planning board…many other examples of similar eyesores inexplicably approved .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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