Developers defend projects facing public backlash

(CNS): Local residents challenging the pace of development are no longer just committed environmental activists but increasingly include Caymanians who have been marginalized by projects that undermine the culture and heritage of these islands, but some developers are standing by their plans, despite the controversy they are causing. Matthew Wight, one of three Caymanian developers behind a proposed beach resort in Little Cayman that includes over-the-water bungalows, said he has received a lot of support for the project, and Joseph Coe told CNS he was proud of the Barkers Beach project.

Meanwhile, the largest developer of all is coming out fighting with the National Conservation Council, as Dart makes it clear it does not want to conduct an environmental impact assessment before it gets the green light for its controversial planned area development.

Despite opposition on social media and a very mixed response on CNS last month to the Little Cayman Boutique Resort, Wight said the developers (Naul Bodden, William Maines and Wight himself) were not a group of foreigners that do not respect what has made the island special and that local residents are backing the project.

“Ultimately there will be differing opinions, especially as this is a ‘change’ and not been done before in Cayman,” he said. “We are three Caymanians that have our own vision that also needs to be appreciated. This is not a group of foreigners that does not respect what has made Little Cayman special and trying to make drastic change for their own self-interests. Naul was a fishing guide in Little Cayman over 50 years ago, so there are very few Caymanians that could do a project like this proud and with Little Cayman truly at heart.”

Wight said the three shareholders have owned property on the island for over 25 years and it means a lot to them. “We very much feel this project is in-keeping with Little Cayman’s charm, will assist in diversifying its tourism product and add positively to the Island in terms of employment as well as economic stimulus,” he added.

Answering the question of climate resilience, Wight, who is the managing director at NCB Group, said that company had “led the way in sustainable development” and the bungalows were designed to sit eight feet above sea level to produce the right amount of light and shading for the sea-life to flourish and also protect them from storm surge.

The project will require a coastal works licence separate from planning permission and is likely to be subject to a good deal of public scrutiny in the coming months, given the issues it raises for the marine environment.

Another major project stirring up controversy is the first five-story project in the Barkers area. Barkers Beach Resort, if it goes ahead, will be located on land sold to the developers by the now retired politician, Captain Eugene Ebanks. It will see a block of affordable apartments bulldozed to make way for luxury condos.

Joseph Coe, the owner of COE Group Ltd, who is developing the project in partnership with the developer behind Boggy Sands, Morne Botes, said they were “very proud” of the project, which would be on Conch Point Road, west of the Villas Papagallo and Papagallo Restaurant but officially outside the area of Barkers National Park.

“Our project was called Barkers Beach Development as the beach leads to Barkers National Park,” he said. “We have satisfied enquiries by the government departments in regards to seeking planning permission, and look forward to our date with the CPA. We are excited to bring a new boutique hotel to the area that will help to rejuvenate and bring further business to West Bay.”

However, the project has been criticised because local environmental activists have concerns that such a large development is out of keeping with the area and will set a precedent for taller, more dense buildings that will encroach on the last area of untouched coastline in West Bay. Some local activists have also said the promotional material is misleading and that the project will not benefit the local community.

Meanwhile, the islands’ largest landowner all is also defending its massive new proposed project by Crymble Landholding, one of the Dart Group’s subsidiary companies. Dart has criticised the Department of Environment’s findings in its screening opinion regarding the proposed planned area development (PAD) that the company is planning in the Seven Mile Beach corridor, north of Governor’s Harbour, that will straddle the Esterley Tibbetts Highway.

In a press release last week, the developer raised objections to the DoE’s advice to the National Conservation Council (NCC) that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be conducted for the project before planing permission was given to the overall PAD. Despite outlining a huge amount of proposed development in the PAD that would breach current planning regulations, Dart officials claim that a PAD application is not really a planning application and so it should not be required to conduct an EIA.

The developer also said the NCC’s ratification of the DoE’s screening opinion was fundamentally flawed. Dart said the NCC had delegated their decision-making capacity to the DoE in breach of the respective law. This comes after a recent decision by the Planning Appeals Tribunal that has already undermined the National Conservation Act and opened the legal door for developers to challenge the council’s decisions and ultimately up-end the intention of the law.

Mark VanDevelde, Dart’s chief executive officer, said, “We are concerned about the inconsistency in the interpretation and application of the current law when determining at what stage an EIA is required… This inconsistency and lack of clarity in the law relating to the requirements for a PAD has led to what appears to be incorrect and unfounded conclusions, which in turn led to misinformation and confusion.”

VanDevelde called for comprehensive and synchronised legislation. “This is urgently needed to bring efficiency and predictability to the process and to balance the country’s environmental, social, and economic interests,” he said.

“On one end of the spectrum, there are lands and habitats of significant environmental importance which absolutely need to be protected, and on the other end of the spectrum, there are lands which, if developed, can provide the greatest economic benefits to the country. In the middle, where the value is not as clearly defined, having such a framework would be invaluable to guide decision making.  

“A comprehensive Environmental Management Framework informed by all stakeholders, that reflects a shared vision for the future, would provide clear guidance on how land can be developed, managed or protected, and give much-needed certainty and clarity to all parties,” the CEO concluded.

However, the public opposition to the PAD centres on several important factors. Firstly, if Dart rolls out all of the proposal in the PAD, dozens of beach access points would be lost. Secondly, over 40 acres of mangrove, the last remaining wetland habitat in West Bay, would also be lost. Finally and fundamentally, objectors are asking what is the justification for allowing such a massive development that threatens so much natural habitat as well as the loss of beach access that will provide little, if any, long term or direct benefit to most ordinary Caymanians.

The current public backlash against over-development, especially on the coast, was a key issue on the campaign trail. Many voters are now looking to PACT to address the runaway development that does not have public support, that offers no long term benefit to Caymanians, puts a strain on infrastructure, pushes up property prices beyond the ability of locals to afford them and poses adverse effects on the natural environment.

---