Barkers hotel refused over set backs
(CNS) The Central Planning Authority refused permission for a 5-storey boutique hotel close to Barkers Beach in West Bay as a result of technical setback issues, according to the minutes from the CPA meeting on 29 September, which have now been published. The refusal was not based on the concerns of a formal objector, which reflected the view of several local residents that such a project could put the much loved area at risk.
With modifications to the plans, a re-application would likely be approved. If not, without any significant changes to the planning law, it is only a matter of time before the largely unspoiled coastline by Barkers falls prey to the bulldozers.
The CPA refused this particular CI$118 million proposal by the Coe Group because it did not comply with the high water mark setback and the developers “failed to demonstrate that the Authority should allow lesser setbacks”, the minutes stated. “The Authority does not agree with the applicant’s stated reasons for the deficient setbacks and notes that no reasons were provided for the deficient high water mark setback for the pool and gazebos.”
The CPA said the minimum required side and front setbacks were also inadequate, and the board rejected the applicant’s suggestion that an existing public right-of-way on a separate parcel of land could contribute to the required setback.
But the CPA made no mention of the detailed concerns raised by a formal objector, which reflected the opinion of many in the wider community in West Bay, about setting a precedent for 5-storey buildings so close to Barkers National Park. There are also real fears about the impact that unchecked development in this part of the district will have on future property prices.
Meanwhile, according to the minutes, another controversial application to clear land by mechanical means in the absence of a planning application was adjourned to invite the applicant to appear before the CPA at a future date.
The DoE had advised the CPA to turn down the application by Anthony Powell to clear two separate pieces of land in East End consisting of primary habitat including dry forest, woodland, shrubland and seasonally flooded mangrove, given the speculative nature of the application.
See the minutes from 29 September meeting in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
These “it will make the neighborhood better” enablers are playing the same game here they play globally. Prepare yourselves for massive gentrification on a scale that you cannot possibly fathom.
If the development can be made to fit the regulations why shouldn’t they be allowed to develop it? Because come hypocrites who themselves live in BUILDINGS (some of them in SS on reclaimed mangrove wetlands- SHOCK) say so? If they want the land let them buy it. Or the government can buy it but stop with this harassment of developers (as long as they abide by the rules that is their right).
12.55 “Hypocrites”?
You do realise the developer himself has been foaming at the mouth against other developers who wanted to develop the “land they had bought.”
Check your facts.
The COE company is also trying to to develop an apartment complex in Boltins Ave. West Bay as well and the majority of our neighborhood have objected on a number of reasons. As Caymanians we need to make a public stand for our selves against these types developments. As it’s obvious the Government has it’s own agenda regarding the development. Keeping the public in the gray area, as certain individuals are profiteering from these deals. We need to make a stand now.
Strenght
In
Numbers.
you cry babies need to put a cork in it. These developers are paying a lot of money and we need these developments for all the jobs they create.
Obvious troll is obvious.
You are a troll, we are people who have to work and these jobs are our bread and butter. Build – build – build!
@3:14PM
Jobs for who??
Clearly you don’t own a home. And if you do you don’t care about you community or the Cayman Islands. Why don’t you just keep your mouth shut and keep your head down and do your 9 years of hard labour and kindly leave. And make sure you thank all of the Caymanians who have accepted you in our comunuity when you leave.
Time to go on the streets to demonstrate for immediate planning law amendments.
Sit down, we loose.
Dear McKeeva, although we woted for you time and time again, and will continue blindly woting for you no matter what, please save us from all this dewelopment in West Bay that you have caused
Why should things change when circus clowns like the MacBeater is re-elected.
It’s time for Caymanians to look hard in the mirror – what we see is the reason for such rampant problems in our Gov’t – Ourselves.
If we truly want to participate in responsible change – it has to start at the ballot box. The fact is Cayman is clearly not up to the task. We vote for far too many incompetent ministers – we should stop being surprised when we get the expected level of corruption.
They’ll be back for another shot at it…….and win! Bye, bye Barkers.
They bought the private land and have a right to develop it. If you wanted it preserved, why did not you, or a group of you, or the government buy it?
And while you are at it, please tear down your house and return the land to its natural state.
Difference is that I got planning permit to build my house, because I obeyed the planning regulations….geddit ?
My house’s footprint doesn’t adversely affect any of my neighbours. It could not. It has been the same for the last 60 years.
They bought the private land and have a right to develop it, WITHIN context of existing laws and regulations. If that case were so, nobody would be winging about it.
The Coe Group. Sounds local. Is it?
Look behind the Coe name and you will find a foreign developer who has a history of hysterical objection to other projects.
Same man now trying to cram the site to maximize his financial return, while disrespecting the planning laws.
You throw in ‘foreign’ yet one of your Captains was involved.
CNS would be good if you could just accept the CPA decision to refuse instead of speculating on the outcome of a future application which doesn’t even exist yet. How the heck would you know that a future application is “likely” to be approved? The minutes DO refer to the objectors concerns but the illegality of the setbacks was sufficient reason to refuse the application.
Death by a thousand cuts. Premier Panton outlaw speculative land clearance now.
It was refused because its not Dart building it?
I had the displeasure of driving through central Wast Bay on the weekend. What a complete horrid disorganized dump. Does anyone have any pride? Awful property one after the other.
So a new development is your concern? What the hell do you think people buy land for?
Don’t know where you drove through but obviously you haven’t been through all of West Bay. I’m sure we could say the same thing about your district without seeing all parts of it. Quit being a troll.
I have to agree with the original poster. Most of West Bay is pretty bad. Some nice parts, but as you drive the many winding interior roads…..eegghh…
Stay out then.
Location, location, location….
None of those other points from the “relevant objector” are really relevant to the decision anyway. Absolutely nothing wrong with a 5 storey building in this area, they just need to propose a smaller footprint, as it is well established that breaking the setback is a bad idea.