Proposed Barkers resort refused by CPA

| 04/10/2021 | 15 Comments
Cayman News Service
Barkers Beach Hotel site in West Bay

(CNS): The Central Planning Authority has rejected an application for a boutique resort on Conch Point Road, just a over a mile from Barkers national reserve. The planning application for the project, which stirred up opposition in West Bay, was denied after last Wednesday’s CPA meeting but the board has not yet detailed the reasons for the refusal. According to the agenda for the meeting, the application included a number of requests for set-backs and presented a number of technical issues, which are likely to be behind the decision.

The $118 million proposal by the Coe Group included the construction of a five-storey building over the shell of the existing six-unit, two-storey apartment block on the site and adding two more buildings as well as a pool and cabanas.

The developers have claimed on social media that they have already sold a number of the units in the proposed resort to overseas investors, so this refusal will certainly present a headache for the developers, who will have to resubmit the application with adjusted plans that overcome whatever concerns were raised by the CPA. These will be documented in the minutes which should be released later this month.

The project has raised a number of concerns in the community, as people have only recently become aware that the height limit for buildings on the coast in West Bay has been increased to five storeys. But only one resident within the radius for allowed objections under the planning law submitted a formal challenge.

Some of the key concerns include the threat the project poses to Barkers, the gentrification of the area and pricing locals out of the area, as well as whether the developers will be seeking a coastal works licence in the future to change the appearance of the beach to match the promotional renderings, which depict a beach more like Seven Mile Beach.

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 (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    PACT – to ensure the “transparency” you promised, Handel Whittaker should recuse himself from ANY & ALL development applications which come before the CPA relating to Barkers.

    He has been a pervious applicant for a development at Barkers and thus, his involvement in any related decision could be biased or could be seen to be biased!

    Let’s see how Jay and Wayne sees it!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Opponents, please don’t be relieved as yet! Watch greed, influence and lack of integrity take over. Monitor upcoming CPA meetings for reversal!!

  3. Anonymous says:

    “The developers have claimed on social media that they have already sold a number of the units in the proposed resort to overseas investors, so this refusal will certainly present a headache for the developers”

    Ok.. AND?! Morne Botes, Joseph Coe and Michel Ebanks should not have gotten ahead of themselves and believed that this would go through. My best advice is to refund those investors and carry on. Coe Group is already building a (eyesore) condominium complex named “Boggy Sands”, why don’t they just focus on this instead? BTW.. it has been there for years. Not sure when or if ever they will be able to be inhabited.

    Finally, to the two Caymanians of Coe Group – shame on you all and you should be ASHAMED to call yourself a Caymanian.

    • Anonymous says:

      You have completely no idea what you are talking about.

      Boggy Sands Club is inhabited. It was built in a few phases, with the final phase ready within a month.

      Drive into interior West Bay and you will see miles of junky, almost slum-like eyesores.

      • Anonymous says:

        @11:54 am Are you insinuating that the old Caymanian homes in West Bay are the “slum-like eyesores”? Ah yes, what is that called, oh right, gentrification….

  4. Anonymous says:

    We need planning to change who can object and who gets notices when there is variances involved. We have guide lines so just follow them… no variances needed to be granted

    • Anonymous says:

      We need Parliament to change who can object. Its not Planning/CPA. Parliament reduced who could object years ago because they wanted to stop people objecting (Trust vs Ryan/Ritz/Mangroves) so it is Parliament who must re-enfranchise the people to object to undesirable development in our communities and country.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, probably refused because they used the wrong color crayon somewhere. Like the Dart lovely tunnel.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is the first good news in awhile.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just temporary. Lets see the reasons for the rejection, and Im sure with slight modifications, something will be approved.

      In fairness, this private developer does own the land, and if planning refuses all development, then they should be compelled to buy the land from the developer at fair market value.

  7. Anonymous says:

    And at the next CPA meeting, this proposal will be approved.

    I bet Ian and Handel on it!

    • Anonymous says:

      Clearly you don’t know the difference between adjourned and refused.

      The developers will likely appeal the refusal. Pthe public can now focus all it’s crap and banter on the Tribunal board nexr!

      • Anonymous says:

        6:42pm, save your anger for those you love.

        I’m not one.

        We will just watch what comes next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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