Cayman needs policy for over-water development
(CNS): The Cayman Islands needs to develop a policy on how to deal with planning and coastal works applications for over-water developments, a meeting of government agencies recently concluded, following the first submission of its kind for a controversial project in Little Cayman recently made to the Ministry of Sustainability.
While the Department of Environment has made it clear that this application should be refused because of its location, the pace of beachfront development in Cayman means it is unlikely to be the last for this type of development.
The DoE was asked to screen the application by Peppercorn Investments, which was also applying for a coastal works licence for this proposed project at Kingston Bight to see if it needed an environmental impact assessment.
But the DoE said it became evident that the “proposed development raised issues which go beyond the remit of an EIA”, especially because it is in a marine reserve and because a private sector developer was seeking permission to use the sea bed, which belongs to the Cayman people, for their direct profit.
“In the absence of a development plan for the Sister Islands or any policy framework for this type of infrastructure, there has not been a national conversation on the acceptability or appropriateness of this type of development for the Islands,” the DoE stated in its technical review document submitted to Cabinet about the project.
The department raised concerns that the approval frameworks and processes, such as a coastal work licence or a planning application, do not adequately deal with this type of infrastructure. The idea of a one-off royalty for use of crown land may not be the appropriate financial structure for this type of development, the DoE warned.
As a result, earlier this year the DoE convened a meeting with other relevant government departments and ministries to discuss both the proposal and the wider issue of over-water habitable structures. The meeting was attended by planning, environment and lands ministries, as well as Lands & Survey, the Department of Tourism, the Department of Planning and the DoE.
There were issues about this particular proposal for all the attendees because of the location within a Marine Protected Area in South Hole Sound Marine Reserve. But the longer term implications of developers wanting to do this type of construction also gave cause for concern.
“It was also agreed by all attendees that the country needs to develop a policy for this type of infrastructure to ensure that it is appropriately sited and regulated, minimises the impacts on the environment and delivers a positive visitor experience,” the DoE said. “This would set the framework for assessing and reviewing future applications.”
The DoE said that on behalf of the National Conservation Council, it will work on developing the policy, in consultation with relevant agency stakeholders, over the coming months.
There will also be an opportunity for public consultation, since as there are concerns this sort of development is viewed unfavorably by the broader community. The concept not only challenges the idea of the sea belonging to everyone but there is increasing evidence that it is unsustainable.
Over-water development in other jurisdictions has been shown to be harmful to marine environments due to the changing light conditions from shading and turbidity generated from suspended sediment during construction. Electricity and sewage provision for over-water dwellings also present environmental problems.
Cayman is already seeing a growing public backlash to runaway coastal development that is preventing local people from enjoying the beaches and coastal waters, and there is concern that such a development would set a precedent for beachfront landowners seeking to maximize their profit from oceanfront property.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News, Marine Environment, Science & Nature
A policy on how to deal with it!!! How about this policy: NO. NOPE. NO WAY. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Given the government spends some time broadcasting their concern for the environment and did actually pass the National Conservation Law, why did they not enact section 46 and section 47 of that law??????
If you want the over water vacation experience just stay at there Marriott or Regal Beach on SMB (Or what’s left of it)
So Caymanians are not allowed to fish in a marine reserve but our government entities would consider/entertain this destruction?
This is super easy, even a government can do it – the policy should be a straight “No!”.
2:06 You are right they don’t get hurricanes they get cyclones which can and do cause damage to overwater bungalows. The shade caused by the bungalows would destroy any underlying seagrass beds. As a healthy marine environment relies on habitat connectivity any reduction in seagrass beds or mangroves is likely to have a knock-on effect on fish and invertebrate populations. The area where they want to construct these in LC would destroy both habitats not to mention it is in a marine reserve. Also, how do they plan to deal with waste?
I’ve read all the haters comments on this matter. Funny not one solution provided. Check out anthenea.fr
Solar powered floating suites.They can be moored to permanent anchors, no electricity used, environmental friendly. Moved for bad weather. Ticks all the boxes, except the ones your haters will now create.
Water? Sewage? Damage to native life from building & then blocking light?
Build them in France, not Cayman.
There is no problem requiring a solution. The answer is ‘no’. Develop your own land sure. Keep our public marine parks out of the hands of greed.
I for one cannot wait for something like this to come to fruition. I have been to French Polynesia before and this would be just as good without having to fly coach halfway around the globe.
Go to Jamaica. We do not want this type of destructive development in Cayman.
The next thing the applicants for the development in L.C. will apply for is a 500 foot marine exclusion zone around their proposed dock development, watch this space.
This is not THEIR water bottom. Send them away.
Who’s the owner of that “land”? (Under the water). Kind of a first come first serve?
The Queen I think.
It’s the Queen’s land. That’s why, when a coastal works licence is issued, it authorizes “scratching the Queen’s bottom”. Literally, that’s the actual terminology used.
It belongs to the crown so no one can own it. It is certainly not first come first serve.
Maybe first with free condos on offer first served. Wasn’t that the previous model??
It was two free condos actually,
The policy is simple….. No!
It’s very easy to write this policy. Two words. Not allowed.
We don’t want or need any over water development of this kind on any of our islands.
Just say no!
Another type of potential development that needs policy framework is houseboats. I know of a developer who imported custom house boats that looked like Chinese Junks into purpose built slips in Singapore harbour. Due the to skyrocketing price of real estate this venture took off but soon the government caught on and stopped it.
If you’re going to build anything it’s hard to think of any construction that has less impact on the environment. If this is too much then the alternative is nothing or hotels on the beach. If it’s nothing just come out and say it.
It’s nothing.
I said it.
Preserve L.C now!
I dont let it bother me anymore….live longer….rich always get what they want….
I have a great policy. How about NO over water developments!?
I would never stay in one anyway. Sounds travels well over open water so try not to pass wind.
If this Cabana is rocking, don’t come knocking.
The current policy works just fine. It sets the minimum distance BACK from the shoreline in all situations. Anything FORWARD of the shoreline is called a DOCK!
Long term detrimental. Protection of environment is a fundamental right in accordance with section 18 of Constitution.
The Official Cayman Islands Policy For Overwater Development.
NO. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS.
NOT TODAY. NOT EVER BOBO.
NEXT,!
If this were to be granted, it would put the Honorable Premier in breach of the fundamental right of protection of the environment (under s.18, Bill of Rights). End of story.
First hurricane will tear that sort of development to shreds.
In order to combat that , in addition to the normal engineering to stand up to 150mph and more, winds, the piling would have to be similarly engineered to withstand water attack.
This means seriously deep bedding ..
That alone should ring environmental warning bells.
All those things can of course be done, but would you want to set that precedent,?
Deep drilling is probably not a good idea right near a fault line either.
They need do this now in respect of the hotel at the south end of SMB.
Or we could just not do it in the first place.
Let’s not do it
The policy should be: it’s not and never should be allowed. One would have thought this would be a no-brainer.. we aren’t Bora Bora or the Maldives. SMH
Agree. The Overwater Development Policy draft:
Section I, part A: NO
Text ends.
Exactly! I don’t know why they are trying to turn us into something we are not. Plus first tropical storm let alone a hurricane would obliterate them. Utter waste of money and needless destruction of our marine environment.
I can tell you why they’re trying. The almighty dollar and the rampant greed.
If it required 300 foot timbers to hold them up, some ass would build it thinking how rich They were going to be! The government should throw cold water this idiotic plan now!
They don’t get destroyed in hurricanes elsewhere so I don’t see why that’s a issue. Secondly having stayed in quite a few similar hotels I accept there is probably some destruction during construction but the shade from the structures soon becomes a haven for far more sea life than would ever live there otherwise.