Controversial LC resort gets partial green light

| 03/02/2022 | 142 Comments
Cayman News Service
View from Kingston Bight, Little Cayman (Photo credit: National Trust for the Cayman Islands)

(CNS): A proposed new beach resort development at Kingston Bight on Little Cayman, where developers want to build overwater bungalows, has been given a partial green light after the Cayman Brac and Little Cayman Development Control Board considered the application last week for the land-side component of the project.

The developers have said the overwater cabanas are an intrinsic part of the proposed resort but Cabinet has not yet granted permission for the coastal works, which the Department of Environment described in its technical submissions as “fundamentally unacceptable“.

The DoE has strongly recommended against the coastal works application for a catalogue of reasons, which are set out in the technical review and outlined on the DCB agenda.

The department had also raised concerns that the DCB was hearing the land-side application by Peppercorn Investments before a decision has been made regarding the overwater bungalows, which the developers say are necessary to make the project viable.

The developers have not withdrawn the coastal works application, despite carving it out from the planning application that has now been approved.

The DoE had stated that because the applicant continues to pursue permission for both the land-based components and the overwater bungalows, the decision by the DCB to hear one part of the project did not allow for a comprehensive review of the impact of the entire development.

“Fundamentally, the DoE does not consider that these new plans indicate a commitment from the applicant to pursue a development of a land-based hotel resort only. The full project still includes overwater bungalows and approving this development is planning on a piece-meal basis. Trying to ‘slice up’ and separate parts of the project to avoid a comprehensive review of the likely impacts of the project as a whole is contrary to best practice,” the DoE had said.

The DoE experts noted a catalogue of issues about the overwater component, given that it will be an unprecedented decision. In addition to the environmental consequences, there are questions over the economic benefit that could flow to a single developer from using crown land in a marine park that belongs to everyone. But they also had concerns about the plans for the land-side development.

The site is a nesting habitat for the Sister Island Rock Iguana. In addition, the plans indicate that the developer intends to erect a number of hard structures on the beach within the 75ft setback that will reduce the beach area, which will expose the resort to inundation from the sea.

“It does not seem practical for a hotel resort to limit the size of the beach from the outset,” the experts said in their submissions. “The DoE does not support the coastal setback based on the current design of the proposed development. It is strongly recommended that the design be revised to move the structures as far back from the beach as possible to give the largest area possible.”

There is no development plan for Little Cayman but the national 1977 plan points out that care should be taken over hotel development “to keep the natural amenities including beach and shore available for the public,” an ideal that appears to have been long forgotten on Grand Cayman.

With no development plan for Little Cayman, there are also questions about the socioeconomic impact of this project. If the whole thing goes ahead, it will be the largest resort on the island.

“There are likely to be significant adverse impacts… due to the pressures on the infrastructure of Little Cayman. The Proposed Development may not be sustainable for Little Cayman nor in line with the tourism product for Little Cayman,” the DoE stated.

Flight capacity, places for employees to live, the amount of waste that will be generated, the supply chain, and the impact on infrastructure are all areas that should have been considered before the resort was given planning permission.

As a result, the DoE concluded that if this were to be given planning permission, as is now the case, and then a coastal works licence for the overwater bungalows, it would require a full environmental impact assessment.

“The DoE maintains its position that the principle of the acceptability of the overwater bungalows should first be established through Cabinet’s determination of the coastal works application. Should Cabinet be minded to grant approval, the in-water and land-based components should be screened for an EIA. In advance of this determination the planning application should be held in abeyance,” the DoE had said.

Nevertheless, the DCB granted planning permission, including allowing structures to be built on the beach and with no specific conditions for environmental protection or climate change resilience, as per the current government policy.

According to the letter granting planning permission, which has been seen by CNS, the only conditions relating to environmental issues is that the developers arrange a walkthrough of the site before work starts to check for iguanas and, as is normally the case, no excavations of foundation work can begin during the rock iguana nesting season.

See the DCB agenda and the DoE technical review in the CNS Library.

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 (142)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    I have no problem with this project as long as I can stay for a vacation or rent it by the month

  2. Anonymous says:

    At least someone came through this bankruptcy intact. Holds true that companies managed over multiple generations of family end up in shambles.

  3. Courtney Platt says:

    I photographed the destruction caused by Hurricane Ivan, then felt compelled to do a book (at great effort and personal expense) of the photos, entitled “Paradise Interrupted” in the expectation that the visual evidence of what the storm surge did would change the way we build here forever. I am soooooo disappointed by the incomprehensible failure of the obvious evidence provided by history throughout the Caribbean to affect the future of coastal construction here. It seems clear that in this case a handful of “leaders” at the DCB and at the Planning Board in general are ignoring the needs of the many in favor of the desires of a few. I still have faith that our people’s elected PACT led Cabinet will do the obvious and deny the application for over-water bungalows based on a long list of predictable negative effects it would have on our environment and even on the cost of insurance. We all (including safe inland home owners) paid dearly in rate hikes after the millionaires who built unsafely along the sea claimed enormous sums for their Ivan losses. Looking forward, everything on the coast should be built high on stilts! That was the largely ignored lesson of “Paradise Interrupted”. Even looking only at the land side aspect of this proposed project, it is still very wrong and costly to all but the developers… but the over-water bungalows must never be approved for this or any other project. Doing so would almost certainly cause a “gold rush” of similar projects throughout the islands for free construction space at predictably great expense to all of the rest of us.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you for doing the work that others would not. Where can one find this book?

      Also, building on stilts is a common practice in the coastal areas of the U.S. and have saved many buildings and lives on the beaches.

      How soon we all forget that a mere ONE meter in the rise of sea levels could place most of the island underwater.

    • Anonymous says:

      Anyone who hasn’t walked “7 mile beach” in some time should do so. The sea wall construction has made some beachfronts totally disappear. Mother Ocean is reclaiming the beaches and it will be foolish to invest millions to replenish them without tearing down the destructive sea walls and buildings that were allowed to be built so close to the sea.

      • Anonymous says:

        Seven Mile Beach is anything but that now. Try closer to 5 miles at a push. The eyesore that is SMB on the south side of Dart’s illegal cabana is horrific. The remains of Royal Palms. Unused waterpsorts equipment rusting. Old beach chairs and loungers broken and rusting.

        It used to be a nice walk from Governor’s Beach to Palms or The Marriott for a cold beer. Can’t see that EVER happening again. Shame and all because of greed and corrupt planning.

        • Anonymous says:

          Don’t even get me started on the state of Calicos last time I was up. Can’t believe he’s allowed to let that rot.

    • Anonymous says:

      In regard to the over-water bungalows, you have raised the alarm in regard to the over-water part of the project, citing an alleged “long list of predictable negative effects it would have on our environment and even on the cost of insurance” but you fail to provide the list. One would think that if your argument is based on this hypothetical threat list you would do the public the service of providing us with the list or at the very least, a summary thereof. You seem to suggest that the best way to go in regard to coastal buildings is to build them on stilts. In your own words: “Looking forward, everything on the coast should be built high on stilts!” I shall proffer that the most threatened part of the proposed project is not the over-water portion but the land-side portion. The over-water portion is in accord with your plea as the bungalows are to be build up high on stilts. In your zeal to decry the concept of the bungalow project you seemed to have missed that they conform to your ideal model for coastal projects. If anything is threatened by storm flooding it is anything built near the ground on the land-side part of the resort. As a photographer one would think that the horrid aesthetics would be Mr. Platt’s main concern. It is mine. The natural beauty of the shoreline would be jarringly disrupted by these man-made structures looming over the water like a fleet of alien craft ready to take a squat in the lagoon. When the developers come with their application for the mandatory coastal works permissions for the bungalows, I trust that Panton and Cabinet will greet them thusly: “See? There is the door! And don’t let it hit you on your opulent baxides on your way out. Good bye and good riddance!

  4. Anonymous says:

    The PACT government has made a mockery of their commitment to the environment and towards a more sustainable approach to development. A promise from a politician is only of comfort to a fool.

  5. Kondor 2 base Station says:

    Is this the same company who moved all the sand illegally from the Tides site who was suppose to return back to beach at the conclusion of the project and trucked and stockpiled at the shareholders Sunrise landing subdivision site off Hirst Road left there for 2 years until bushed and vines over grew it and memories faded and then trucked it out to other Construction sites and used it and stockpiled on their Goring Avenue site . Gotcha !! Yes you do you own google maps search CNS posters I have rename them the Goring Avenue Sand Pirates GASP! Because that’s all we can do about this developers now onslaught on Little Cayman and its Environment . Cayman Brac’s DCB are a disgrace!

  6. Anonymous says:

    And the rights to lopsta’s year round that live under the bungalows Bobo. Can also get kunks at the StarFish Point location….

  7. Anonymous says:

    Boy, COVID international travel restrictions really opened the eyes of wealthy Grand Cayman residents to the unspoiled beauty of Little Cayman. We still cannot get a seat on the Twin Otters between Little and Grand unless we book a week in advance. Well, before inter island traffic really opened up, no property in Little was moving…at all. After a month or 2 of local visitation, every available piece of beach or ocean front property was snapped up. You can get a piece of the beach, but you will pay a handsome increase in price for it. All these people envision building a lovely vacation or retirement home on this unspoiled paradise. Now along comes the developers. Enjoy Little now as this is the best it will ever be. When these overwater bungalows are approved and built, the Little you bought on will no longer exist. Remember this when after the first hurricane this overwater development encounters and you have to drive around the residue of these bungalows on the road and in the mangroves and floating in the sound think what you could have done to stop it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Some of those same “Wealthy Residents” you describe also purchased property to develop and help spoil paradise and not to build secluded family, vacation homes unlike the first cohort of expatriate Little Cayman Residents. Dart has purchased a sizable cross-section of little cayman properties from years ago, including some of Ken Hall’s portfolio so it was only going to be a matter of time. Worse yet, the smaller sisters island still lacks a development plan and proper zoning. Unfortunately, our local greedy, avaricious developers seem to have beat others to the punch in this regard. So don’t be biased because it’s locals involved this time around.

      • Anonymous says:

        They have zero zoning on the Sister Islands so it’s an absolute dream for unscrupulous developers.

        Because of my job, I know who’s buying over there and I can tell you for certain that some of the names that have bought should send shivers down the spine of any man or woman who love the peaceful paradise that is Little. It is tragic.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wealthy locals don’t want to spoil LCM, they’re just getting away from ,Jamaicanisation of Grand.

        • Anonymous says:

          ….. by doing the same thing over again.

          Those that don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

      • Phil says:

        Its unfortunate, but the DOE’s report and RECOMENDATIONS WILL BE IGNORED.

  8. Head of Bay Ranger says:

    Why is the same DCB chairman who needs to be retired so badly is sitting on boards in which his chief officer son is in control or in charge of. Come on Cayman we can do better than this.This stuff is getting really really old now !

    • Anonymous says:

      On lots of boards, with stipends airfares and per diems it’s a good living.

      • Anonymous says:

        It is all part of the corruption and expensive bureaucracy that is smothering us. It could all be done so much more cheaply and effectively, and without room for “friend friend.” This charade we call governance is our undoing, and funding it is bankrupting us.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Why are we concerned about building over water? Do you really think a 100-200 feet back makes a big difference? Look at South Sound 20-30 ft of hurricane surge hit the reef. We allowed more construction on lowlands from Red Bay to South West Point . In actuality this new construction will only make concrete columns above the sea. More life will grow under the construction, it’s better than a large 10 story building on the beach. In fact all buildings should be done with a smaller imprint on the beach. Isn’t that what we are concerned about the “beach”?
    But I have to remind the well educated who live on this island, What happened to climate change? Did the gloom and doom rhetoric stopped because of envy? Did Ernie take that beautiful condo with him to the next life like the Pharaohs?
    If you remember in brother Hurlstons’ website we are losing Cayman. The poor is living in squalor $900 per month. Simple, Gov’t needs to control rent in 1 bed and 2 bed in different districts. Oops we don’t want that (zoning). Why? We all want to be rich, we don’t really care about the poor. We want them to go back to their country. We really need to make up our mind.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Vote them out. Oh I forgot, we don’t get a vote .

  11. Anonymous says:

    Who are “the developers”? NCB? Say their names!

  12. Not Really Smiling So Much These Days? says:

    Any landowner may make application to the Development Control Board for planning consent to carry out whatever improvement they want to do on their land. The Development & Planning Act and its Regulations set out the criteria and parameters that allows such grant (or otherwise).

    There is no requirement that planning consent be required for any development that does not occur ‘on land’ as defined in the Act- ‘land’ being all that part of the Islands that is landside of the shoreline high water mark but in the ocean water below the high water mark- that consent is reserved to Cabinet who grants or denies permits for anything from docks to groynes and everything in between, on the advice of the Department of Environment which it may (or may not) take into consideration in granting or denying any such licence.

    This is why an application for something that starts on land and ends in or over the Queen’s Bottom (yes, really) has to be permitted or licensed by two separate entities with two separate remits- there is no common agency or authority that can legally consider ‘the whole’ as a combined application. There is the well-known instance of a George Town waterfront dock that was granted a coastal works permit but the land-side paved walkway leading to that dock was denied planning consent…

    If the PACT government wants to change this separation of authority, then it must bring the matter to Parliament for debate and then assent- the will of the people (if their representatives in Parliament understand that remit) should then be done to its satisfaction, and these tiresome debates be ended.

  13. Anonymous says:


  14. Anonymous says:

    1. The idea to build bungalows over the water in a hurricane zone is stunningly stupid!
    2. Over the water is crown land. PACT it’s not for sale, end of story!

    You can’t make this $hit up.

    • Anonymous says:

      But UDP IS for sale, to the highest bidder.

      • Anonymous says:

        UDP is dead. McKeeva is like Alden and the PPM
        now, simply relics of the past. Don’t get me wrong they are still trying very hard to stay relevant.

        • Anonymous says:

          I wish it was dead, just look at the board members appointed by them, and you’ll see how veery alive it still is.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dude, you haven’t seen a hurricane, have you?

      7 feet above sea level in the lagoon, and 7 feet above sea
      level on land, will have exactly the same 4 feet of water inside.

      I am against this project, but let’s not get carried away with weak arguments.

      • Anonymous says:

        We learned absolutely nothing from Hurricane Ivan.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yup. Astounding. We are still building housing (especially for our most vulnerable) well below known flood levels and still are not putting utilities under ground. The levels of ignorance required are, or should be, criminal. Over to you Wayne. Minister of sustainability and climate resilience.

          • Bobo Fett says:

            Gotta have somewhere for the septic tanks to drain for the developers and wealthy buyers, bobo

    • Anonymous says:

      Burn down all the docks around Cayman then right?

      • Mumbichi says:

        You aren’t trying to equate a dock with a residence — with sewage, plumbing and electrical, inhabited by humans — are you?? Really?

        We have had docks for more than 100 years.

  15. Anonymous says:

    2:23 pm, but they should NOT approved the Land part.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why not? If it met planning criteria and regulations there would be no reason not to grant planning permission. I am more concerned with Cayman Brac planning turning a blind eye to those clearing land with machinery without planning permission.

      • Anonymous says:

        To their credit, I believe that much of the problem is the only consequence they can impose is an after-the-fact fine, which is usually ten times the amount of the fee, had it been filed. This tiny sum is most often factored into the cost of the land clearing.

        They need to have fines that make a difference. Penalties that hurt.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The CB/LC planning board needs some good people with common sense, not the likes that’s on that board now and no Lodge people please.

  17. SAD SAD SAD.So it has begun.The beggining of the end for the Jewel of these islands.I have always questioned why the sister islands have their own developement/planning board but now we can all see why.WTFreak?

  18. Anonymous says:

    Is the true that owners of the bungalows will also have permits to fish at the grouper spawning sites during the January full moon?

    CNS: No. There are no exceptions to the ban.

  19. Anonymous says:

    this is great, I plan to conceive my next offspring at this facility

  20. Anonymous says:

    Of course it will happen! Greed, corruption and nepotism drives the entire Cayman Islands Government POLITICAL AND EXECUTIVE Branches!!

  21. Anonymous says:

    Build them, we need the income.

    • Anonymous says:

      Who is the “We” ?

    • Anonymous says:

      Stop them, we need to preserve what we have left of our most valuable possession – our natural environmental heritage. It is a gem of our past, but if not protected, will not be there for our future.

    • Anonymous says:

      You broken? What income you think you’re getting?

    • Anonymous says:

      lol do you really believe they will hire Caymanian for the building process or for the staff? If you are that naïve I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you the check out.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Awful news. Not content with ruining Grand Cayman let’s now destroy Little Cayman.

    • Anonymous says:

      The CB/LC planning board are a joke, only one on that board have common sense and that’s for sure are NOT the Chairman.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The Sister Islands need to get some planning zones sorted out ASAP. At the moment, there are none giving free reign to the vultures and parasites that call themselves developers.


    • Anonymous says:

      Brilliant reasoning, brightbox! So, tell me, how has zoning worked out for you in Cayman? Rampant beach erosion, ever taller buildings making Cayman look more like a suburb of Miami, concentrated commercial and residential zones causing traffic snarls making an otherwise 10-minute commute into a one-hour nightmare, precipitous values of commercial zones making owning a business location out of reach for young Caymanian business starters. The list goes on and on…
      NO THANKS! Keep your moronic ideas where they belong: in Grand Cayman.

  24. Anonymous says:

    This is so incredibly sad.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Absolutely tragic.

  26. Big Bobo In West Bay says:

    Developers are well on the way to destroying Seven Mile Beach so now let’s try and destroy the beaches on Little Cayman too.

    Great profits for developers on Little Cayman.

    Never a better time to buy on Little Cayman

  27. Anonymous says:

    NO NO NO! What is wrong with the planning board!? Approving these overwater bungalows would be utter depravity and would make an absolute mockery of the marine parks/reserves. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If these overwater bungalows are approved what’s to stop others from being built. Cayman is not Tahiti or the Maldives. Stop trying to make us look like something we are not. The beautiful thing about LC for both locals and tourists alike is its natural beauty and how undeveloped it is. Not only would it cause damage to the seagrass, mangroves, and marine life (the area is a breeding ground for sharks, grey snapper, and lobster to name a few) any huts/bungalows would be destroyed with the next TS/hurricane. PACT, many of us voted you in because we thought you would be different from the PPM. We hoped you would be more considerate of the environment and put a halt to all this runaway development. Thus far you have not done this. Get your act together for the love of god!

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not what’s wrong with the planning board, it’s the planning regulations that permit the development which has received approval.
      Over water, or over QUEEN’s bottom developments are decided by cabinet, not the planning board.
      So will it be Pact, or will it be UDP that permits the overwater bungalows…?

      • Anonymous says:

        Nope. 2021 Planning Act now includes land “covered by water” – which includes Crown. Apparently, DoE pushed Govt to require both Planning and Cabinet to approve such developments (planning permission and coastal works license) because while DoE cant ‘direct’ Cabinet, they can (thru NCC) ‘direct’ CPA and DCB on applications as they see fit.

        • Anonymous says:

          9:29 pm think again, the NCC cannot “direct” the CPA and DCB, despite what the DOE Director thinks and does

    • Mumbichi says:

      The problem, in part, is that the Planning Board only have control over the land works; something of this magnitude should be submitted to Coastal before anything else. I think the builders are trying to do an end run.

      I think we all need to step up and contact our MPs, for all the good it will do. Protest, make our voices heard. Already our votes are worthless if those we elect recombine into a team that is contrary to the platform for which we voted.

    • Anonymous says:

      12:15 pm READ THE ARTICLE !! The planning board did NOT approve the over-water bungalows….they can’t because it’s not their responsibility. Cabinet has responsibility for coastal works licenses

      • Piecemeal says:

        And why have Cabinet not denied the Coastal Works…understand the bigger picture

        • Anonymous says:

          2:53 pm read the article…..because the Coastal Works License has not come before the Cabinet yet. I do understand the bigger picture as well as the Planning and Development Laws and Regulations and the National Conservation Act….the problem is, most of these commenters don’t.

      • Anonymous says:

        2:23 pm, but they should NOT approved the Land part.

        • Anonymous says:

          *If* the land application is acceptable by itself, why not? Seems rather spiteful (and probably not too legal) to deny the owners everything..

          • Anonymous says:

            Because the plan is for both land and water development. Now they tell Cabinet you ‘must’ permit us because we’re building the land side where we have permission but without the bungalows it won’t be economically viable and will sit derelict like a Hyatt without beach suites.

          • Anonymous says:

            Not if you are trying to protect the interests of the community, fulfil your constitutionally imposed obligations (including as to respect for the environment) and the developer has not put the full picture before you.

      • Anonymous says:

        2:23 pm, the Land part its a stepping stone for over the water part , ever heard the saying, foot in the door ?

  28. Cheese Face says:

    Take your crap elsewhere developer scum.

    • Anonymous says:

      They local , bobo

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you willing to say that to the Caymanians who sold out this property?????

      • Anonymous says:

        I bet they would….

      • Cheese Face says:

        “Are you willing to say that to the Caymanians who sold out this property?????”

        I have nooo idea what you’re on about. Why would I take issue with someone who sold their land? Ok, so they sold it to a dreadful developer who builds a shitty product and doesn’t pay their staff pensions but that’s not really the fault of the previous owner is it?

    • Anon says:

      Caymanian landowner sells to Caymanian developer. Development gets approved by Caymanian planning board following legislation by Caymanian law makers. Fault foreigners ?

  29. Say it like it is says:

    The developers have a lot of local influence, if permission for the over water cabanas is given then the credibility of all those involved including Cabinet goes out the window.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Before asking why, read this and share with others asking why, and then thank Kayla Young

    • Anonymous says:

      Excellent article. Should be required reading for high school students. Thanks for posting.

    • Hubert says:

      Reading this I am surprised Caymanian young people don’t form a Green Party.

      Certainly a need for such a party here.

      • Anonymous says:

        They would have plenty of older adults joining them too, who give a damn about the environment and future of those who have no voice

        • Big Bobo In West Bay says:

          Problem with most of the older Caymanian generation is that they have sold out to the almighty $$$$$. The Bushes, Ebanks, KirkConnell’s Tibbetts and the list goes on and on.

          Short term gain for long term pain.

          They really don’t give a damn about their grandchildren’s future here.

          😢 😭 😿

  31. anonymous says:

    So much for the Ministry of Climate Resiliency. And PACT was supposed to change things. Some people sure got fooled.

  32. The knights of the Crooked Table says:

    How can the chairman of Brac board make decisions on a project when his relative son is a shareholder in this project ?? The recent meeting witnessed of certain board member eating and drinking with shareholders says it all . Little Cayman Finished now too .i encourage some to see land registry to see who bought land after the last election and see exactly where it is relative to this project.

    • Anonymous says:

      That would be called Corruption, we’re it true, and were the concept to exist in the Cayman Islands. While we are clamoring for Eric Bush’s head on a plate, let’s remember that if he is guilty of anything, he is far from alone. We are rotten to the core. The Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General are amongst those who should be publicly explaining why our perceptions are so inconsistent with their actions.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Any analysis of what is going on may lead directly to perceptions of corruption. You understand this, right Governor? YOU are ultimately responsible for this #worldclassshitshow. Why the inaction? Why does we continue to suffer the consequences of atrocious governance?

    • Johnny Canuck says:

      11:34, We cannot keep running to Mommy in London every time we have a problem in our house. The grown children need to settle this themselves.

      Time to put on our big boy pants and settle matters ourselves.

      Or do we want direct rule to clean up our mess?

      • Anonymous says:

        I want direct rule because our people have proved to be inept or incompetent and we are bankrupting ourselves and destroying our future. I want direct rule because I love Cayman. I want direct rule because no one has come up with any viable alternative.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes you are so right. Direct rule by the ethical and honest British Government led by Boris Johnson will be an improvement to our situation.

          You are just a racist looking to benefit.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Wow the destruction of little Cayman begins what a disgrace ! Cayman we are done !

  35. Anonymous says:

    Please name the individuals of the developers, front companies and owners associated with this project.

      • Anonymous says:

        Cool. Thank you. OK – does anyone have access to the Land Information system? Could they let us know if anyone named, or any close relatives or business associates of those named, or any government officials have bought land in close proximity over the last couple of years? Does anyone have an interest in the concrete business in Little Cayman? Let’s see what a CNS community investigation might uncover. Perhaps nothing, but a little investigative journalism can never hurt in a democracy, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT OUR ROBUST LAW ENFORCERS NEVER DO SHIT. (Thank you for permitting the rant).

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for the link to the planning board members.

        Now, lets see if someone can post the individuals, front companies and owners associated with this over-the ocean project.

      • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

        I know all those people. You don’t have to take it from me, please do your own research, but they are good people who care about the Sister Islands. I think their hands are tied: They have before them the land application, and there is nothing really amiss with those plans, (well, other than sewage close to the sea is a bit of a sticky wicket).

        If Cabinet passes this, then we will know without fail that we are collectively screwed, that money buys the destruction of the ecology, that the rich can trump conservation, that “our” islands aren’t and haven’t been for a long time…. “ours”. I recognise that the developers are “local”. That’s doesn’t make them good people. I think they are part of the same sickness that has taken over these islands.

        Yes, “we” sold the properties, but we shouldn’t have allowed the rich developers to run wild and overbuild Grand Cayman, nor allow the destruction of our singular resources in the Sister Islands. You can’t fix the ecology once it is ruined. Once ruined, we become another dot on the map that …. once was; once was beautiful, once was pure, once was a place where people could make their homes and raise families in a healthy, balanced way. Once was a place where hard work yielded fruitful results. Once was.

        It creeps up on us so slowly that we don’t see it coming. Folks younger than me will read my words and shake their heads at the old fart that thinks ‘the end is near’, never realising that their birthrights are being systematically drawn away, never again to be within their grasp.

        We’re sorry. We meant better for you.

        • Anonymous says:

          Sadly, I agree with your comments.

        • Anonymous says:

          4;58 pm, they all good people ? How long have you had your head stuck under the sand ?

          • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

            I doubt you know any of them. Mr. Ashton, Miss Carol, Miss Zanda, Miss Elsie, Mr. Jason, Mr. Miguel, All people that live on the Brac, most born there, and — according to my sources — are on the Board solely to make a positive difference.

            They all have skin in the game and don’t want either island crapped up. A poster earlier put their finger on the problem: The application to the land side of things was probably without problem, and they had no choice but to pass it. They aren’t allowed to put their personal feelings into the Meeting Minutes, but if they could I bet there would be some rugged words.

            I spend as much time as I can on the Brac. Progress will come to the Sister Islands, much as many of us want it to stay simple and quiet. This is NOT the progress we are looking for. This development, imo, is taking extraordinarily dangerous risks with one of our most treasured resources.

            We can see the mistakes made in Grand Cayman. Can’t we have a little insight and forward view and try to prevent crapping up the two smaller islands as well? Toward that end, we need to hold the proper people responsible. I don’t believe that those on the DCB had any choice but to pass an acceptable application. I guarantee you it was likely the toughest decision they’ve made.

            • Anonymous says:

              5;26 pm, I lived on the Brac all my life, not like you a Johnny come lately, for the milk and honey that’s here now, I bet you wouldn’t come here if here was like in the fifties sixties

              • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

                My family’s home is on the Brac. You want to compare years?

                If you choose to take what I say personally, that says more about you than me. It doesn’t matter how long each of us have been here. Your level of maturity suggests that I’m probably much older than you, so in sheer years, I’ve probably spent more time, if it matters, which it doesn’t.

                Grow up sonny. You statement and this one answering you have zero to do with the topic.

                • Anonymous says:

                  3:22 pm, you say it doesn’t matter how long one has been here, if people was not living here, building up the Brac over the years, when you came here it would be no Airport, Roads, supermarket’s etc. Would you stayed with your family. So you see it does matter how long people have lived here.

          • Beaumont Zodecloun says:

            On a whim, I looked at the meeting minutes. You might benefit from reading them also. They are long, as befitting an unprecedented application like this. You might feel differently once you see with your own two eyes how this matter was handled, and perhaps, if you are of stout mettle, you might consider an apology. … but I doubt you will even read. Still, others might.

            This is chocked with information that I didn’t know about. This is public information.

    • Anonymous says:

      Matthew White (Caymanian – parents Ian Wight & Debbie Wight (deceased))
      Naul Bodden (long time Caymanian. Do your own research, but many business interests)
      William (Bill) Maines (Caymanian & owns the land. Status grant by cabinet 2012 – motion brought by Franz Manderson & supported by McKeeva Bush).

      • Anonymous says:

        Much bigger-
        Matthew Wight (married to Stephanie Foster)
        Matthew runs NCB which is the preferred developer for Dart’s project OLEA
        Architect is John Doak, married to Jackie Doak of Dart

        Actually doesn’t really matter who it is, this is how it rolls in Cayman and has been like this for decades.

      • Anonymous says:

        O wonderful. The same people who brought us the Tides monstrosity.

        • Concerned Diver says:

          Truly shocking. STOP THIS NOW! Please listen to the Department of Environment. PLEASE STOP THIS ROT NOW!!! Anyone associated with this project should hang their heads in shame

        • Anonymous says:

          The office block on the beach.

  36. Anonymous says:

    SOLUTION: The Cayman Brac and Little Cayman Development Control Board needs to be disbanded and the elected officials that appointed them should be relieved of their duties immediately.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed and also the new officials should make it their top priority to work towards a Sister Islands development plan. These islands are so small compared to Grand and cannot afford not to have one.

    • Anonymous says:

      11:09 am, you are 100 % correct, they all should be fired immediately.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah, put new people in who will also have to follow the same Planning Regulations and Laws….great idea 🙄

  37. Anonymous says:

    You expected better from JuJu’s cronies? Why not try it first in South Sound or East End?

    • Anonymous says:

      No Bobo. This is just a test. The big one soon come in Cayman Kai. Just have to iron out some kinks first. Little Cayman is being relegated to the role of crash test dummy.

      • Johnny Canuck says:

        The big 10 storey one cumin to Cayman Kai soon. Will be GREAT.

        Will be a beauty.

        • Anonymous says:

          Johnny, Don’t forget the new 9 storey hotel in front of the Holiday Inn too.

          Another beauty coming soon.

      • Anonymous says:

        Probably need to spell it out…have seen the plan. Overwater bungalows at Starfish Point. Wha say the Northsiders?

    • Bobo Fett says:

      Soon come, bobo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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