Resort developers dismiss need for bird, turtle protections
(CNS): The developers behind the proposed resort at Beach Bay, Lower Valley, have asked the Central Planning Authority (CPA) to ignore directives from the Department of Environment on Phase 1B of the project, which is a CI$43 million residence tower alongside the already approved plans for a ten-storey $170 million hotel.
The architects acting for St James Point Holdings have said that they don’t feel they need to install turtle-friendly lighting or preserve any natural habitat for white-tailed tropicbird nests on this phase of the growing project.
Based on advice from the DoE, the National Conservation Council has said that the developers did not need to conduct an environmental impact assessment. Nevertheless, there are a number of environmental issues for the developers to consider.
The DoE pointed out that this project will see the loss of a significant amount of primary mature habitat that has so far been uninfluenced by human activity and its ecological processes have been undisturbed.
“These habitats are often very old, existing long before humans and may consist of many endemic and ecologically important species. As the development progresses eastward, there will be additional losses of primary habitat,” the DoE stated in its submissions.
As a result, it advises that clearing for this development should be limited to the development footprint and progress only when development of the various phases is imminent.
Ahead of the meeting on Wednesday, when this phase will go before the CPA, the DoE also made a number of directions. The experts said that any planning approval should include a proper turtle-friendly lighting plan and any clearing within the coastal setback must be confined to the footprint of the approved pathways.
The directives are designed to offer some protection to the green and loggerhead sea turtles that nest in what the DoE experts have said is a very active turtle beach for both species, and to preserve the natural habitat on the bluff cliff face in the area which provides nesting grounds for the white-tailed tropicbird.
“The development on the beach would cause significant adverse effects on sea turtles. A lighting plan was submitted, however the plan was not turtle friendly and could not be endorsed by the DoE because of the illumination of the critical turtle nesting beach,” the department said, adding that the CPA should issue a directive for lighting that meets the proper definition of turtle-friendly.
As the bluff cliff has also been identified as a habitat of critical importance for the white-tailed tropicbird, which is a protected species under the National Conservation Act, the DoE has directed the board to limit any clearing in this area to paths depicted on the plans.
But the developer’s architect has responded to the DoE submissions urging the CPA not to follow the directives.
Andrew Gibb, representing the St James developers, said that the conditions would be “unreasonable”, claiming that in the case of the tropicbird there is no definitive evidence of birds currently nesting on the site, resulting “in the imposition of an onerous and unwarranted condition of planning consent”.
Gibb, who resigned as chairman of the National Trust over his involvement in this project, also argued that the proposed location “is not adjacent to nor likely to impact a sea turtle critical habitat as defined in the draft Sea Turtle Conservation Plan, and as such, does not warrant the imposition of an interim directive”.
He also used the current technical dispute, which is now legal battle, between the DoE and the CPA over the conservation law as a reason for ignoring the directive. Gibb stated that the directives were issued by the DoE director and therefore fall outside the provisions of the law.
The project has already angered local residents, who have opposed the project because of what they believe was the closed door re-zoning that enabled the development to move forward, the significant impact it will have on their quiet community, traffic issues and concerns about their beach access.
They have been supported by environmental activists concerned about the various negative effects on turtle nesting and the wider natural environment.
CNS also learned through a freedom of information request relating to developer concessions that the Environmental Protection Fund missed out on tens of thousands of dollars from this project because the coastal works fees were waived by the previous administration.
See the full details of the DoE’s recommendations and directives and the developer’s response on Wednesday’s CPA Agenda in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Science & Nature
Excuse me, can we please report on the marina being built in Cayman Brac which is close to the best dive sites? While Grand Cayman is distracted by this, everything in Cayman Brac is being destroyed. Also, notice how the bungalow people in little Cayman got part of their application approved. Cayman Brac and Little Cayman is going the way of Grand Cayman. Either stop it now or it will be too late to help.
Can anyone please explain the point of the DOE? It clearly has no power, or maybe the will to stop pernicious development and/or environmental damage, and the obvious bias within the CPA. It fails miserably to enforce the laws governing poaching and runs around in boats that are old and inadequate. It uses dirty diesel trucks to ‘protect’ the environment. It apparently cannot control the private business activities of some of its staff whilst taking public salaries. And worst of all, this entire debacle is overseen by director’s on huge public salaries who, in partnership with the current premier, formulated the very laws they fail to enforce.
The DOE is in need of an urgent public, ministerial and/or civil service investigation to ascertain exactly why this seemingly hopeless department even needs to exist outside of research. They surely must have the statutory authority to have worthwhile input and possible veto over contentious development, a statutory right to have a seat on the CPA, and real prosecutorial powers to hold developers or land owners to full account for environmental vandalism. Anything less is pure window dressing.
But I’m afraid to say that Cayman probably isn’t capable of asking the difficult questions that would see a failed department and it’s director’s held up to public scrutiny. For example, why are some senior staff retained on annual contracts after attaining retirement age when they have failed to implement appropriate training for native Caymanians to take their place? In fact, why are there apparently only two native Caymanians in the entire enforcement unit of at least eight officers? Is there a pattern of historical biased recruitment here that only applies to the DOE?
So if DOE cannot get their own failing house in order, why should we expect them to protect us from unscrupulous and dishonest environmental criminals?
Good points. Think I know who this is. Give’em hell: foot to fire🔥!
4:38 pm you hit this one head on. I understand you wanting to remain anonymous but PLEASE do what you can to have your very valid concerns dealt with appropriately. This needs action.
“The directives are designed to offer some protection to the green and loggerhead sea turtles that nest in what the DoE experts have said is a very active turtle beach for both species”,
I am a conservationist at heart, but if we are publishing facts and going to challenge this, lets just be honest: there is no beach there.
I volunteer turtle walked that beach twice a week for for three nesting seasons. There were several clutches of eggs laid per week.
No beach in Beach Bay. Good to know.
Mr Gibb is the exact same as Dart and all the rest of them, he’s just been too foolish in being outspoken relaying the same sentiment of what they’re all thinking.
You people need to shut up, Mr Gibb is a very intelligent and qualified architect/planner. We are very lucky he chose the Cayman Islands over all the other places in the world to live when he left South Africa.
Keep up the great work Mr. Gibb!
No, no we are not lucky! Very few Caymanians are benefitting from this monstrosity.
Caymanians selling off their heritage for a few dirty dollars and screwing over generations to come.
Hush your mouth! We know it’s a fact but we hate to admit it and would rather throw dirt at the forriners.
I suggest the developers ask their potential guests/owners if they would like to see some natural environment and the associated animals. I think the answers would be a resounding YES.
Since when do turtles crawl onto inshore to lay their eggs??
Yeah, it sounded strange. So I checked the link (thanks CNS). The requirement – worded for the CPA so its civil service jargon not plain language – is that their lights don’t shine onto the nesting beach. Precisely so the hatchling turtles don’t crawl towards the cliff (instead of going out to sea).
Don’t sweat it, G.C. will be reclaimed by the sea in 50 years.
Sadly, I agree.
You’ll all be desperate to come to the Brac when that happens. So stop complaining about all the infrastructure being put in place for your arrival.
29 @ 7:47 pm – Umm…20 years.
Parts of it most likely underwater before then as world leaders are taking no significant actions to mitigate climate change.
ROTFLMAO at this foolishness.
You guessing a Wordle or wha?
WTF is ROTFLMAO ?
Code for denial of the effects of climate change depsite science proving haters of planet Earth wrong time amd time again.
Have you seen 7 Mile Beach lately ? No one has because it’s gone. That’s your first clue. It’s foolish to deny the effects of climate change.
aided by the effects of overdevelopment, the removal of vegetation, and crap planning.
Disgraceful, shameful, greedy and disgusting developers. Cayman has unfortunately been thrown to the wolves. This is why Caymanians have an anti-development sentiment. THIS.
How is this man who cane here a few years ago now such an expert on our environment? It is all about getting the big bucks isn’t it? I pray that the CPA will awaken from their slumber and reject this very foolish application.
https://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2022/01/cayman-foreign-investors-identity-crisis/
“CAYMAN GONE”: CLOSED-DOOR DECISIONS AND FOREIGN INVESTORS DRIVE AN ISLAND IDENTITY CRISIS
As real estate booms, Caymanians question who their islands are building for.
Sorry, but WE have sold our country, sand and sea! Caymanians are to blame as we have sold for $$.
“Anti-development”? Simple, Caymanians stop selling their land for short-term profit.
Bingo! Amen! If you don’t want it built on or used for a specific purpose then don’t sell it. Anyone can donate their land to the national trust. You can also tap the equity in it to use the cash based on its value without giving up the land. But the reality is once you let it go you lose your control in what it’s used for.
Some land is already designated as not for building and that’s great. If you want to do more then quit all the whining and just do it. There’s of course a financial repercussion for doing that but it’s a decision people have to make for themselves.
Long story short if you want control of the future of the land you cannot sell it.
The cold, hard truth we hate to deal with.
There must have been a huge distribution of wealth for Caymanian families that once had land that was deemed undesirable, particularly in West Bay, that then become very wealthy overnight. Wonder if the vendors hung around or took off with their cash.
Ask the Kirkconnell ‘s after they sold Royal Palms for $80 Million, how many parks or libraries did they sponsor?
Very true! Seems families like these prefer to hoard their extreme wealth and watch the younger generations of Caymanians suffer.
PPM, who approved massive concessions, created this problem.
Unfortunately, this is a self-induced problem.
We need to be careful how we vote — these politicians can be deceptively slick.
Not just caymanians albeit you should be more fed up with it than i am. They’re just wrecking the place
“Hence, what cannot be denied or put off must eventually be defended, whatever kind of case it is, or else just surrendered. We have demonstrated that there are two types of denial: either to say “this was not done” or to claim “what was done was not this.” Issues that cannot be defended or avoided must ultimately be denied and not only if there is some “redefinition” which might come to our aid, but also if there is nothing else but simple denial.
If there are witnesses, it is permitted to say much against them. If there is written proof, we can discredit the authenticity of the letter. Whatever the matter, there is nothing worse than a confession. The final option, when there is no room for defending or denying, is attacking the legality of the proceeding.”
Why do all these massive developments get their fees waived while the common people all still have to pay 7.5%??
Because you are not giving “concessions “ directly to those that approve the waivers.
Because we elect absolute fools who care less for our country than their pocketbooks. Want a solution, stop electing clowns like the MacBeater.
this pie in the sky development won’t happen anyway…they been talking about it for 15 years…..
They’ve started clearing the site already… I think this time they mean business (unfortunately!)
They started clearing the site for Ironwood too.
If they can’t afford turtle-friendly lighting then I don’t see this project going very far. Another Treasure Isle that will sit for 15 years until someone with real money comes along.
Grand Hyatt is opening mid 2022👀
Because we elect absolute fools who care less for our country than their pocketbooks. Want a solution, stop electing clowns like the MacBeater.
Vote ppm…they allow um knock ya house down and build on top of you if you dont run and get out of way….
Fantasy development. Mandarin has been proposed at various non-starter spots forever. No tourist is going to spend Mandarin room rates to sit out on the meagre beach offering at Beach Bay.
I sure hope ur right as i like this little beach as its never busy.
The audacity and arrogance of Mr. Gibb’s show the ugliness of development in Cayman.
This shows the imported person’s true colors once they get those Cayman papers.
By cayman papers, you mean cayman island dollars right?
Very sad. The Cayman Islands are now all about money and social climbing. I’ll bet very few of these residences will have Caymanian owners and very few Caymaninas will work in the hotel
The P in PACT stands for Payoff and Patronage not People. Go on Jay, prove me wrong. Have your COA Board vote this one down. Nah, not going to happen is it, like there not going to be a proper investigation into that missing topsoil either.
Ok folks, let’s get together and have one massive demonstration against this! A clear message needs to be sent to PACT to stand up against greedy developers who couldn’t care less about our conservation law.
Your last statement applies to all the greedy politicians that make up PACT. So it’s left to US, we’re the ones that need to stand up to politicians and developers alike.
They’re too busy feeding off each other and don’t have a care in the world about preservation of anything except their own financial interests.
This is a good example of why there is a growing negative sentiment amongst local people against development! These developers have no respect for our conservation requirements. They couldn’t care less. As for Gibb, I’ll just say good riddance of his presence from our National Trust; he has shown his TRUE colours. I’ll leave it at that.
Tell that to the members who tried to bring him back as Chairman recently.
One might be forgiven for wondering if the Trust is being controlled from overseas.
Mr. Gibb’s reply is shameful and unprofessional. He is not doing his client any favors.
Gibb is just the token local rep.
The Architects are overseas people, and the developer believes he is using a well connected on-Island ‘front’, who can steer this for them.
Blah, blah, blah – Nobody listens to the DoE anyway!!
1:32 pm You are right. DOE does make alot of unnecessary recommendations but when it comes to recommendations regarding turtle friendly lighting and other practices and the retention of natural vegetation, the new CPA seems to be including those conditions as part of planning permission, which is good.
I wasn’t criticizing the DoE, I’m supportive of their efforts. But no one listens to them (that’s obvious from the current Govt vs Govt lawsuit), so it’s just blah, blah and developers get what they what because of the $$$!
I’m not sure PACT and it’s new CPA plans to make a significant difference (pun intended).
Leadership is the issue, everyone knows it, yet seem deathly afraid to enact much needed change.
Fix the planning laws!
Fix the planning laws? Good idea, and let’s get some honest people to see that they are carried out! Yes, I know it won’t be easy, but it’s gotta happen or things will never get any better for the Cayman Islands.
The island needs protection from the developers.
If anyone EVER needed protection from greedy developers and greedy Politicians, it’s now!
And from people like their spokesman!
Where is the Ministry of Sustainability?
Out to lunch!
Holdings have said that they don’t feel they need to install turtle-friendly lighting or preserve any natural habitat for white-tailed tropicbird nests on this phase of the growing project.
I have said I do not see the need for another hotel in Cayman, especially in an ecologically sensitive area.
When the existing hotels have 60% locals on staff, are environmentally responsible, and have learned to unflinchingly cater to the people of these Islands (subject to appropriate levels of dress/decorum of course) THEN maybe we could start considering it. But until then – NO!
Dismiss their applications. They literally do not deserve to build on the foundations created by the Caymanian people.
Andrew Gibb feels differently!