Residents protest 2nd phase of Crewe Rd project

| 12/04/2022 | 62 Comments
  • Cayman News Service
  • Cayman News Service

(CNS): Existing residents at Rosedale Gardens, off Crewe Road, are objecting to a planning application by the developers for the second phase of the project, which would add 84 units to the community in 14 new buildings as well as a clubhouse and swimming pools.

The CI$2.5 million, 12-acre project is aimed at homes for the local market and is situated in a man-modified area with no significant environmental concerns. But for some already living in the original phase, there are a catalogue of other issues, from the developer’s ability to see the project through to the added traffic trauma they believe it will cause.

According to letters submitted by the strata’s executive committee and several residents of the community, the rollout of this next phase will adversely impact their current living conditions, especially as a result of the increased congestion, loss of green space and the strain on parking and other common facilities.

The project is on the agenda of the Central Planning Authority’s Wednesday meeting, when both HAB (H.A. Bodden Realty), the local developers behind the project, and the objectors have been scheduled to appear. The developers are not requesting any waivers of planning conditions and the hearing is to allow the board to listen to objectors and consider the question of suitability.

The objectors’ letters list a number of concerns but most stem from the size of the project and the subsequent impact of 84 new households on a community currently made up of 32 homes in an area that is suffering from significant traffic issues.

According to submissions from the National Roads Authority, the impact of the “proposed development onto Crewe Road is considered to be minimal” in terms of the number of additional trips.

But the objectors point to the current traffic congestion, which is so bad that it already takes them around 45 minutes just to reach Jose’s gas station each weekday morning and even longer to get home from there in the evenings during rush hour.

The objectors also accuse the developers of failing to properly inform the relevant residents of the plan to move to the next phase or to secure the necessary approval from the strata executive or the majority of residents to change the strata plan.

They raise the issue of unfinished units that remain in the community from the last project, when the developer ran out of cash. They also accuse the developers of neglecting to finish parking areas or address the common lighting issues and the defective irrigation. The objectors said they are concerned the same thing could happen again.

The original phase of this project was rolled out in 1998 and the developers say that the revised phase 2 has fewer planned buildings and units than originally proposed, has better amenities and conforms with planning regulations. While the developers address some of the objectors’ concerns and offer to take a look at the incomplete parking and pavements, there is no comment about the abandoned and unfinished units.

However, the developers state that the project is fully funded by local banks and dismiss any suggestion that they should be placing cash in an escrow account to mitigate against any potential failed completion.

See details of the project on the CPA agenda 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 (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Concerned for our future says:

    What will be left for Cayman’s children’s children two generations from now.? That is only 40 years away! I will be long gone but it is our mandate to secure the future for them to prosper slowly enough to leave a good life for the future. We are grabbing and gobbling up all the land way beyond our share. We are consuming THEIR future.

    1
    2
  2. Anonymous says:

    Community creates Country though, right? Can’t wait for Wayne to tell us all how this one is “sustainable”

  3. Anonymous says:

    Kenneth Bryan where are you????? Your constituents need your help!!! Remember us- we voted for you

  4. Anonymous says:

    I can remember when this development was first built. At that time I was told that it would be a phased development as I am sure that others, including current owners, were likewise informed. The building of this new phase should therefore be no surprise. In the circumstances I think it is mischievous of the current owners of phase one to be making an uproar about the second phase being built. More affordable housing is needed and as long as The Planning Dept guarantees that the units are structurally sound and meet our building codes for safety, then the development should be allowed, regardless of mischief makers!

    • Rosedale Karen says:

      2 of the 4 buildings of phase 1 were built in 2000. Then the developer had issues and had to bring in another financer a couple of years later to complete the 2 additional buildings of phase 1. Club house and tennis court were never built and strata had to install all external lighting at their own expense. In addition the strata had to redo the pool.
      Over the years the developer has started/stopped phase 2 multiple times with multiple financers to no avail. To a point where there are 2 foundations poured and piped rotting away and overgrown for over 8 years now.
      The owners are concerned that this will become a permanent construction site, the project will not be up to the standard of the original phase, and that parking/facilities are not adequate for the amount of units.
      Owners have a right to want to protect their investments and home.

      • Anonymous says:

        So the developers (Bodden sisters) are in breach of contract for the first phase? If this is so, why then didn’t the owners challenge the developers?!!

  5. Anonymous says:

    Stagnant for years, and once elected, Walaa.

  6. Anonymous says:

    A waste of time to fight about this one because YaYa in the house now so this is guaranteed to go through.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This does look terrible on many levels, and no doubt the developers will cream off a massive profit when it undoubtedly gets approved.

    When I saw the story, minus the photo, I assumed it was in relation to the extremely ugly, almost Soviet-era looking Panton Place. A more cynical rental-income-providing development I’m yet to see.

    Cayman is so screwed. That’s equal opportunities too. It’s screwed for the vast majority of Caymanians, as well as the residents for most income levels.

    • Anonymous says:

      “…almost Soviet-Era looking Panton Place?”

      These pre-cast structures are far from ugly (or unsightly). They are merely missing lush gardens around the buildings. I bet Kelowna, BC Canada 🇨🇦 doesn’t have anything quite like it etched into its hill sides- not even Quebec!

  8. Garage Guy says:

    Another big mess at Rosedale and a whole heap of mismanagement and money making schemes by HAB couldn’t manage a Flower Pot even with Vigoro Nursery help! Political favors Galore right ya so !

  9. Anonymous says:

    Let’s keep building condominiums by major intersections. *rolls eyes*

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wasting your time. It doesn’t matter how much people object, they are ignored and developers will ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY AT PLANNING!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Is this Heather Bodden’s development company ?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, 8:07 pm, I think that this is Heather Bodden and her three sisters’ development. Harilyn Bodden is managing HAB Realty and Development, at least she was who I spoke with when I made inquiries about the development. Note that I am not an investor in the development but if the Central Planning Authority ensures that all building requirements are met, including cost analysis, I wish the Bodden’s all the best with the continuation of their development.

      1
      2
  12. Anonymous says:

    This phase does not faze.

  13. Anonymous says:

    For discussion: Should previous/ongoing ‘bad workmanship’ or ‘bad management’ be reasonable grounds for the CPA to deny an application?

    • Anonymous says:

      No, that’s what the Courts are for.

      • Anonymous says:

        Fair enough, thanks for weighing in. And I can see the appeal of your argument. (Separation of responsibilities.) But how would it work, in practice? What would the legal action be? An injunction against future work until past issues are corrected? Thanks.

  14. anonymous says:

    Very typical of Cayman: Buy a location which destroyed habitat, then fight an adjoining location which will benefit from your initial destroying of habitat (maybe with some more). “I buy my destructive home, but you can’t!”

  15. Anonymous says:

    Why can new developments pop up when we have current shitholes that should be fixed first.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Can HAB Development please explain how CI$2.5 million will build 14 buildings with 84 apartments, a Club house and swimming pools-

    Something is wrong- does this mean the average price of the apartments will be around $29,761 dollars.

    HAB please explain the math-

  17. Anonymous says:

    I got mine, now you can’t have yours.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Won’t cause more congestion my @ss… this is the main problem with the planning board. They keep approving developments with no insight into how it will affect the already horrendous traffic volume. Heads in the sand!

    • Anonymous says:

      3:44 You got yours now its my turn!

    • Anonymous says:

      NRA, but otherwise I agree.

      (Imagine if CPA turned down a project, because of traffic, when NRA had said ‘no traffic problem’. Automatic grounds for appeal by the applicant as CPA’s decision would be illogical in Law. NRA is the one who has to stop saying ‘no traffic problem’ then the CPA can act. Or we can get back to bashing the CPA until they do.)

  19. Anonymous says:

    Why not adopt the Tony Connolly (of “Frank Hall Homes”) model: Build Pivate Single-family homes &/or Duplexes on individual house lots. Offer people a family-oriented community rather than a “tenament community”. Also, allow the option for some extra construction time & costing for potential buyers to customize the basic/original floor plan/design.
    These house lots can still be stratified, to include property insurance, property amenities & maintenance, property management, etc.
    The Cayman Islands is in need of proper family-oriented development not apartment/condo/townhouses multi-tenant buildings.
    Homeowners want personal & private space on both the interior & exterior (i.e. a yard, lawn, perimeter fence, sidewalk, hurricane shutters, guttering, etc.) of the physical live-in structure.
    These properties already come at a premium, just on the basis of land/location alone, at least construct buildings suitable for a decent family life.
    HAB please revisit your plans and revise them to incorporate a premium subdivision similar to “Frank Hall Homes”, Spotts location or the high-end version of the affordable homes development.
    HAB REALTY WILL STILL ABLE TO PROFIT HANDSOMELY FROM THIS DECISION.

    • C'Mon Now! says:

      SMH, we have a growing population and finite amount of land.

      We need increased density, but designed in a thoughtful way. Frank Hall single family tract homes are not the way to go. You can be family friendly with greater density. 1950’s car dependent American sprawl is not a solution to anything.

      Overall mixed use developments with a vastly improved public transit system are needed.

      That won’t happen but it is what is needed.

      • Anonymous says:

        thank you, someone with a brain.

      • Anonymous says:

        A growing population? The Cayman Islands population is already at an estimated 70,000 people, over 200 Nationalities, and only ~12,000 Indigenous (i.e. Original Settlers) and maybe a further ~8,000 as Off-Spring/Extended Family. All Others (~60,000 people) are Caymanian Status Holders, PR Holders, & Temporary WP Holders.
        The projection is to increase the population from 70,000 to 100,000 people over 10 years. Even if the population increases to 150,000 people in that time who would be able to afford real property by this time or beyond?
        Futhermore, if forgotten, the Cayman Islands are a composition of three VERY SMALL islands that operate on levels of scarcity and, as a result, are unable to attain economies-of-scale that would render affordability, whereby high-volume production translate to SIGNIFICANTLY reduced cost.
        Moreover, TOURISM REQUIRES SHORT- & MID-TERM STAYOVERS; so, who are we catering for with the development “gold rush” currently happening, when ideally these three little islands should comfortably accommodate villes & township-like communities that can render a quality life & economic sustainability to its people- even with a population projected for ~100,000 people.
        Just as land is finite, so are [natural] resources.
        Expansive green spaces are necessary.
        A New York City aesthetic, landscape & accommodations, across these Islands’, is not what the Caymanian People should be aiming for.
        So, again, build more family-oriented communities/subdivisions & less multi-tenament facilities.

    • Anonymous says:

      th urban sprawl of low rise bungalows is the last thing cayman needs right now.
      unless you build in frank sound and cig decentralises to that area

  20. Anonymous says:

    Good. Some quality developments are needed in Crewe Road

  21. Anonymous says:

    I glad i got my canal lot in prospect…no strata…big open lot to breathe the green pastures…and yes i am a native caymanian…saw this coming yrs ago

  22. Anonymous says:

    How about about offering some upgrades to the existing development HAB? For example, hurrinace windows and doors, new sewage treatment plants?

  23. Anonymous says:

    Stand up for your right

    • Anonymous says:

      Amazing, everybody complaining no housing for Caymanians, now somebody is trying to meet that need and getting nimby objections.

      • Anonymous says:

        I suspect the problem here is the developer and their previous track record, and family history of poor wealth management, not the idea of the project or scope itself.

        • Anonymous says:

          Exactly, do your research and know who you are investing with. Personally I would not invest in anything that these “developers” are doing. Is HAB Realty even a member of CIREBA?

          • Gray Matter says:

            N9 … They are true down to earth hard working Caymanian ‘s here a lot longer and in business many many many years before CIRBA was formed and run by a bunch of TRANSPLANTS.

      • Anonymous says:

        NIMBY objections from people who knew there was a planned phase 2 before they bought units in phase 1!

        • Sam Bulltoc says:

          Phase 1 2001 – Phase 2 ?????

          Phase 2 has been 22 years in the making and failed numerous times. Developer has a history of failed developments and mismanagement.

      • Anonymous says:

        Meet the needs of Caymanians by building proper family dwellings. These townhouses are impractical for generational families or succession. Many people wish the remain in homestead for at least 30-40 years before bequeathing property to hiers & beneficiaries, who may wish to dedicate a lifetime of sweat equity & familial memories, with each passing generation , NOT MULTI-UNIT PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE FLIPPED EVERY 10 YEARS.

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.