NCC’s lawyer says CPA failed to consider environment
(CNS): Chris Buttler QC told a court on Tuesday that the Central Planning Authority “strikingly” failed to record any consideration of technical submissions made to it about the negative environmental impact of a planning application it approved that is now the subject of a court challenge. In the first case of its kind, where government is suing government, the UK attorney representing the National Conservation Council said there was no analysis in the CPA’s deliberations about the key issue, which was the risk to a marine park.
Buttler argued that the CPA had ignored a lawful directive from the director of the Department of Environment to refuse an application by Cayman Property Investments Ltd. The application was to tear down a failing structure and sea wall and replace it with a new wall and even bigger cabana on Boggy Sand Road in West Bay. The DoE had made it clear to the CPA that this should not be granted planning permission and therefore issued the directive to this effect, as provided for in the National Conservation Act.
But as well as ignoring the directive, the lawyer said, the minutes of the discussion leading up to the CPA’s decision to approve the application show no consideration at all of the environmental risks the project posed, even though the plan was to rebuild the structure on the same footprint, which was at times directly in the sea.
The lawyer argued that the CPA discussions were almost entirely based on the issues relating to the seawall rather than any environmental considerations raised by the DoE.
“Strikingly, there is no analysis at all of the views of the director,” he said, referring to the submissions made by the DoE on behalf of the NCC. As recorded on the planning agenda for the meeting in question, the DoE had explained the risks the project posed to the marine reserve from the construction as well as the unsustainability of the proposed structure.
Buttler told the court that the planning department, in its analysis of the application, had also failed to give any assistance to the CPA on the assessment by the DoE with regards to the problems it posed.
He explained that when the minutes of the meeting on 1 September 2021 were eventually sent to the DoE, they showed that the CPA had dismissed the DoE’s directive not to grant planning permission because they thought that was unlawful and had gone on to approve the project without any discussion about the impact on the marine park.
As he presented the case to the court, Buttler argued that as well as ignoring the lawful directive from the DoE director, the CPA had failed to discharge its statutory duty to consider the impact of the project on the environment.
The CPA’s case is that, based on a previous decision by the Planning Appeal Tribunal, the board believed the directive from the director was not lawful because it was not properly delegated by the NCC to the DoE. The CPA also argues that it did not need to decide or discuss the environmental impact because it had already been decided at a previous CPA meeting that there was no danger to the environment.
The ruling in this case will have an important impact on future planning decisions. The specific project has stirred controversy because the CPA chose to waive a number of planning regulations, including the setback from the high water mark. While the planning permission was stayed by the court challenge, if the case goes in the CPA’s favour, the planning permission paves the way for a clearly unsustainable structure.
According to the DoE, the proposed project will not only cause a serious threat to the marine environment during construction but will continue to cause beach erosion in the area and pose a risk of collapse.
The project also flies in the face of the PACT Government’s policy commitment to sustainability. Building a new seawall and a two-storey structure well below the high water mark and on the footprint of a site that is now more often than not actually in the sea undermines the fundamental policy of the current government of sustainable development.
The case continues.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
Cayman lost it’s soul to the $$$ a while back. Why not just rip up the whole place and be done with it.
To 10.15 Guess we are luck that todays earthquake didn’t ‘rip up the whole place’.
See. “5.0 earthquake! Thu Jun 16 13:29:21 EST 2022 near 102 km SSW of George Town, Cayman Islands https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000hhxe“
How can two government bodies be going to court against each other and using the public’s money to do so…The politicians and the legal drafting department should be ashamed of them selves. What was the intention of the NCC law?
This is an issue that have been solve by the Cabinet in government caucus.
No, Sammy is wrong about that.
Wayne….Wayne?????
CPA will win. NCC (DoE) will not.
Hope not and if they do, protest at GAB soon come!
well done the NCC for taking the CPA to court. They must be held to account …
Our coasts need sensible setbacks, which are enforced, otherwise we will end up with a further degraded marine environment. And, er, more buildings in the sea.
What about pre-existing structures that were lawfully authorized and, over the course of time, require repair?
It’s no longer fit for purpose.
Says you, CPA, NCC or DoE? Which is it?
You made a mistake. Own it. Fix it.
I have nothing to do with this.
The greatest example is the Kel Thompson building on North Church Street which breached setback on all sides. The Appeals Tribunal refused it and sent the matter back to the CPA over a year ago. What has happened since? ZILCH.
The system does not work and the CPA ignore their legal responsibilities.
Now take a look at the Government land by the Lobster Pot. Six foot fencing which is contrary to the law and heavy duty equipment on the beach likewise.
Let’s grow bananas there which suitability describes our republic.
and no planning application or business case for this CIG expenditure!!! Hope the AG looks into this!
Good luck getting the AG to do anything right. Nice guy, but not a good AG.
I think they meant Auditor General.
Shut you rich foreigner – we need the development dollars now more than ever. Where do you think the electricity help money will come from? Just drop out of the sky? The CPA knows what they are doing so just go back to your privileged gated community please or catch a flight and leave.
You be leavin 🔜
Don’t Feed the Troll
You sound lovely!
Just. Follow. The. Money.
CPA is a failure in general
Not this time.
Another private sector board.
When will we learn. None of these issues would arise if civil servants were making these decisions.
Do not insult intelligence.
Private sector board appointed by whom?
They are a failure in the Cayman Islands, too!
It’s a sad reflection of the fact that a department and a statutory authority believe that they are above the law.
DoE is has too much power, which has many times lead to irrational outcomes.
Absolutely no surprises that CPA doesn’t give a sh*t. More conflicts than the middle east on that board.
Clear them out.
Can someone point out the conflicts of interest on the current board?
Cayman cannot govern itself. It ignores laws, ignores legally valid arguments, ignores common sense, ignores standing legal precedent. How sad that a territory that desires to be viewed as first world, is actually third world swamp water educated.
Cayman is a great place. Like anywhere else, Cayman has its issues. The justice system will rule on matters before it.
The justice system must be broken!
Justice system not broken.
Yes it is broken. The man who was found guilty of child molestation got a slap on the wrist. The sentence was determined by a judge.
“…is actually third world swamp water educated.”
All of us? I mean, you don’t state otherwise, so I’m assuming that I and all Caymanians, to your way of thinking, we’ve been educated in the swamp water ways (whatever that means), with no higher education than what’s available in a developing world (aka third world).
On behalf of all of us idiots, I apologise we don’t live up to your first world standards.
/s
Far too many expats have a superiority complex because of their wealth or other nefarious factors.
Bless those that respect the people and are humble and respectful.
You are missing the crux of the issues at hand.
It’s about time.! Well done! There is not shame in government departments holding each other responsible. DOE must sue planning EVERY time they make a stupid decision. They represent the people who want our environment protected. It is their obligation and responsibility to use the courts. All I can say is – it’s about time. I hope this is a loud message to the planning department that accountability is coming.
Accountability is coming? Are you sure? Don’t hold your breath….This is still the Cayman Islands!
So no different than the UK colonial masters then, who’s head of Parliament has been proven to break laws and is not held accountable by their Governance structure.
Corruption ruined Cayman and continue to ruin it and No one cares
8.21 And you are still a loser. Putting Cayman down didn’t lift you up. Sorry.
CIG vs CIG? Judicial review? Novel precedent in Cayman Islands law.
It’s a sad reflection of the fact that a department and a statutory authority believe that they are above the law.
I am going to sue myself , because I ignored my own advice.
Maybe, as an accountability self-check, your argument could be that you acted Wensbury-unreasonable and should be quashed or vitiated by the rule in Hasting-Bass? 😉
Spellcheck
It’s time, brother, it’s time!
I hope this building don’t fall into the sea before the court case finishes? Who in their right mind would build so close to the water? Just today I say a house fall into the Yellowstone river.
Of course as it’s Caymanians selling Cayman and then blaming Expats for their issues.
Money talks and bullshit walks.
Nobody is blaming expats or Caymanians here, stop fabricating drama.
Agreed.