Bird sanctuary gets reprieve from development threat
(CNS): A planning application for seven apartments adjacent to the Governor Michael Gore Bird Sanctuary has been refused, but not because of the threat it posed to the wildlife in the area, named for the aviphilic governor who died a few weeks ago. The Central Planning Authority turned down the application by Fabian Whorms (not the CEO of Cayman Airways) because it did not comply with the minimum lot size or rear setback and had too many apartments.
Although the National Trust for the Cayman Islands, which owns the sanctuary, and another neighbouring landowner had objected to the project and the Department of Environment had raised concerns, the environmental threats were not considered by the CPA, according to the minutes of the meeting (p35).
The PACT Government has a stated policy of environmentally sustainable development. However, there has been no change to the law and the CPA is still questioning the authority of the DoE to direct any conditions for planning applications, and so the environment is still not being factored in when it comes to planning decisions.
The recent publication of a batch of minutes covering meetings going back to April shows that the CPA granted planning permission to projects where the high water mark has been waived or where turtle protections were directed but ignored, and approved the clearance of primary habitat before any development plans have been approved.
Despite Premier Wayne Panton’s position that Cayman must now concentrate its future development on areas that are already man-modified, that high water mark setbacks must be met and development must be sustainable, the CPA has yet to adopt any of these government policies.
In most cases where planning permission was refused over the last few months, it was almost always due to technical specifications, such as insufficient parking, side setbacks or privacy buffers. There was not one occasion where issues of sustainability or threats to the environment were offered as a reason for refusing a project, regardless of submissions by the DoE.
In one case, the CPA granted planning permission for a house and pool on Manse Road in Bodden Town, even though the project did not meet the high water mark setbacks, ignoring both the advice and directed conditions from the DoE.
The Authority is of the view that the lawfulness of such conditions is in question and is of the view that only conditions that the Authority sees fit to impose will be included,” the CPA stated in the minutes of the 25 May meeting (p23). “In this instance, the Authority does see fit to impose conditions related to turtle-friendly lighting and the location of stockpiled materials, but does not see fit to impose a condition requiring all structures to be setback 75’ from the high water mark.” (“Reasons for the decision” #4, p26)
While the CPA did impose a restriction on a landowner wanting to clear pristine habitat in East End, namely that the work should not take place during the blue iguana breeding season between June and September, it did not require any land beyond what is needed for farming to be retained in its natural state. (Minutes of 8 June meeting, p68)
See the minutes of the CPA’s 25 May meeting in the CNS Library (scroll down to “Whorms, Fabian”)
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
The people have are seeing clearly and a large focus of the anger is directed at the CPA who is become so bad for this little paradise is almost lost we need a hero God
The most destructive element setting up the ground work is the CPA what will we have for our youth of the future after your greed
So we can build apartments and small complex beside sanctuaries we just have to make our plans fit with appropriate set back that is the shameless CPA
No need for a bird sanctuary, this place long since gone to the birds.
That is not true!
At last someone standing up to these “building firms”
supposedly wanting to build homes for young people to buy when really lining their own packets with “cheap” building work and materials.
god help these people buying homes that are new. tiny sq. footage nd falling down in 10 yrs or less. good luck.
Yay! My family is delighted and ever so thankful for this news.
We need more backbone from our Govt ministers – please NO more handouts to the rich.
Enforce our laws after CIMA clears these companies and dont just sweep them under your rugs of ‘Do and See no evil’
Wake up Cayman, as the wolves in sheep’s clothing are in the Caribbean!!
Don’t be sure that CIMA will clean house. Government wants fees and is not looking to get rid of them. PACT, like PPM, is catering to the big money players. Who was the Premier managing partner of?
The News: “The CPA is not Minuting all discussions and deliberations”
Also the News: “According to the Minutes, the CPA didn’t even discuss XXX”
you figure it out…..
Who will be happy buying a condo in an enviromental disaster? Fin Cayman is an example. Who wants to be associated with a development that dumped its building waste on the coral? Are there any owners that could provide an insight?
I assure you that the bougeouise that live there do not care what anyone thinks. People like them are actually a much bigger problem than the super wealthy. Without the bougeouise, there would be no high-end developments.
These are the very people who have their servants bring them a clean fork for each course.
Fipino nannies/cooks/shoppers/house cleaners at their every beck and call.
Who is dis bougeouise? Bourgeoise be dem.
Without the “bourgeoisie” there would be no tourism industry in Cayman. In fact there would be no jobs for anyone, anywhere.
Who do you think is responsible for every major scientific advance in history? Almost every business that has been started?
Your hatred and jealousy of all the is not Caymanian are noted. As is the mountain of waste you all contribute to in the middle of the island.
CNS – your one-sided “reporting” is obvious. Read the minutes again. The CPA did take into account the pond and so did the developer who even met with the National Trust the day before the meeting. The Trust representative at the meeting was ok with the amendments the developer offered to make regarding the pond. However, the CPA had sufficient grounds to refuse the application on the basis of the Development and Planning legislation alone, a far easier thing to maintain on appeal than refusing it just because it’s too close to the bird sanctuary (a reading which would have no basis in law and would therefore fail on appeal).
Bigger question is why the Trust can’t keep an Executive Director.
1:14 pm Excellent point