CPA queries PAT decision on Little Cayman resort
(CNS): Following a decision by the Planning Appeals Tribunal to quash planning permission given by the Cayman Brac and Little Cayman Development Control Board (DCB) for the land element of a resort in Little Cayman after a successful appeal by objectors, the Central Planning Authority has said the board should consider appealing that ruling. The PAT sent the application back to the DCB last month for reconsideration, but minutes from a recent meeting show that the CPA members believe the tribunal got it wrong.
The proposed project at Kingston Bight on Little Cayman stirred up significant controversy when developers applied to build over-water bungalows at the picturesque spot. Peppercorn Investment received planning approval from the DCB for the land side of the proposed resort project in early February this year but was refused a coastal works licence by Cabinet less than two weeks later for the over-water bungalow element that the developers had said made the project viable.
One family of residents objecting to the project filed an appeal against the DCB on several grounds. Represented by Kate McClymont from Nelsons, they successfully persuaded the PAT that the reasons to support the decision were “wholly inadequate”.
But at a meeting on 26 October, the members of the CPA on Grand Cayman discussed the decision of the tribunal and said it had conflated NCC directives with recommendations. The members were said to be “concerned that the reasons for quashing the decision were based on the DCB not giving reasons for not including two NCC recommendations that did not fall within the remit of the DCB”. According to the minutes, “The members thought it may be prudent for the DCB to consider appealing the Tribunal’s decision.”
If taken, the advice would once again pitch one government entity against another over the government’s policy of sustainable development. The CPA has already battled with the NCC in court over another controversial project on Boggy Sand Beach in West Bay. The CPA’s decision to grant planning permission for a two-storey cabana and seawall on a site with zero high water mark setback was overturned by the court based on the NCC’s lawful directive. However, the CPA has said it intends to appeal.
At this stage, the application on Little Cayman has not yet been reconsidered by the DCB, which could re-approve the land side of the project based on a more detailed reasoning and justification for why, given all of the circumstances, they feel the development is suitable.
But Peppercorn Investments, which is owned by Matthew Wight, Naul Bodden and William Maines, have previously stated that the CI$34 million resort would not be viable without the over-water components. This was meant to include a dock and over-water cabins similar to those seen in some South Pacific resorts. However, that part of the project has been refused and it remains unclear if Peppercorn plans to press on with the resort if it cannot build in the water.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
Nobody should be allowed to touch Little. It should be made law. Regardless of how much influence they have over the CPA or how deep their pockets are.
Grand no longer represents a Caribbean Island. It’s a mini Miami. Don’t let the same happen to the picture postcard Caribbean Cayman paradise.
Absolutely!!! In fact, the CPA should be done away with. They have shone themselves many times to be unnecessary in the Cayman Islands!
In my opinion there are too many greedy people trying to get richer in the CPA.
I will second that!
CPA – stay out of our business over here in the Sister Islands.
DCB is what we go by over here.
If Peppercorn wants over the water bungalows then why dont they try Seven Mile Beach.
This resident is very happy that the Kingston Bight project is not viable without the over water bungalows.
Naul Bodden and Matthew Wight – keep your money over there in Cayman. Oh, by the way Naul – whatever happened to developing the old Buccaneers Inn site on Cayman Brac.
Have a nice weekend.
Thanks Wayne. Big Mac and Jay came as a package. You made Mac Speaker and put Jay in charge of Planning, not to mention the rest of the incompetents you gave power to, just so you could become Premier.
Now the Minister of Environment and Sustainability will go on record as being the Premier and person in charge of overseeing the destruction of more pristine environment than any other.
“Jay” is in a position beyond his capabilities.
Look at the Sister Islands planning. You got an overpaid planner who works out of a janitors closet. No space or place to review plans. No presence of a building inspector.
No other administrative staff.
Brac has not been this busy since offshore oil transfers umpteen years ago. Even after a public meeting just before Christmas last year at District Admin – “Jay” has been unable to come through with a building inspector for the Sister Islands.
But I also do not see Mo$e$ or JuJu trying to do anything about it – hence they are part of the problem and not the solution.
Thumbs up Incompetence Winner is “Jay”
No. Incompetence is Wayne and Dwayne, with David and Kathy not far behind Bernie.
The dive shops are selling racks of brand new Hawaiian slings in full open contempt of National Conservation Law 2013, which defines them as a “spear gun”, and prohibits their importation, or even parts to fix broken ones. So much for the fabled DOE $500,000 fines and 1 year in jail. Things that used to really matter and count, no longer seem to.
The CPA is effectively a board of developers and having a development turned down may impact the members and / their circle later down the line. Clearly the CPA are friends of the Caymanian developers trying to wreck Little and trying to get the decision overturned.
Utterly disgusting but don’t expect anything better from this place anymore.
And you have proof of this to make such a generalized and derogatory comment? No – didn’t think so. Just throwing out baseless comments about people who you clearly don’t know.
I do. I’m in the industry but have to sit by and watch it happen. Truth hurts does it?
Why do you have to sit by and let it happen? submit your evidence to ACC.
This comment was written by a developer who wants carte blanche to do whatever they want and to hell with the environment! Money rules folks.
CPA members are out of control. Minister of Planning Jay Ebanks and his Chief Officer Eric Bush are wasting government funds on these appeals to help friends in the development industry. The question to be answered is why?
Unfortunately, the public ultimately pays for the appeals and associated legal costs from the government purse if CPA purse this matter. The solution is very simple.
Peppercorn Investments, which is owned by Matthew Wight, Naul Bodden and William Maines, should be the ones appealing and using their deep pockets to seek legal recourse not the public purse.
Naul Bodden and Mathew Wight are exceptional businessman and valuable members of the community. I don’t know Mr. Maines, but I presume he is also a very fine citizen. The trash talk here is rude and childish and ultimately self-destructive. What have all of you detractors ever built for Cayman?
Multi-million dollar Condos are never built for Cayman.
They are built for multi-millionaires who visit for a couple of weeks (if that).
NCB’s developments do not cater to the masses and therefore Cayman.
Let us know your thoughts on the Leaning Tower of South Sound i.e. Tides when it topples over onto the graveyard it borders?
If they can ever get the Tides from leaking like a sieve..
Bet they’re really missing PPM and their man Joey Who in charge of planning.
What is the total value of concessions they requested, received and where given over the last ten years from KT, Joey and the ppm guys?
PPM was worse for the environment and duty concession handouts to the rich, than PACT.
PPM was worse than Big Mac’s UDP as well with concession giveaways to their friends and sponsors. They do not care about any part of the environment. They looked after a select special few and were riddled with scandals. They can never be trusted again.
In light of the ruling given the objections raised it behooves me to say in this regard that a pragmatic empirical perspective to accompany the needs of the community in this regard should be ideally raised given the situation. As VP Harris regurgitated the significance of the passage of time it is Cayman’s time to be bold and yet astute on this matter. Behooving these factors Government needs to make informed decisions based on sound judgment in accordance to all and community at large.
Please stop behooving and write in plain English.
Correct. It’s as if some moron got ahold of a dictionary and is trying to sound intellectually relevant, but is achieving the opposite.
Do these owners of Pimple-Clown Development or whatever they’re called not have any sense of ethics or morals or history or any love at all for LC and leaving her alone? Just look at SMB and see how the future is. It always better than the past. Of course, these 3 owners are involved in multiple developments blighting smb too…just awful
NO! NO! NO! This cannot be allowed to be built, it will set the precedent and one of last bastions of nature in our country will begin to go down the path of the all paved 7-mile beach.
Why doesn’t the DCB and CPA just work with the DOE instead of fighting everything tooth and nail.
Because that way the developers wouldn’t make as much money. How naive are you?
1:51 pm I’m assuming you meant that as a 2-way street because as much as the CPA and Planning have tried to work with DOE, the DOE is hell bent on following its own law and ignoring the planning law
Provide even the slightest bit of evidence of that.
Evidence? We don’t need
no stinkin evidence.
Open your eyes!
“The DoE is hellbent on following its own law” – OMG HOW DARE THEY.
1:51 pm typical ignorant reply when the original comments also said “and ignoring the Planning Law”. the point is that both the DOE and Planning should be working TOGETHER to ensure both laws are followed.
The big difference here is that DOE is working to protect the environment. The CPA is like most of the other “Get all they can” groups. Sad, ain’t it!
You are joking, aren’t you?
Section 19 of the Constitution: “(1) All decisions and acts of public officials must be lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair.” Procedurally fair includes that you give your justification for a decision. Now the CPA are arguing that this basic bit of administrative law should not apply to them & the DCB. That is very bad.
Moreover, their conditioned default setting. More than ego, there’s something else driving this, and that aroma should be something the ACC can also smell.
1:49 pm I don’t think you read that correctly. The CPA didn’t say anything about the DCBs reasons. It referred to the appeals tribunal misinterpreting the DOE report
“The [CPA] members were said to be “concerned that the reasons for [PAT] quashing the decision were based on the DCB not giving reasons for not including two NCC recommendations”. Its literally in the article, quoting (I presume) the CPA’s own minutes.
Your hate of the DOE/NCC blinds you to the reality of the CPA’s words and actions. The PAT is supposed to make sure (in part) that CPA/DCB decisions are procedurally fair. This decision was not (they found). The CPA say that shouldn’t matter and so want the PAT decision appealed. None of this has anything to do with the NCC/DoE. They are just the red flag in front of the CPA bulls. Because no one must say no to they who may not be questioned (the CPA).
With Wight & Bodden at the helm, they should change the project name to “Peppercorn Entitlement Ltd”, would better sum up the overall plan.
No problem. Given the snail’s pace progress of Wight and Bodden’s current developments on Grand Cayman we’ll all be dust by the time they actually get around to completing it. Not that leaving such an eyesore to your grandchildren should be any consolation.
In their anger at the conservation council holding a mirror up to their decisions the CPA are not saying ‘appeal the conservationists’ but ‘appeal the constitution’ because it is a constitutional requirement for boards like the DCB to give reasons for their decisions. I guess the CPA don’t want this PAT decision setting a precedent and anyone asking them to justify their decisions. Since they are the CPA and must never be questioned.
1:15 pm Read the story again. It didn’t refer to the CPAs opinion re the DCBs reasons. It talked about the CPAs opinion that the appeals tribunal misunderstood the DOE report
“the CPAs opinion that the appeals tribunal misunderstood the DOE report” – No. It did not. That is literally nowhere in the news report. So now we’re not just ducking the constitution but ducking facts as well. All you’re doing is proving the original post that clearly “the CPA don’t want this PAT decision setting a precedent and anyone asking them to justify their decisions” and truth be damned.
ACC – over to you.
Seems like this CPA board just wants everything their way or else. Since this is a Cayman Brac/Little Cayman matter, why is CPA Grand Cayman getting involved? Does this new chairman think he knows it all? This whole current CPA board needs to be dismissed immediately.
12:33 pm The CPA includes a member of the DCB in accordance with the Law. The current CPA happens to include the Chairman of the DCB. Seems the legislatures wanted some continuity and coordination and communication the issues boards. So what is wrong with them discussing it. In fact, kudos to this CPA for being transparent enough to include this in their minutes because I doubt the previous CPA would
There is a connection between the CPA and DCB. Mr. Ashton Bodden is a member of CPA and the Chairman of DCB.
So …. there is your direct connection.
7:01 am Correct and his membership on the CPA is required by Law.
CPA and DCB are two completely separate entities. The Law requiring the Chairman of DCB to also be a member of the CPA needs to be revisited. So why isn’t the Chairman of CPA a member of DCB?
The point is this – seems not to be stated but just perhaps Mr. Ashton Bodden is being pressured by the CPA to use his influence on the DCB.
Lets not get into it about which developer is friends with which CPA member or why Mr. Bodden has to recuse himself from some of the applicants that come to both DCB and CPA.
Doubt me, look it all up in the published public minutes.
Not hard to figure out.
It is time for Mr. Ashton to come off both the DCB and CPA boards. Thank you for your service Mr. Ashton, let us get some new blood in there.
One who does not have a son in a senior civil service position that had responsibilities over the Sister Islands.
The CPA is seriously out of control.
They need to be careful what they ask for. This is another opportunity to lose and pay the other side’s fees.
What interest propels the CPA to disregard a binding ruling, and appeal, rather than say an invested developer? Are we missing something ACC?
11:36 the law allows for such appeals
then let the CPA members pay the lawyer fees from their own pockets instead of us taxpayers. Hell they are all well off so together they can afford it.
“Peppercorn Investments, which is owned by Matthew Wight, Naul Bodden and William Maines, have previously stated that the CI$34 million resort would not be viable without the over-water components.”
Hmm! I would like to see the proof? In that case all waterfront development would need over the water structures.
“In pre-application discussions, the Applicant indicated that the proposed density of the land-based resort was only viable with overwater bungalows.” – The DCB minutes.
Leave Little Cayman Alone!!!!
I’d prefer if they’d just leave Cayman, period.
But they’re Caymanian and rich too! They can do whatever they please.
Well…… They can try!
Well what a surprise, just take a look at the connections between the CPA and the developers. Pretty blatant however they try to dress it up.
Yup, good ole Nail, Bite, and Means, hardly a surprise. As usual the CPA does whatever it wants to…..let’s just wait and see who N,B and M hire as their lawyer. No prizes for that one!
M.A
When I was a kid and my Mom said ‘no’, and I asked again and she still said ‘no’, that was it, end of story. I never went back to her and said ‘One day Mom’ I’ll have more money than everybody else and then you’ll realize your decision was wrong’ and I certainly didn’t have my Dad telling me, ‘your Mom is wrong ask her again’.