Barkers resort proposal will erode beach, DoE warns
(CNS): A controversial planning application for a five-storey boutique hotel on the edge of Barkers National Park will erode the beach there, the Department of Environment has warned. The proposed resort involves the removal of the beach ridge, which the DoE has said is a major concern because excavating the sand will leave the beach system vulnerable to storms and sea level rise. The application, which was refused in September 2021 for several reasons including inadequate setbacks and parking, is set to be reheard by the Central Planning Authority on Wednesday.
In its latest submissions to the CPA on the $12 million application by the Coe Group Ltd, the DoE experts said the rocky-rubble beach site might not be fitting for a hotel due to the topography of the exposed coastline with no protective offshore reef. The department said that even work on grooming this beach, which it does not support, would not result in a ‘Seven Mile Beach’ sandy aesthetic.
The developers, who have been selling the project since 2021, have been promoting images of a resort beach which bear no resemblance to the site and the DoE has already expressed concerns over the management of guest expectations for new resorts.
“Much of Grand Cayman’s advertising is based on the Seven Mile Beach experience but this facility will not provide the same sandy beach entrance and easy wading and swimming,” the DoE stated. “Due to the rocky shoreline, the feasibility of operating watersports from the property, as is often done in hotel establishments, will be difficult. Constant beach grooming is not endorsed by the DoE as it often results in impacts such as the loss of the beach profile or shoreline erosion.”
A significant threat to the stability of the existing shoreline at the site and beyond is the proposal to remove the site’s beach ridge, its first line of defence, in order to create basement-level parking. The DoE said the sand reserves that would be excavated as a result are essential to the resilience of the beach system and the source of sand which, on an undeveloped beach, would replenish it after a storm.
“A significant amount of sand will result from the excavations for the foundations, pool and basement parking. Once excavated and removed from the beach system, these sand reserves can never be recovered, making the beach system increasingly more vulnerable to erosion, which is exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, especially sea level rise,” the DoE stated.
The DoE has recommended that the basement parking be removed from the proposal to reduce the amount of sand excavation required and that sustainability measures, such as building on piles, are included in the design if the CPA gives the application the go-ahead.
Despite the current government’s stated objective of sustainability in future development, the application does not include any climate-resilient design features or alternative forms of energy. The DoE said that wherever possible, sustainable design features should be included in these types of development, noting that there was no sign of features such as renewable energy, solar carports, reduction of the solar heat gain of asphalt surfaces through shading, or the minimisation of asphalt parking. The DoE said the use of greywater systems for irrigation and native, drought-tolerant vegetation for landscaping should also be incorporated.
“When designed effectively landscaping can assist with shoreline protection of structures, retain sand, provide appropriate shading and cooling of buildings, hardscape and people, attenuate noise and provide windbreaks to trap airborne particles and debris,” the DoE said and urged the CPA to consider imposing sustainable requirements.
According to the application, the high water mark and side setbacks still do not meet planning regulations and would require a waiver. Given the limitations on who is allowed to object to planning applications and since the original objector appears to have withdrawn, there are no neighbouring official objectors to this project.
However, there are still concerns about the impact of the resort on the environment and its proximity to Barkers, as well as the height of the building, as it will be the first five-storey building in the area.
See the CPA agenda in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
Congratulations to COE GROUP LTD.
This one took a bit longer due to Government departments and following all the laws and regulations.
First beach side Hotel since the Kimpton.
First 5 story in proper old West Bay.
Exciting.
Now let’s make a National Park in Barkers for all to enjoy for generations to come.
Wayne Panton held himself out to be a defender of the environment. What a pathetic joke he and his PACTless Clown Car and the CPA they appointed are!
We appreciate Premier Panton’s support for the project. He has always been a supporter for West Bay.
On CNS the comments is always the best part!
Looking forward to the follow up article in 2 weeks.
It’s all a joke to you..smh..no respect
Is it so funny now?
https://mg.co.za/environment/2020-11-10-south-africas-coastal-cities-may-lose-their-beaches/
This is a no brainer – “no” being the operative word. Planning needs to stand up for Cayman and put short sited, money hungry developers in their place. There are rules – follow them and everyone will be happy.
10.50pm I might be short sighted but I know how to spell.
Looking on the positive side, it will reduce the amount of land that West Bayers use to dump their garbage on.
The jokers of DCB and DOE on Cayman Brac routinely turn a blind eye to illegal mechanised beach grooming and removal of the beach ridge. Moreover, when Mother Nature, by way of hurricane Paloma returned coral rock to the groomed beaches on the island, the government gave blanket approval for its removal, free of the usual planning fees.
Every single resident on island is aware of the massive beach erosion around the entire island.
Planning should implament proper setbacks to allow for rising sea levels that are hard lines and CAN NOT be waived. This should be made into law to protect the future beaches of our islands.
Building higher, my people, is the next generation of development. Something we will not be able to stop.
But we can and should make every effort to protect our coastline.
We do no not need environmental assessments to tell us what common sense says.
You cut a tree down you plant one back. You build too close to the sea your property ends up in the waves.
Many home owners/ investors will reap the bad decisions they made to buy coastal homes on the beach in Cayman, trusting developers and real estate agents to have used best practices when making plans. But look at the Marriot and Coral Beach… All approved by planning
No one can stop rising sea levels. But we can protect our beaches and do more.
Is Seven Mile Beach still Seven Miles?!
It does not matter what any report says. It does not matter how much damage to the environment any building will cause. Money talks on the island and it will still be built. What is happening is criminal.
If you believe that is “beachfront “ property then I’ve got a beachfront condo at FIN that I’m willing to sell you.
It won’t be the first Fin condo to come back on the market.
There is no danger that Fin will be Michael Ryan’s first profitable project.
Beginning to smell a rat here!!!
The problem to solve is why so-called environmentalists don’t step up with money to buy what they want? Can we stop any landowner from increasing their money? NO, so National trust nor anyone is willing to put their money where their mouth is. People are making a profit everywhere on the Cayman Islands. You want Beach, apartment sites, etc. BUY it. All property in Cayman is up for sale, all of it.
Yes… Yes we can stop people who profit from development while pushing the negative externalities onto the public… We are social animals…
We would if we could afford it. Unfortunately, not much money in conservation. Capitalism is based in exploitation which environmentalists fight against, which is why they tend to be broke.
Wur aw doomed. Doomed ah tell ye!
Developers don’t care if the beach erodes. By that time, they already have their profit (aided by duty concessions). Then it is someone else’s problem…
Government needs to learn to just say “no”
We need developers and their money as it creates many jobs and opportunities. Places for workers to rent, food to buy at grocery stores, liquor and beer at licensed establishments, money remittance fees, work permit fees, more car import fees just to name a few, so you can see how Caymanians benefit besides the underground economy. Please keep it going CPA!
Right, look at all the work permit holders that are running around seeking their own work due to the sham process with the sold called company that got the permit not ever having any work but just seeking a kickback. Shut this madness down now!
Thanks McKeeva for reducing the ability of others within 1000ft to object to planning applications.
Sorry, why are we still hearing applications to build on the beach???
Have we not yet learned from what is happening on Seven Mile Beach?
NO! Cayman does not learn.
Maybe good for the economy of the district, according to the article destructuce for the environment, and lastly contrasting our tourism product. I hope a sound decision is made. Hotels do NOT always have to be along the beach front.Interesting the district this application falls under.
Are you familiar with the site? There is another hotel on that coastline and there used to be another hotel along that coastline as well.
This is not a first hotel along this coastline, and the property next door is also a boutique hotel.
I predict that the CPA will totally ignore the DoE, again.
They may ignore the DOA, but they cannot ignore the law and regulations.
If the setbacks are violated, then NO planning permission. Enough with these “waivers” that are used by lazy designers and greedy developers who don’t want to build within the setback envelope..
The problem is CPA has the authority to issue waivers.
that authority is what needs to change.
$$$$$ talk mate!
Caymanians better start protesting this! Meanwhile we’re fighting each other. But the bad part is, it’s Caymanians who are selling us out because they’re the ones in positions of power who can put a stop to this, but money talks.
There are not enough Caymanians that care to protest. If Caymanians cared enough about their country they would have stopped electing certain Ministers years ago. There are too few Caymanians that understand what they are doing to themselves.
Only Caymanians sit on the planning board. The most powerful board in Cayman. So yes it is Caymanians that do this. Only Caymanians sell out their country.
And the developers are Caymanian. Hurts dont it?
Define Caymanian…Apparently Dart is one too alongside a lot of people with status. Didn’t think this one thru eh ??
Ironically, the main partner in this development was the vociferous leading objector to a development in GT , as it was going to end the world and deprive Caymanians of water access to a pristine area,,,
Karma at work here or is it simply “ I can do it, but you can’t “..?
Hypocrisy much….?
Respect setbacks, listen to the advice of DOE and if you must build, then build a sustainable resort with honesty and integrity. CPA should not allow any variations from the planning law. They should also be fined for marketing an unapproved resort with false images.
Nice thoughts, but will not happen. Cayman is mired in ‘insanity.’ = Approving the same environmentally destructive construction and expecting different results. Typical addiction; Cayman has an addiction to easy fast money with no thought to the slow death that grows year by year. Pristine environment – Cayman is killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. The goose will never return.
But but but, they gave us a mobi-mat so this must be permitted.
The hole Barkers area past Papagallos needs to be preserved as a national park and game preserve.
Exchange the developer’s land with a piece from downtown so they can make a lateral transition.
Win-win. Problem solved.
The hole edumacation system needs to be overhauled.
Amazing that you take the time and effort to point out a typo but are too stupid to make a substantive comment on a real solution. Congratulations on your mockery. So brave and so intelligent.
Typo? Game preserve? Really? Nah.
Fool. Yes. You.
What the rass you be hunting in Barcus bruh? Ching Ching?
Do you mean the area that the good peopleof Cayman constantly abuse by leaving their trash behind or for illegal dumping?
This proposed site, where this hotel is proposed to go, is not past Papagallo. As such, your point is moot.
We need to make lying unsustainable again – even when it’s to our selves to prop a bad idea.
This will be great because they will fix that crummy old rocky beach and make it beautiful. Having a nice building will defiantly be an improvement over what dilapidated structures are around their right now. I wish they would go higher as better to build up. Please CPA push it thru!
Oh you
did you not read the article? I mean the contents of the article has nothing to do with anyway LOL no sah.
Seriously? You must be the developer to want this “pushed thru” so badly!
You are an advertisement for the Caymanian school system
Top of the class also. The best Cayman has to offer. A west bay voter.
No. McKeeva is top of the class in West Bay. A modern day God there.
The best and brightest of Cayman too.
Another for Wayne (rubber stamp) Panton to approve contrary to his pretense at wanting to protect the environment.
Wayne “Brain Drain” Panton does not have any control over the CPA.
Damn furriners again.
Rascals..
CPA you must approve as we need this project urgently. one of the main developers is a fine person who does so much for the community.Look at his past developments which are top class
Lol why do we need it so urgently oh Mr. developer??
what was it?an a/c unit,a fruit cake orrefrigerator.whatever it was you’ve been bought.
ha ha ha ha
No. We don’t want it.
Nimbys unite!
there will be no backyard for any of us once the beach erodes. how much money did you invest in these terrible projects that you’re set to lose?
1:29, U gunna git it. Lik it or nut.