CPA failed to explain ‘mitigation’ in Boggy Sand case

| 19/05/2023 | 30 Comments
Cabana at Boggy Sand Beach

(CNS): The Central Planning Authority did not give an adequate explanation as to how the conditions it imposed on planning approval for the redevelopment of a seawall and cabana on Boggy Sand Beach would address the list of environmental concerns raised by the project, a lawyer argued in court this week. Chris Buttler KC represented the National Conservation Council in the controversial case that has pitted two government entities against each other.

During the second day of the appeal against a judicial review finding that the CPA should have acted on an order from the National Conservation Council and turned down the application, Buttler said the planning board had ignored statutory guidance. He disagreed on several points with Sir Jeffrey Jowell KC, who represented the CPA, as he outlined what was wrong with the application.

Buttler said the CPA had failed to give adequate reasons why it had granted planning permission after the technocrats at the Department of Environment had advised them clearly not to do so, and had also failed to meet its legal obligations under the conservation law.

Because the project posed a risk to the environment, the CPA had a duty to consult the NCC, and it could not just arbitrarily impose conditions that it felt would solve the problem, Buttler argued, adding that the conditions imposed were inadequate and did not address all of the potential environmental concerns.

The two-day hearing focused heavily on the technicalities of the National Conservation Act, especially what is required of any entity about to embark on actions that could harm the environment and when the National Conservation Council can delegate its powers to the director of the DoE.

The disagreement between the two government entities, both politically appointed, stems from the adamantly held position of the CPA that neither the NCC nor DoE should be telling it what to do, an issue raised by both lawyers in the case.

But the main issue remains whether or not the landowners of this site, who are currently involved in developing a new condo complex on Boggy Sand Road, should be allowed to rebuild another wall and cabana on the same site. If the appeal court upholds Justice Alistair Walters’ decision in the judicial review last August, the CPA will likely have to re-hear the application. If the court overturns his decision, the developer will be allowed to rebuild a structure that the DoE has said will inevitably fail again.

Experts and environmentalists believe the original wall and cabana should never have been given planning permission in the first place around 15 years ago. The structure, which stands in the sea — in a marine protected area — for most of the year now, began failing almost from the get-go. With sea level rise and continued beach erosion at the site, any future wall or structure on that footprint will simply fail again, according to the DoE experts.

The project has become a flashpoint of what appears to be a major internal government conflict that is both political and administrative. While the DoE seeks to protect the environment and its legal obligation to prevent damaging development, the planning board is sticking to a dated and inappropriate development plan that is no longer fit for purpose and has very few restrictions on landowners’ rights to do what they want on their property.

After they had heard all the arguments of the case, the appeal court justices said Thursday that they would need time to consider the appeal and would reserve judgment until a date that has yet to be confirmed.


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 (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Tear it down!

    18
    2
  2. Anonymous says:

    Some things can’t be explained, so they didn’t.

    15
    1
  3. Anonymous says:

    The image speaks for itself. Can’t we see that the wall is blocking the flow of the sand? How dumb can we get. C’mon mister Premier…

    31
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      There is a HUGE gap between the law, and Common Sense.

      16
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      An eye sore and monument to a corruptible little island government. this property sticks out like a big middle finger to the people of Cayman.

      14
      2
  4. Anonymous says:

    Time for King Charles to step in and take charge. This country is in one big mess.

    15
    10
    • Anonymous says:

      8.59pm So is the UK. Both caused by invasion by Immigrants.

      11
      14
      • Anonymous says:

        Sick burn

      • Anonymous says:

        What on earth are you talking about?

        Chicken Tika Masala was once voted the UK’s favourite dish, and normally a curry is in the top 10. Wouldn’t have happened without immigration.

        More recently, turns out there is a shortage of approximately 300,000 workers that normally come over easily from Europe.

        ‘Invasion of immigrants’? False on so many levels. Say what you really mean.

        7
        5
  5. Anonymous says:

    This is just a bunch of cry babies on the CPA wanting to shove crap down the public’s throat because “they say so” and they are pissed off because there almighty authority has been challenged. The whole bunch of this CPA need to be dismissed over this total waste of our tax dollars.

    41
    7
  6. Anonymous says:

    Clearly CPA hold no regard for the conservation law, and guidance from NCC DoE whatsoever. CPA’s decisions and policies warrant utmost transparency, the fact they offered none in this case demonstrates a brazen defiance of working within the law.

    CPA have operated above the law many times over and with increased frequency in the past decade. Their members need to subject to punitive action just like an average citizen is subject to for flaunting Planning regulations.

    Ultimately the buck stops with the Premier especially considering his mandate and campaign promises. This structure and its adjacent sheet pile sea wall needs to be removed, replaced with a wave absorbing structure and or re wilder. Are you up to fulfilling your promises Mr. Premier?

    36
    8
    • Anonymous says:

      “needs to be replaced with a wave absorbing structure”?

      Ummm….thats exactly what the CPA approved. A new CURVED seawall INSIDE and further back from the existing failing wall that is absolutely going to cause adverse effects to the environment if its allowed to continue to fail while taking the adjacent wall supporting a road with it!

      FYI Curved seawalls are designed to imitate the wave’s shape as it moves towards the land and repels it back to the sea. The concave also prevents the wave from overtopping the wall, providing additional protection.

      This was the design/proposal submitted and which had been negotiated and previously endorsed by DoE. Maybe you should read up on the application and Minutes from the meeting before you jump in to make uninformed comments?

      5
      15
      • Anonymous says:

        5:43 am excellent points

        2
        6
      • Anonymous says:

        Maybe the wall and structure shouldn’t exist.

        14
      • Anonymous says:

        I have read the minutes. However curved sea walls for your information do not totally absorb wave energy some of it is reflected back out to see. There it amplifies incoming waves that scour beaches of their sand. What I was hinting at is the type of structure surrounding the Burj al Arab in Dubai, I’m guessing you don’t know about technological advances in wave attenuation. Curved sea walls deemed protective to structures they surround and are a dated solution. Look it up and don’t assume before you jump to conclusions.

        13
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          10:11 pm But the point is….the DOE (the “so-called experts”) ASKED for a curved seawall and then, when the applicant revised the plans accordingly, the DOE changed its tune and called for refusal.

          2
          9
    • Anonymous says:

      The CPA has no regard for anything but there own agenda. This whole mess shows how they will blow our tax dollars if anything they say gets challenged. Don’t mess with the CPA!

      8
      1
  7. Anonymous says:

    Our flawed statutes, in the absence of updates and common sense, also point to International Building and Fire Code and evolving best practice. Even if this wasn’t in the sea (and it is), it couldn’t be grandfathered on local statutory grounds alone, since that’s not the only benchmark standard that applies to the industry and needs to be taken into account at the application level. Clearly the entire CPA Board needs to be changed if they don’t understand their duty to the public or accept Justice Walters’ decision via judicial review.

    18
    6
  8. Anonymous says:

    Environmental Impact Study: Currents take sand from one part of the beach, to another.

    -End

    13
    • Anonymous says:

      There were multiple warnings from coastal engineers and consultant reports and seminars over the last 25 years warning of wave reflection from sea walls along the former 7-mile beach. The idiots on this and past CPA boards ignored every piece of sage advise ever provided to them regarding sea walls. Most of this malarkey happened under the former chairman ALT and it appears to be continuing.

      21
      • Anonymous says:

        Please cite ONE NEW seawall that the new (current) CPA have approved.

        • Anonymous says:

          I’m sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in, however I’m quite sure there are quite a few in the pipeline. It won’t be long before this new board continues the tradition.

          3
          1
    • Anonymous says:

      Don’t forget that some of this sand never comes back as it disappears over the drop off via sand chutes.

      11
  9. Anonymous says:

    Seems like the whole footprint is now below mean high water line. Is that not now the king’s bottom and outside CPA jurisdiction anyway?

    22
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      The new seawall proposed sits a couple feet back inside the existing seawall so it IS within CPA jurisdiction.

      • Anonymous says:

        Fully within CPA’s jurisdiction to apply the 75 ft setback with no variations. They have no reasonable excuse to do otherwise.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Same old “Rubber Stamp” mentality that existed with the old CPA Board exists with the current sitting board.

    36
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      Really. Have you ever looked at the recent decision lists or is your statement solely based on the few applications that attract opinion pieces by social media and some local news?

      4
      6

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel 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.