UPM mulls changes to conservation law as CPA and DoE face off
(CNS): The United People’s Movement caucus is understood to be planning changes to the National Conservation Act due to pressure from developers and others over false claims that the law, the National Conservation Council and the Department of Environment are stifling development. This comes after the Central Planning Authority has, once again, falsely claimed that the law is causing delays and adjournments to planning applications.
The government had indicated during the recent budget debate that it wanted to introduce a moratorium on Wildlife Interaction Zone (WIZ) licences, which would require Cabinet to make amendments to the regulations. However, CNS has learned that several members of the UPM want to make more substantive changes that will water down the powers of the NCC, now that the former sustainability minister, Wayne Panton, has been ousted from office.
However, while pressure for change may be coming from powerful lobbyists, the wider community has shown time and again, in surveys and during public meetings, that the conservation law and its enforcement are popular, while the unchecked runaway development that many believe does not benefit Caymanians is not. With just over one year until the general election campaign in 2025, making it even easier for developments that pose a threat to the environment is unlikely to prove popular with the electorate.
In response to questions by CNS, officials from the Ministry of Sustainability and Climate Resiliency said the UPM recently took part in a retreat during which many matters, including the legislation, were discussed. “Several pieces of legislation were considered but no determinations on legislative reform have been made at this stage. While efforts to review existing legislation and introduce new bills are an important part of the work ahead for the new administration, we are only having discussions at this stage,” a spokesperson maintained.
However, since the appeal case upheld the NCC’s power to make directions in specific limited circumstances, it has become increasingly apparent, from the nature of the contributions during the budget debate and the continued complaints from the Central Planning Authority (CPA), that a segment of the population, including some MPs, would rather bypass the environmental consultation process.
During the CPA’s first meeting of the year, the members criticised the DoE and NCC, attempting to blame them for adjournments to an application for another hotel building at Morritt’s Resort. However, the CPA has been fully aware since the summer of the simple conditions of approval required to mitigate the potential adverse effects of that project on a turtle nesting beach in a Marine Protected Area.
As the application was adjourned for consultation with the NCC, Chairperson Ian Pairaudeau described the process as a circus, saying the CPA was ready to grant permission.
However, the DoE released a statement this week making it clear that it had already provided the CPA with all of the necessary information required for them to determine the application in a timely manner. This included both the non-binding and biding recommendations under both the planning and conservation legislation. The DoE has said that it is the way that the CPA has decided to misinterpret the law that is causing the delay in this case.
“We do not agree that the CPA was required by the NCA to adjourn the matter twice, in September and November 2023. Then on December 1st, the CPA referred the matter back to the NCC for a section 41(3) review instead of seeking the 41(4) approval as required. The necessary section 41(4) request for approval has only now been received in January of this year,” the DoE stated. “The National Conservation Act requires any government entity, such as the CPA, considering a decision which may affect the environment in particular ways, to conduct a section 41(3) and/or as appropriate a section 41(4) consultation depending on the situation.”
The effect of the recent Court of Appeal judgment is that the CPA, once informed of likely adverse effects on a protected area, should refer the matter to the NCC for approval.
“The judgment also points out that in matters relating to whether adverse effects on a protected area are likely to arise or whether conditions of approval would be able to mitigate those effects, it is the NCC/DoE which would be considered the ‘authority’ on these matters, so if the CPA chooses to disagree they must provide compelling and cogent reasons why they have arrived at their decision,” the DoE explained. The CPA has had guidance notes since 2016 that provide the ‘triggers’ that would mean the board should apply the conservation law.
“The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Guidance Notes ‘do not enlarge the circumstances under which entities are required to consult’ but that they ‘merely identify those circumstances which will trigger the duty to consult’. Entities who take action in full accordance with the Guidance Notes are deemed to be in full compliance with the Act and those who disregard them are acting unlawfully and open themselves up to legal challenges.”
The Guidance Notes were clarified and updated in November to reflect the recent court ruling.
“Unfortunately, instead of utilising the Guidance Notes to assist with determining when consultation with the DoE/NCC is required and tweaking the previously utilized consultation process to comply with the ruling, it would appear that the CPA is inventing a multi-round process involving separate consultations under s7 of the DPA, then s41(3) of the NCA, and then another separate consultation under s41(4) to address adverse effects to Protected Areas and Critical Habitats,” the DoE said.
The department met with the CPA last year to discuss the consultation process after the Court of Appeal ruling, and the DoE said that between them, they agreed on how to move ahead with the process of consultation to make it as simple as possible. But the DoE said the CPA appears to have moved away from the position they had all taken.
The DoE said the approach the CPA was taking to the process was making an “artificial distinction that introduces an unnecessary, time-consuming step in the consultation process”. Essentially, the CPA is dragging out the process, not the DoE or the NCC.
“Given that the DoE/NCC routinely complies with the agreed three-week consultation timeframe for environmentally straightforward planning consultations such as the Morritt’s one, we can only surmise that the delay currently being experienced by applicants is a result of these redundant CPA processes and other CPA backlogs unrelated to the NCA or NCC,” the DoE said in its statement.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Laws, Politics
Follow the money..even the the land for the Brac Land for Judasanna’s new school was purchased from the former PPM Leader Kurt Tibbetts and the current District Commissioner, Mark Tibbetts for some CI$2.2M. Don’t believe me go look on the the Land Registry.. You can’t make this stuff up.
Follow the money folks, it’s not about the environment or what the CPA approves although most of them are likely on the same payroll, it’s all about the money. As long as the handlers and the recycled politicians are in place, just follow the money…
Well said. I totally agree
Can someone explain to me how, to pick an example at random, the building of Fin benefited the Cayman Islands. Or Watercolours?
It doesn’t increase housing availability for people who live here, and it doesn’t bring in revenue as these developments always have duty waivers.
All it does is make a handful of extremely wealthy individuals even wealthier.
Cowtowing to the developers and not sharing the wealth. They are greedy buggars aren’t they?
Don’t forget the many many realtors with their billboards selling the dream baby
It benefitted a few Caymanians, mainly politicians in the PPM party and their handlers. For the rest of us, nothing…
we need Singapore style housing – you got government owning the land giving out leases of 99 years to locals – prevents the accumulation of housing stock from foreign investors and secured housing for locals for future generations. our social housing system in these islands is a mess, but the system is built to reward obscene price monies to developers over the public bottom line
No thanks. I want to own my property outright. If I buy property I intend for my children to inherit it when I am gone. Otherwise how is it different from renting!?
99 year leases allow for the properties to be inheritable and also due to its system of lease-hold, you are able to ‘top-up’ the lease to extend in perpetuity. It gives the same effective result of owning the land for housing that you can dispatch on your kids, but you just need to register to update the lease before its expiry. (https://www.99.co/singapore/insider/leasehold-property-99-years/ ; https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/national-day-rally-2018-99-year-leases-for-hdb-flats-most-practical-fair-for-future)
I find it much more equitable than our situation where, if memory serves correct from the Compass reporting some months ago, only around 20/25% own the land here outright!
Sadly, CIREBA realtors don’t understand the leasehold construct, as it exists here, and neither does the government.
CIREBA are too busy fixing prices
All “realtors” especially the non- Cireba knuckle heads who try to be realtors. Don’t know their head from their ass.
No, we don’t.
Check out all the problems leaseholders have been having in UK.
Leaseholders are facing problem due to the privatizing of the housing stock and shifting the responsibility onto the private sector (where of course profit is the main incentive) leading to the issues as your raise. Singapore’s model has this as responsibility of the state, not the market, and so there is enforcement that does not have to go through as many hurdles in the UK.
Have my issues with the Civil Service here no doubt, but I gladly work with them than the developers of Fin or any number of “developers” who have zero idea of what they are doing and exist to skim off the top of Caymanian people.
Sadly, our current set of cabinet members people in Cayman are too greedy, selfish and ignorant to comprehend the the concepts of responsible development and sustainable growth, let alone champion any legislation in this regard. Ironically, some of the Caymanians that voted these numbskulls into office will inevitably find themselves casualties by their own folly, lest they have another place to escape to.
“wha a folly is?” will be heard often in the next few years.
If anyone out there thinks that the present Premier will do anything to protect even 1 sq.ft., or 1 iota of the environment then I am afraid you are mistaken. Perhaps you should have a chat with some of the Cayman Brac folks to get a clear picture of the Premier’s past and present actions where land is concerned.
Dissolve and reform the CPA. Bar the current heads from serving and draw up a new rosters of managers and board member.
The CPA is not chosen to reflect the wishes or the interests of the electorate. The best solution is to permanently dismantle it.
Just dissolve it and repeal everything written into the Development and Planning Act in the past 25 years.
The CPA and the Development and Planning Act serve no purpose other than to line developers pockets and the pockets of those they have bought at the expense of Caymanians.
We will all be better off without it.
Our judiciary system needs a new court, our prisons are overcrowded to the point they are placing serious criminals on bail, but we are getting a new $50 million high school and new private terminal at the airport for the rich. Guess where our politicians hearts are? Everyone one of them needs to resign.
Throw them out!
8:40, And replace with who? There is very limited political talent among Caymanians.
Minimum requirement is a college degree at a 4 year college. Must have owned and run a successful business for 5 or more years. No felony convictions.
Put these individual’s names in a hat and draw them and hope they’ll agree to serve for two terms maximum.
Pardon my ignorance on this, but is a 4 yr degree Actually even a Requirement? So far as I know, many past MPs haven’t had a yr degree.
They have a bought degree (maybe) from W Palm Beach Atlantic. A real academic powerhouse
UDP.
The best government money can buy.
Second only to the Progressives.
Ain’t that the truth. Still can’t figure out what Wight has ever done. LOL
The Anti Corruption Commission must be replaced in its entirety if they aren’t scrutinizing the mechanisms of influence behind developer interests trumping voter interests at the political level. This is the very definition of corruption, and our regimes don’t even have the sensibility to hide it anymore. Literally telling us who they are working for. FATF Blacklist here we come.
The teeth in the Anti-Corruption Act were removed a few months ago to ensure that no corrupt politician is ever prosecuted.
There is nothing the Anti-Corruption Commission can do about political corruption. They are only able to go after stupid non-political public servants who forgot to cut a politician in as part of their corruption.
No sooner than we get off the FATF blacklist, we are put back on a collision course for inclusion again.
The citizens are still sane, but the leaders have changed
And have fallen into great evil.
Good people, Kyrnos, have never yet destroyed a city,
But whenever it pleases wicked men to commit outrage,
They corrupt the people and issue legal judgment in favour of the unjust,
For the sake of their own private profit and power.
Don’t expect this city to stay peaceful for very long
Even if it is not at a moment of great peace now,
When these deeds are dear to evil men,
As their profit accrues with public harm.
Well, don’t stop there. The rest of it is just as applicable, especially in these times.
I know. I feel ya. You didn’t want to drop the tyrants part. I don’t blame you. How hard would it be for someone with expendable cash to hire people to track us down?
The main reason for the back stabbing of Wayne, the money rich development lobby.
The current Conservation Act is already weak, and then not even followed.
UDP won’t be happy until the North Sound is dredged and a 20-storey condo built on Sting Ray City sand bar.
Vote them all out, basically the CPA has taken over the government.
We need financial auditing of all MLA’s, as it all seems very corrupt
The National Conservation Law gives too much authority to one individual.
That is the long and the short of the issue.
Fix it.
3:20 pm EXACTLY !!
Cayman has allowed itself to be controlled by the highest bidder. So sad that this was done by our own relatives.
wake up buddy, the whole world is like this now.
This is our world not the WHOLE world.
Money talk, JuJu walks.
Tails wagging dogs
Government still on the rampage.
If you can’t blame someone else, engineer the situation so that you can.
Next election we[the people] should be able to vote for OUR Premier, not by this pulling straws after been elected process. This how we can hold them and ourselves accountable for the decision in Cayman.
1. Entire electorate Vote for a Premier and Deputy Premier – the Premier would appoint and 5 listed members of their party as ministers during the election.
2. District electorate Vote for MLA – One per district, if the electorate is 3000+ those districts can have 2 MLAs split the district.
All these members will make up the LA.
And Speaker of the House?
CPA = Cayman Propertyowner Agenda
Are you able to name the members of the Central Planning Authority and testify to your speculations or just thought it would be fun to throw out a generalized and derogatory comment?
Before allowing any further destruction , a survey as to numbers of un occupied properties and vacant hotel rooms should carried out.
It is a controversial opinion, but it would be good to know the nationality of those owning the properties. If, for example, we have a high percentage of Chinese nationals buying up property here (I’m not targeting them specifically however, the US and Canada had issues with this) we may want to consider putting a cap on who can buy here. Why are locals being priced out of our island?
Many people say “Your ancestors sold your land so too bad” but that’s hardly the fault of the younger generation is it!? No country should put the desires of non-nationals over the needs of its own people; most young Caymanians can’t afford to buy a home here.
Investors are more of a threat than the Chinese.
Large investment firms such as Blackrock are buying huge swathes of homes in America and driving real estate prices and rents to rapidly escalate.
Real estate is a hot investment vehicle here too.
I used Chinese nationals as an example. More to indicate that if certain foreign nationals are purchasing large quantities of property on island we may need to apply caps. But I agree investors are also a big problem. Blackrock is a plague on society. It’s causing issues across the globe.
That is why smart, educated eloquent young Caymanians need to get involved in politics and stand for election.
Time to pay the piper JuJu and crew!
Problem is they don’t actually pay anything…..we do
As real estate booms, Caymanians question who their islands are building for.
January 26, 2022
https://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2022/01/cayman-foreign-investors-identity-crisis/