Lawyer argues review of CPA action in blues case is critical
(CNS): The lawyer representing the National Conservation Council, Chris Buttler KC, argued that the court needs to review the actions of the Central Planning Authority in the wake of unlawful land clearing of pristine habitat in blue iguana territory in East End. Buttler said the case is far more than an academic legal exercise. Until it is made clear that the CPA has legally and correctly revoked the unlawful retrospective planning approval, the necessary remediation to protect the iguanas and their habitat cannot begin, and it could impact future cases.
In a press release this week regarding the latest courtroom battle between the two government entities, the CPA accused the NCC of pursuing a judicial review that “serves no practical purpose”. The board argued that a recent decision to adjourn the planning application was lawful and effectively revoked the previous planning approval decision, and the court did not need to intervene.
CPA Chair Ian Pairaudeau said, “The Central Planning Authority believes that it has acted lawfully and appropriately, balancing the interests of the landowner with the interests of the environment and seeking to meet the concerns of the National Conservation Council by revisiting its initial decision.”
However, during the proceedings this week, the CPA accepted that its decision to grant after-the-fact planning permission to Bon Crepe Ltd, owned by James Bergstrom, in February this year was unlawful as it did not properly consult with the NCC under the conservation law, undermining the chairman’s claims.
Questions about what happens next also remain unresolved because it is not clear whether the CPA has since legally modified or revoked that decision. From a legal perspective, the NCC is keen to ensure that the planning permission is properly revoked so that the next steps to protect this critical habitat between the Colliers and Salina Reserves can move forward.
As things stand, an enforcement order cannot be made to force the landowner to remediate the damaged environment by removing the road, replanting appropriate flora and return the protected blues habitat to its former glory.
This also means that a prosecution against Bergstrom for removing mangroves without planning permission is in abeyance. Buttler pointed out that planning permission must be lawfully and properly removed in this case to protect the habitat and species that use it.
He said the case was far more than an academic exercise. “The unlawful planning permission now needs to be got rid of in a lawful way,” Butler told the court, explaining that this meant the court must quash it.
Arguments for the case wrapped up on Thursday, and the presiding judge, Justice Jalil Asif, has said he will deliver his decision as soon as possible, as he has stated on a number of occasions that judicial reviews need to be heard and decided quickly.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Science & Nature
The rich in Cayman have grown accustomed to acting like a bunch of gangsters.
But, but, i thought it was the feral cats that we’re a danger to the blues?
This probably sounded a lot less stupid in that gaping chasm you call a head. Two things can be true at the same time, duncebat.
“However, during the proceedings this week, the CPA accepted that its decision to grant after-the-fact planning permission to Bon Crepe Ltd, owned by James Bergstrom, in February this year was unlawful as it did not properly consult with the NCC under the conservation law, undermining the chairman’s claims.”
This should be a slam dunk to win for NCC.
CPA unlawfully gave permission and if the CPA is that slack to not know they were breaking a decision with granting after-the-fact permissions, then you can be damn sure they will do it again and again and again. Visible corruption? Yeah, it sure has looked that way to me as it has for many years, just a new chair at the helm doing the bidding for the developers, damn be the one of a kind Cayman Islands environmentally sensitive lands and species under the bulldozers and concrete.
Shame on you, James, shame on you! And the rest of the cabal in the CPA. Ian is just as disgraceful as James in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, and even though both of them are very, very well off for life, greed is too deliciously acceptable to resist.
I hope the Caymanian people protest and shame all the đŸ¤¬ involved.
The American landscape photographer and environmentalist, Ansel Adams once said;
“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment.”
That was said about the United States (its West lands especially), but it rings true for everywhere on that’s inhabitable.
And here we are, we have to fight, speak up, protest, let your opinions be known if you oppose such disregard for our environmental protection laws, support the NCC, let your politician know how you feel (although that really won’t get you any support, from all but 1 of them).
How about shame on Ian Paridue because he just loves to have government keep paying for court cases. What is going on here?
Blue iguana survive hurricanes and fires. They’ll survive a road.
People survive hurricanes and fires, and car accidents. Therefore we don’t need drivers licensing or building safety rules to be followed. By your logic.
The CPA confirmed they willing broke the law. Will there be any charges laid against the chairman and or the board? If I broke the I would expect to be charged or sent to jail. Are there two sets of laws for different people?
That is an easy answer – YES!
Non sequitur but nice try.
They survive hurricanes and fires because they have their natural habitat to hide in…. you dips**t!!
they are critically endangered you idiot
what a bloody mess this place is turning into
World class (often imported) professionals in ultimate charge. Dubious characters in parliament. General old boys network behind the scenes. Every agency acting independent of almost every other. Very few fulling understanding their roles and responsibilities. No (or inadequate) consequence for failing to meet obligations. No agreement as to whose standards we operate by. Is it the UK? Is it Switzerland? Is it Jamaica? Do we even have standards? Do they have standards?
What could possibly go wrong?
This is one of the best comments, I have read so far. I wonder where we are heading also, which nationality we will change to? Just know, where you are coming from and where you are going to!!
One of the most concise, cogent and pithy summations of where we are in Cayman nowadays, 10:39! Not much more needs to be said!