Work still underway on new line in the sand
(CNS): A recommendation to establish a Seven Mile Beach coastal setback reference line is expected to go before Cabinet for approval in the second quarter of this year. The Ministry of Sustainability and Climate Resiliency is preparing a proposal for an updated line in the Seven Mile Beach sand, based on decades of coastal data, from which future high water mark setbacks will be measured for new planning applications.
“This will be the first step towards proposing updated coastal setback reference lines for the variety of coastlines that exist on all three islands, which will take into consideration the characteristics of different coastlines and offshore environs,” Premier Wayne Panton told CNS this week. “After the new setback reference lines are established, the discussion moves to reviewing construction setbacks from the new reference line.”
Over the years, the Central Planning Authority has consistently waived the HWM setbacks for beachfront projects, with the result that hard structures, such as swimming pools, decks, bars, walls and sometimes even main structures, were built far too close to the water. This has added to beach erosion and encroachment at many sites along the world-famous beach.
Because landowners baulk at the idea of managed retreat to deal with beach erosion caused by poor, piecemeal planning decisions, the aim of the new regulations is to at least stop that from happening on future projects. The premier is hoping tey will ensure that wherever new development and redevelopment takes place, it will be more resilient.
The climate ministry and the Department of Environment are leading the multi-agency technical working group, which includes representatives from tourism, lands and Hazard Management. The goal to review all coastal setbacks to make oceanfront development more resilient is happening alongside efforts to address the problem of beach erosion that has been caused by previous inappropriate development.
“There are two key elements of the plan to deal with coastal erosion in Grand Cayman, particularly along Seven Mile Beach: revised coastal setbacks and beach renourishment,” the premier said.
But because the Ministry of Sustainability and Climate Resiliency is the permitting agency for coastal works, the beach renourishment aspect of the project has been transferred to the Ministry of District Administration and Lands to develop the business case and manage the procurement process.
Government has set aside $21 million for beach re-nourishment but there are significant concerns about how long the new sand will last, given the anticipated rapid acceleration of rising sea levels that climate change is likely to fuel even within the next decade.
The idea of the public purse meeting the cost of beach nourishment has raised concern because properties such as the Marriott hotel and condos in that area are suffering beach loss and significant ocean encroachment largely because the pool bar, decks and walls were all erected too close to the high water mark when the properties were built.
The general manager has said it should not be the owners who foot the bill for these mistakes as the eroding of Seven Mile Beach hurts the entire tourism product, not just their properties.
However, the premier has already said that managed retreat will have to become a consideration, given the continued erosion.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Climate Change, development, Local News, Science & Nature
Leave some sand for Michael Ryan. He needs it to replenish the sandboxes at Fin Cayman.
why is it the true resolution for the Marriot beach problem is being side stopped?
I have said this from the start of this huge problem and the ONLY cure is to REMOVE BOTH POOL AND PATIO!!!!!Call a spade a spade and stop pussyfooting around the problem and do it.
Better hurry as this maybe the only chance to get stability of the beach in this area and expidite the new setback laws YESTERDAY!!!!!
…or for the Marriott to replace the lost sand to make a wide sand beach of over 100 x 800 feet.. no half measures. Cheaper than losing the entire hotel.
That is just a bandaid not a solution
So why hasn’t the Planning Department and/or the CPA been consulted during this process? The Chief Officer (Ms. Ahearn) surely must have made this recommendation, given her knowledge of the applicable Development and Planning Laws and she herself being a certified professional planner who used to work in the Planning Department and who, in fact, practically lead the Development Plan Review process in the late 90s? She knows the importance of consultation with relevant stakeholders. So why overlook the agencies being blamed here? Especially when there are existing Planning laws that regulate this stuff, which is NOT the Sustainability ministry.
We need to teach the Parrot fish here a better work-ethic, and start churning out the sand.
Maybe we can import another countries Parrot fish, to show ours how it is done?
CIG would commission a Deloitte study to conclude it needed to pay DART to post a proper international ads to recruit schools of foreign fish that look like parrot fish, but don’t actually eat coral, or shit sand. It would cost $10million plus 200 acres of crown land up front, or lifting to $20 million if the CIG failed to Gazette the fish food procurement within 6 months.
This rock is doomed.
so silly. It’s Marriott’s fault and problem therefore Marriott can fix it or roll with their no beach situation and drop their room rates accordingly.
Cayman has other problems like crime and next generation youth development.
S very crooked line in the sand to go with crooked politicians
Why should the tax payers that are already struggling have to pay for this? Heck Jack not even allowed to bath on his beach!
If the Government spends millions on sand they are truly XXX! The next storm will just take the sand away. HUGE waste of money. Marriott will just have to suck it up and make the best of it. Sunset house does fine on the ironshore, Marriott can advertise diving, snorkeling etc, and build their guests a sandbox to play in. 7 miles of beach is lots for visitors to play in!!
CNS: Find a different word. See here.
HISTORY is a B%$#@^, when hurricane Ivan came to Grand Cayman I learned so much. One of the things that I learned was the slope of the land stopped the storm surge from crossing the street. Areas where the sand gathered and created more beach was where the angle was almost 45 degrees. So parts of Bodden Town to Northwest point that had that angle got more sand. Areas that were more flat lost more sand. When I was 16 yo I remember all of the beaches had a berm that you had to climb up to see the beach. New construction caused people to take too much sand from the beach and flatten the bern.
I always remember asking my father why we didn’t build a house on our Bech land and he said,” sand come and sand go.”
With our inept politicians soon there won’t be any sand to draw a line in!
A photo with the caption “work” that contains Wayne and that band makes absolutely no sense…
Let them buy their sand, they bright and out order too about they don’t want to pay for it…kmt!
It is incredible that the island’s primary attraction for residents and visitors is being endangered by the selfish and reckless actions of a handful of property owners. And for what? So they can build almost into the water and have pool decks and beachfront walls.
The Cayman Islands Government has allowed reckless developers and property owners to create a potential economic and natural disaster for the entire population and visitor base.
This is a crisis and immediate remediation is required. Every structure that is interfering with beach sand accumulation must be removed without delay and the property owners responsible should be subjected to commensurate fines and penalties.
Enough is enough.
And make the government pay for a scheme that will fail as they drive $100,000 cars and suvs as they enjoy the finest dining and wines as we all struggle to buy petrol and food.
This is what the Cayman Islands has come to.
Pass the rum and a smoke.
As usual this guy will say anything to make his problem everyone else’s to solve. Built too close to the sea, still charging premium rates despite no beach, doesn’t want to pay for sand himself because he knows it won’t solve anything long-term, but also doesn’t want to remove the obstructing waterfront structures to potentially solve the problem long-term.
Should government just keep paying for new sand every year to keep them happy?
The usual mentality of profits are mine but losses are ours (or worse “yours”).
The manager at Marriott XXX, why don’t you take down your fence. As that is what is causing your problem…..
12:29 EXACTLY!
Here is a plan.
Follow Hawaii and ban any new structure from being built on the sea side. All new hotels from as far back as the 90s has been built this way in Hawaii to protect access to the water for all people. This actually also helps the tourism product, local access to the sea and beach erosion issue.
I am pretty sure that this is too simple a solution for Cayman, so i will read on and wait for GOV plans.
You have two different scenarios; in Hawaii these rules are to protect the beach and allow access for all but in Cayman things are done to protect the elite money class and to hell with the average person. All the money fat cats want is the taxpayers dollars to fix their beaches which they do not want the common person on. To hell with their buildings, let them all fall into the sea.
Not taking sides here, but you have to understand how Cayman was developed.
The first road from George Town to West Bay was built along the edge of the swamp where the sand was firm enough to keep the vehicles from sinking. The only place to build was between the road and the sea as the technology had not yet arrived for removing the swamps and turning them into dry land.
Geologically correct. However, by 1970 North Sound was being dredged and large areas of swampland filled. Crucially, the Marriott hotel was built long after that and on a piece of land so large that there was no need for the foundation to be built so close the waterfront. Particularly, as it was well known that this area was subject to regular winter storm erosion.
It’s no longer 1914.
Why do you want to screw the people who have spent millions of dollars on condos on Seven Mile Beach? There are lots of beaches around the world that don’t have ANY condos on them, and the land is pretty much worthless. Cayman has a jewel in Seven Mile Beach and all that is required is to buy a modest amount of sand and put it back. 20 to 30 million dollars a year is nothing in a billion dollar government budget, and the government would make more money from stamp duty fees and more tourism and people would have more beach to walk on. What is this bizarre jealousy or hatred of people that own condos on the beach for? They are some of the best investors in Cayman that the island could ever wish for. Far better than a bunch of hedge funds with a five-year profit horizon.
Here is a good idea – why don’t you and your big dollar baddies just put up the 20 to 30 million each year as it seems to be nothing to all you high dollar folks who are hear just hiding your money from the tax people in your home countries anyway.
Honestly stop.
I happen to own a condo on the remaining good section of the beach. I will not hesitate to claim damages against the relevant property owners at the south end of the beach should the erosion problem creep further north and negatively affect the value of my property.
Cayman does indeed have a jewel and the only way to fix this problem is to remove the structures that are interfering with the natural sand and water equilibrium.
You will lose.
This was proposed in the 70’s as part of the initial development plan for Grand Cayman. Government changed and our 1st “Hero” decided that this was not to be done. He/they quashed the plan and convinced people that the country could not dictate to investors for fear of losing said investors. Such short sightedness alone should result in the removal of the “Hero” statue.
Too late.
Horse bolted and stable door come to mind.
Ship sailed long time ago
The first development plan presented to Government was no construction on the water front for obvious reasons and this was back in the 70s unfortunately not one Administration considered that plan, just gathered dust.
Not just in Hawaii. In SWFL, at least in places I visited, no development on the beach side(s).
Why can’t historically errant, outright political, and/or fraudulent past CPA decisions face contemporary review? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Consciously doing the wrong thing comes with future costs that should be borne by the degenerate gamblers that made the losing bets, not the future public via sympathetic bailout. Move everyone. Don’t reward those that cheated. Let them buy their own sand if they want to learn about wave action, currents, bathymetry and gravity. We don’t need to pay twice or three times for a donor class that failed science class.
The best way to get the beaches taken care of would be to get rid of the Central Planning Authority.
Hurricanes cheaper
11:31 typical ignorance! You do realize that there are Development and Planning Laws and Regulations which allow the CPA to make these decisions right? Keep ranting like lunatics about the CPA but until the legislators change the planning laws these things will continue to happen.
“ the eroding of Seven Mile Beach hurts the entire tourism product,”
So because the damages they have done affects everyone, they shouldn’t have to pay for it? The logic of that escapes me. They would be better off arguing that they had permission to do what they did so shouldn’t have to pay for it. That would at least have some sense, although neither argument deals with the other fundamental problem – unless they fix the current duty by retreating, the problem will reoccur. And apparently they not only want the public purse to pay for the beach replenishment now, but to continue to pay for ongoing damage. Arrogance is outstanding and yet CIG rolls over and asks for its belly to be tickled.
They have millions to spend while we have $6.50 miminum wage.
They drive luxury cars and live in luxury homes, while we struggle to pay the electric and water bills.
They enjoy the finest meals and drinks while we hope to have steak with our beans and rice for a rare treat.
Assuming everyone knows how water works, shouldn’t a new setback be a new mean elevation rather than an arbitrary distance?
Both
$21 million is not that much for government and they should go ahead and replenish the beach now, the tourist dollars in return will far exceed this.
If and when it gets taken by the sea it will just get deposited on the North End of Seven Mile.
If replenishment was done a few times over the coming years / decades it should be enough that beach can just be taken from the north and moved south as needed.
Buy it from Turks or Bahamas. They have sand to spare.
And any seawall / building / dock etc that has fallen into the sea – too bad – you have to remove it/demolish it(or govt should) and put in proper set backs. Otherwise this will just keep reoccurring.
Marriott, Darts sea wall and cabana in the sea etc along that stretch and that concrete cabana in West Bay all have to be demolished on the coast to let the natural replenishment happen.
Reefs need to be protected. Fish such as parrotfish etc(that produce sand in the first place) all need to be permanently protected. Otherwise it is all pointless.
The replenishment part is correct. It would not cost more than 25 million dollars to buy sand and put the beach back. Even if 25 million was spent every year, it is a small amount relative to the value of the real estate which is in excess of 1 billion dollars and the value to the tourism industry. The Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos, and even Cuba have vast amounts of sand that could be easily transported here. With 50 to 100 feet more of beach from the Royal Palms area south to Grandview, the south end of the beach will be much nicer and look like the northern end of the beach. There would probably be no need to change the existing high water mark. In fact, the high water mark would move outwards.
I’m assuming you’re a coastal engineer who has studied the (underwater) topography and currents along 7-mile beach? You don’t think that blanketing the reef with sand may impact the future supply of parrot fish poop (=sand)?
No but maybe he rides donkeys in the full moonlight!
No it wouldn’t. That is not how the underwater topography works …
The oceanfront landowners should foot the bill since their properties are directly impacted by the sand loss.
Now this is a genius post!
Almost, right up to ‘and move the high water mark seaward after replenishing the beach’. Which would just perpetuate the problem (because new stuff would be built further seaward behind the new line, then the sand would start to wash away again, and then they would be complaining again that the beach was washing away).
Whether you ‘retreat’ the buildings or you ‘advance’ the beach (and leave the buildings in place) the solution remains more space between sea and cement. (And whether you retreat, advance, or both, is ‘simply’ and engineering question.)
Marnie Turner’s wall kicked this whole thing off.
Good, get her to pay the bill instead of us poor working people.
10:36, You should look at the $30 million that was spent on Manasota Beach on the west coast of Florida 5 years ago. The beach was replenished and when Hurricane Ian hit all $30 million of sand was taken out to the Gulf of Mexico.
A total friggin waste of taxpayers money to save the beach for people owning 3 / 4 / 5/ million dollar homes on the Florida coast.
Your idea is DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.
No hurricane has hit Seven Mile Beach in 100 years. It is in a protected bay and the only way to have onshore winds is for a hurricane to pass 20 to 50 miles north of Cayman. Even in that situation, the hurricane would not likely do that much damage. That is why Seven Mile Beach is still there.
Yet.
12:18, Then what hit me on Seven Mile Beach in September, 2004?