7MB condo tower could set unlawful precedent

| 17/03/2024 | 72 Comments
The proposed new Aqua Bay, artist’s rendition

(CNS): Plans to convert a condo complex at the north end of Seven Mile Beach to a more than ten-storey tower poses such a dramatic change to the character of this tranquil area of the famous beach that it would be a breach of planning legislation to approve it, a lawyer has argued. Speaking at a Central Planning Authority meeting on behalf of more than two dozen objectors to the redevelopment of Aqua Bay, attorney Kate McClymont said the project would negatively impact Caymanians to enable just 21 overseas owners to get rich.

Aqua Bay was built in the 1980s and is nestled between The Palms and Silver Sands condo complexes on a very quiet stretch of Seven Mile Beach along a critical nesting habitat for turtles. However, as an ageing property, the owners of the 21 units made an agreement several years ago to redevelop and approached the Butler Group, the original developers, to rebuild the complex. Those developers have designed a controversial steel and glass tower of 38 units and dozens of owners from the neighbouring complexes are objecting for a catalogue of reasons.

During a contentious CPA meeting, Samuel Jackson, the lawyer representing the developer, insisted that the building fell within the broad spirit of the planning law. He denied that the density exceeded the regulations because the owners also own a piece of land across the street where some of the parking will be. He said that plot should be included in the calculation.

Jackson also denied that it was too tall. He said the building, which exceeds the 130-foot limit, did not fall foul of the law because three of the levels, including the underground parking and the top two levels, don’t count as they are not defined as storeys. However, that was questioned by members of the CPA.

The CPA must decide on technical issues, such as whether waivers are required and should be granted. However, the main arguments against granting planning permission made by McClymont were the drastic change that the building would have on this part of Seven Mile Beach, the precedent it would set, and the wider implications for all residents since there is still no sign of an updated national development plan.

The objectors have said the proposed tower is “strikingly out of keeping with the surrounding area and would overshadow” all the neighbouring property. McClymount appeared before the CPA on Wednesday, with more than 30 of the objectors in attendance, some of whom had flown in especially. She said it should be obvious to the CPA that the “scale of the over-development is so egregious that it breaches even the generous tolerance” in the planning regulations.

She said the project would lead to a “radical change to the character of the area” and set a precedent for further redevelopment of low-rise condos into high-density development. She said the CPA should not “sleepwalk into permitting” such a change without wider consultation and strategic planning.

Under the law, the CPA, in partnership with the planning department, is responsible for reviewing the National Development Plan every five years. McClymont argued that the board has not conducted that exercise since the current plan was rolled out in 1997 and has therefore been in breach of its statutory obligations for more than two decades.

Because of this, the CPA is not in a position to grant planning permission for the kind of development proposed by this application, and it would be unlawful if it did, McClymount said. She pointed out that if this project were given the green light, it would be part of a process that would literally keep the local population away from the beach, compounding the existing loss of both access and views of Seven Mile Beach.

Jackson argued that the CPA had a duty to promote tourism and that this condo tower would be part of the room stock. It met all the planning regulations, but because it was taller, it had drawn nothing more than “nimby” objections, he said.

But McClymont pointed out that the CPA has a duty under the law to look out for the interests of all Caymanians, not just developers. She said the board was not a rubberstamp and was there to protect the quality of life of all Caymanians, and blocking out the beach was not adding to the quality of life for most people who live here.

She argued that the application, which breached height and density regulations, was to further the financial interests of the developer and just 21 overseas owners and not the interests of the broader community. “Do the owners at Aqua Bay need to get richer on the backs of the Caymanian people?” she asked, noting the significant change this project would make to this area of the beach for everyone.

The case was adjourned to allow for closed-door deliberations. So far, there has been no public indication as to what the CPA will decide.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid

Tags: , , ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (72)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Agenda Item 2.2

    Pages 5 to 40.

    https://www.planning.ky/wp-content/uploads/meetings/Acpa0924.pdf

    Bad for 7mile beach, bad for West Bay, no help for lower cost housing for us.

  2. Anonymous says:

    No Exemptions = No Objections

  3. Anonymous says:

    Witnessing the incompetent and/or corrupt urban planning and environmental “protection” in Cayman over the last 40 years has been heartbreaking. It’s a failure of responsibility that will hurt Caymanians for many generations to come.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Parking Garage is 7 feet above grade. But the builder states it will not impact the overall height of what is built on top of it???

    Builder argues that the top two floors are uninhabitable space and therefore should not be included in the height calculation or counted as storeys.. Check out their sales ad for the penthouse apartments:

    https://www.cireba.com/property-detail/west-bay/residential-properties-for-sale-in-cayman-islands/aqua-bay-sky-villa-three-penthouse-private-rooftop-pool
    Are those people I see??

    They want to use a piece of land hundreds of feet west of the ocean front parcel and across both lanes of West Bay Road ( opposite the project ) as “contiguous” land to increase the density of the project.

    Why are so many exceptions being requested from the current building code?

    10
  5. Anon says:

    If within the constraints of the law as written today the law must be changed without delay to prevent further, This will take strong political standing and good people … oh hang on…..

    16
  6. Tonie says:

    Every time the sunsets one day ends and another begins. Time rolls on and waits or stands still for no man. Will we as Caymanians stop living and expecting things to stay as they were.Regulations regarding builing levels should be 30 to 50 stories.

    4
    26
  7. Anonymous says:

    Once the cost of infrastructure collapse and quality of life degradation is factored in – the net benefit to Caymanians of this type of development for rich non-residents is very much negative.

    25
    2
  8. Anonymous says:

    Up, better than sideways.

    10
    10
    • Anonymous says:

      but they are doing both. in all the arguments that have been proposed about going up instead of out, do you see any where they are reducing the site coverage?

      12
      1
  9. Anonymous says:

    What big cases did she win?

    6
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      She has won several Judicial Review cases. One demonstrated Cabinets complete whitewash of Coastal Works Licence applications without due process by objectors.

      19
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        I remember when we had an island community sharing the view of the sea and the feel of its breezes. Now we will be shut out by the very rich and left to fester in the fetid Inland.

        21
        1
        • Blocking Foul says:

          And it’s just getting started. Private beaches along 7MB soon come. The rich have already blocked many of the public beach access points island wide and the government agency responsible does nothing.

          Pass the rum.

          4
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        All wins against third world government lawyers employed as 9 to 5 as civil servants.

        7
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      None.

      2
      3
  10. Edelgard Beister says:

    Why don’t we send high rises to the other side of West Bay Road and leave small facilities on the beach side. We are doing that in George Town.

    36
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      Ask Jim Bodden and his buddies in the mid-70’s government who scrapped a development plan which included such criteria.
      Sorry he is no longer with us so he was made a hero instead.

    • DaWhaYaGet says:

      Agreed, this should be part of governments Plan Retreat. No new construction on the beachfront properties. Renovations permitted only.

      No new seawalls or solid obstructions within 200 feet of the high water mark.

      24
      1
  11. Anonymous says:

    objections are flimsy at best and reeks of hypocrisy. precedent has been set elsewhere.if this was denied there would be serious grounds for legal challenge to ever turn it.
    not sure what people have against modern sustainable development.

    17
    58
    • Anonymous says:

      You said it yourself. It isn’t sustainable in any way. The infrastructure cannot handle the extra load; the roads can bear no more, there is insufficient dedicated parking, the sewage, water and power sources are already at their limit.

      12
  12. Anonymous says:

    If anyone wants to stand for election on the basis of ending the development cartels total control of this country the majority of Caymanians would gladly vote for them.

    72
    8
    • Anonymous says:

      Vote against development by all means, but before you do that, make sure you have an alternative income stream to replace the many Millions in revenue which will be lost.

      11
      30
      • Anonymous says:

        I presume that you refer to the revenue going to politicians and their cronies as very few if any Caymanians work on these projects or receive any other benefit.

        13
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      That’s exactly our problem! We vote for people who make promises they never intend to keep. The most likely scenario is that the person who makes such promises takes thousands of dollars from the “development cartels” which he uses to get elected by then giving a few dollars or buying a few beers for the people who will elect him.

      20
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Explain why Mac, Jay, Kenneth, Jon Jon, Chris got elected when you get a min please!

      23
      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with the OP.

        Perhaps you need to look at who funded them and how much.

        Also, no one ran on an anti-development ticket in their districts.

      • Anonymous says:

        They get elected by uneducated unemployables grasping at straws , in the belief that the streets will be paved in gold once these parasites are in power.

        10
  13. Anonymous says:

    They will get to it as soon as they implement Vision 2008!

    18
    1
  14. Anonymous says:

    None of these monstrosities are consistent with the old character of Grand Cayman and the Cayman Islands. Was the first one Kimpton Seafire? Whichever high rise was the first, that was the beginning of our ultimate destruction, and the ruination of anything special and unique that we might have once offered.

    Up next: Sister Islands overbuilding and destruction. Infrastructure should ALWAYS precede construction. If we cannot afford the infrastructure upgrades to support the new construction, it should either become a cost of the construction, or the construction turned down. I am talking about roads, parking, sewage, waste management, recycling, water, etc.

    Yes, I know. It’s good to have dreams.

    58
    5
  15. Anonymous says:

    The fundamental problem is that neither the CPA nor the Development & Planning Act and Regulations are fit for any purpose other than enriching the development cartel. The Development and Planning Act and Regulations have been systematically corrupted and no longer serve the interests of the public. The CPA ought to be permanently disbanded and the all amendments to the Development and Planning Act and Regulations enacted since 1995 ought to be repealed.

    38
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      Enriching the development cartel seems to be the only purpose for the Planning Ministry and the Planning Department as well.

      21
      5
  16. Anonymous says:

    “CAYMAN GONE”: CLOSED-DOOR DECISIONS AND FOREIGN INVESTORS DRIVE AN ISLAND IDENTITY CRISIS

    https://periodismoinvestigativo.com/2022/01/cayman-foreign-investors-identity-crisis/

    29
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      With Respect , if the 130’ limit is exceeded, it does not matter if any floors are used for parking or other purpose…..
      The Limit is Exceeded..!
      As for land across the road, precedents allow it to be used for off site additional parking .
      The parcel you are building on, has to meet the regulations.

      19
      2
  17. Say it like it is says:

    If the CPA can approve those two monstrous towers along S Sound rd on a tiny plot where no highrises exist, they can approve anything.

    59
    • Anonymous says:

      With the sickening draftsman inspired colors.

    • Anonymous says:

      Two different Boards, two applications years apart is the part you forget to mention. And that the first approval set a precedent for the second leaving no legal ground to argue that the second was out of character. Try to apply some context. its not all black and white.

      3
      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Minor point, it’s South Church Street. But I agree with your point.

      7
      1
  18. Anonymous says:

    Sadly, CPA will approve this! Greed knows no bounds in Cayman!

    53
    1
  19. Anonymous says:

    The Horse has left the stable. that whole stretch will be mini Miami.

    59
  20. Anonymous says:

    They have no shame.

    36
    1
  21. Anonymous says:

    Thank you to those opposing this development.

    Now if we could only move ahead with ending the branch of the real estate cartel that inflates prices through fees. That has been done in the US. Now is the time to end the abuse in Cayman.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/15/economy/nar-realtor-commissions-settlement/index.html

    62
    6
  22. Anonymous says:

    CPA, just approve and lets have way more taller buildings. These create so many high paying construction jobs and opportunities for small Caymanian companies to get their workers onto these projects in different sub contractor positions. Mr. Chairman please do your job and overrule these silly objectors.

    6
    76
    • Anonymous says:

      When was the last time you were on a construction site?
      Please go visit one and see how many “highly paid” Caymanians you see walking around.

      55
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Note, he didn’t say it benefits the workers, it benefits the Caymanian owners that bring in WP holders.

        30
        2
        • Anonymous says:

          Correct, example, each work permit person brings the Caymanian work permit provider at least $125 per week, and that wp provider has 10 people on permits, that means they are making $1250 per week plus those workers each have to pay for their own permit and health insurance (but they only pay that when time to renew a permit, the rest of the time they don’t pay), so you see the Caymanian getting these permits is making out sweet plus they have a job working somewhere else government perhaps). Of course there is no worker compensation or other insurances being paid but hey, who gives a hoot as the construction site has an unlimited supply of low cost workers, the Caymanians are making money hand over fist and the government collects work permit fees so it is a win-win for everybody. Keep it rolling boys as the gravy train still has plenty of room to grow!

          10
          3
          • Anonymous says:

            Are these workers paying pensions? Are all the labor law rules of overtime, sick leave, vacation & holiday being paid to the workers? Are the large foreign companies who have a “local partner”making sure that all the “sub contract workers” that are on their job site are compliant with the laws? Are these workers all on construction related permits or are they gardeners, car wash or other permits which mean the worker is working outside the terms of the grant of the permit? I thought a temporary permit was granted because the applying company has an immediate need for the worker? Seems the labor minister should be investigating these things or is he to busy riding his donkey in the full moon light?

          • Annonymous says:

            Alot of the sub-contractors are foreigners so not only Caymanians benefitting.This sub-contractors scheme needs to cease.

        • Anonymous says:

          Honorable Labor Minister Seymour, when will you stop all the abuses of our current employment laws?

          15
          3
        • Anonymous says:

          They dont own the companies either. half the time they are just providing labour and being feet on the ground for foreign shareholders.

          10
          1
          • Anonymous says:

            If not for the large foreign companies, how would our local boys get the expertise and financing? We need these overseas contractors. Is it true a foreign firm is coming in to build the Lacovia project?

            2
            2
      • Anonymous says:

        The guys I know are getting $150 to $225 per 8 hour day. Just loading up more men at the big site near Eastern Ave

        3
        5
        • Anonymous says:

          $16 to $28 per hour? That is a LIE. You, Sir, are a blatant LIAR. You suggest that all they have to do is just be there at the site. That is a LIE. If it were so, more Caymanians in the trades would be flocking to the “big site near Eastern Ave”.

          LIAR. TROLL.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Compelling arguments made by Kate McClymont on behalf of the objectors.

    When will the madness stop?

    Where in the National Development plan?

    What is the government waiting for to deal with it?

    54
    4
  24. Anonymous says:

    So how is this any different than Watermark? Watermark has one storey of an above grade parking structure, 10 storeys of residences, and a rooftop with 4 private pools and decks for the 4 penthouse residences.

    Watermark is in between two lowrise condos, Harbour Heights and Avalon.

    Ummm….its not. Sorry, not “an unlawful precedent”

    19
    24
    • anon says:

      Watermark is not the point, do we really need a WBB crammed with beach chairs and visitors from one end to the other ruining it’s ambience and tranquility for the sake of the Almighty Dollar?.

      12
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      Watermarks parking basement will be “below grade” once theyve finished filling the site to new grade levels. Its dumb because the height of building is no different contextually to the surrounding area but its the current regulations (which need to be revisited!)

      • Anonymous says:

        The recent nor-westah in early February exposed the pitfalls of underground parking. But that was a cold front.
        When we get a hurricane with a 9 foot storm surge on the beach , all the new mega condo development’s we are seeing with sub-grade level parking, are going to be floating all the Tesla’s & GLC350’s like they are a Boston Whaler 230.

  25. Anonymous says:

    It is private land and 10 storeys are permitted under the law and is zoned as such. Maybe the CPA can quibble over one storey, but it is not within their remit under the law to reject the project out of hand.

    EVERY development in Cayman (residential, commercial etc) comes with expected objections from neighbors. It is just noise. Because they want things to stay the same next door to them. Hell, I would probably throw a gratuitous letter in myself if someone was going to develop next to my house!

    11
    32
    • Anonymous says:

      Kimpton broke the ground for building up, covering it with landscaping and saying it wasn’t a storey, but ‘underground parking’. Then Dart built the bridges they will develop on. The horse left the stables a long time ago…

      26
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      10:09 am you are only partially correct. The CPA does NOT have the legal remit to vary the number of storeys so it is possible (and required) that they refuse it, if it does not comply with the legally permitted number of maximum stories.

      18
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        Habitable levels is the legal description.

        1
        3
        • Anonymous says:

          It may not be habitable currently, but if they have restrooms and hot and cold running water, it could easily be made habitable so no to their farce. Be thankful for what you can do and stop trying to push for excess.

          Beggar gets a dollar, looks at the benefactor and says I want more.

          Daddy slaps down the beggar and takes the dollar back. Beggar back where he belong.

          You the Beggar developer.

Leave a 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.