DoE calls for review of need for subdivision on pristine land
(CNS): The Central Planning Authority is due to hear an application for another major subdivision on pristine habitat in East End today, Wednesday, but the Department of Environment has called for a review of whether it’s needed. The DoE said that in the absence of an updated development plan and the necessary “strategic framework for new development, particularly large-scale proposals”, it “strongly recommends” that before determining this application, “a comprehensive review of the ‘need’ for the subdivision of more parcels in the area is undertaken”.
A growing number of applications in the largely undeveloped areas of East End and North Side are increasingly encroaching on the Salina Reserve and the Colliers Reserve, where the critically endangered blue iguana is clinging to survival.
Residents, as well as the DoE, are concerned that Cayman will soon lose its dwindling, unique primary dry forest and shrubland habitat, which is not just home to the iconic iguana but a host of other indigenous and endemic flora. This ancient landscape is in severe decline and its continued development is having a knock-on impact on the bio-diversity of Grand Cayman.
This latest application is for a 64-lot subdivision on 34 acres of land off the Queen’s Highway that is very close to the Salina Reserve. Experts believe it is very likely that the blues are also present on this land. Subdivisions in primary habitat like this pose two main threats to the recovering iguanas: the loss of the reptile’s primary habitat and the installation of roads. The latter is the primary human-associated threat to blue iguanas because of the number killed by vehicles unable to react in time.
“As they recover from the brink of extinction, reproduce, and seek to establish territory, the urbanization of valuable primary habitat continues to be a concern for the future of our wild population that relies on this habitat to forage, shelter, and nest,” the DoE said in its submissions to the CPA.
Although this site is partially man-modified, much of it is untouched natural habitat, including mangrove forests and the much drier woodland and shrub habitat. Given the potential loss of these important natural resources, the DoE said the impact of a further residential subdivision on existing infrastructure and the environment should be properly considered and evaluated. The DoE added that there are serious environmental consequences from the continued approval of large-scale subdivisions similar to this.
The construction of the roads creates a direct loss of habitat as well as habitat fragmentation by clearing and filling. This is a key driver of biodiversity loss because it makes natural areas smaller and more isolated from each other. In addition, roads provide easier access for invasive species such as rats, cats and dogs and attract fly-tippers, who dump waste off secluded roads.
The DoE explained that there are also ‘edge effects’, which occur when the area directly next to a road is degraded, creating barriers to species movement between fragments of habitat, changes to the community composition and changes to aspects such as climate, sunlight, nutrients, and microclimate.
As the department has noted on many occasions in its advice and recommendations to the CPA, which continues to be ignored, there are subdivisions that were cleared and filled over 30 years ago but have never been developed. This results in biodiversity loss, proliferation of invasive species and habitat fragmentation with no social or economic benefit to offset it.
“If there is no intention to develop these lots, then there is no social benefit or improved living environment for the people of North Side to set against the environmental harm from habitat fragmentation and loss, as well as the resource implications that result from the construction of roads and development of infrastructure for the subdivision,” the DoE warned.
Offering direct advice to the applicant, the DoE said if the CPA grants permission, the land should not be cleared until the development of individual lots is imminent after each one has gone through the planning permission process to allow those buyers to retain as much native vegetation as possible.
“Clearing the entire site prematurely removes the choice from the individual lot owners and removes the value the habitat could provide… between the preparation of a subdivision and the development of an individual lot,” the DoE stated. “Primary habitat and native vegetation can be retained and used in a variety of ways on a property,” the experts added.
Native vegetation can be used as parcel boundaries and between buildings to serve as privacy, noise and sound buffers and screening. It can be incorporated as low-maintenance and low-cost landscaping, as native plants are best suited for the site’s conditions, including the temperature and amount of rainfall.
The natural landscape can serve as an amenity, providing green space and shade for those who live nearby or on the property, as well as a habitat for endemic wildlife such as anoles, birds and butterflies. This habitat helps to contribute to the conservation of our local species.
It can assist with drainage, directly by breaking the momentum of rain, anchoring soil, and taking up water and indirectly by keeping the existing grade and permeable surfaces. It can help reduce carbon emissions by leaving the habitat to act as a carbon sink and allowing natural processes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Destroying native vegetation releases carbon stored in the plant material, soil and peat.
“When located in an area of wider primary habitat, wildlife corridors can be created connecting areas of a habitat that would have otherwise been isolated through development, allowing for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations,” the DoE said.
There are also naturally occurring freshwater ponds on this particular site and mangroves, which, if retained, can assist with drainage, as the developers will need to manage run-off to prevent the flooding of adjacent properties.
The DoE has made a number of recommendations. However, despite the continued attacks on the director, the department and the National Conservation Council, it does not have the power to direct the CPA in relation to any of its recommendations. Despite the importance and scarcity of the habitat, as well as its proximity to the iguana reserve, the land in question is not a protected habitat.
See Wednesday’s CPA Agenda here.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
DMS trolls out in full force to contribute to the false narrative that environmental initiatives are bad
Who does the DOE think they are? People should be able to use their land and not have it embargoed..if it’s critical habitat and should not be preserved for conservation then BUY it as the law provides, stop all the underhanded circumvented confiscation.
Solution – have the National Trust buy it for fair market value – end of story.
Yes, good solution. Ball in your court now National Trust.
Thanks. Please send your donation cheques made payable to “National Trust”.
Seriously, do you people think the National Trust just happens to have millions of dollars lying around for this kind of thing?
No but our government has funds specifically earmarked for these types of scenarios. Why isn’t the government land banking?
Because they and governments before them like misappropriating dedicated environmental funds to other things..
Nah, they prefer to piss their funds away on legal fees to stop a people initiated referendum from taking place.
Surely Olde money will help in the situation.
No, they don’t…because at the end of the day people believe less in their cause than others. Whether you like it or not, government or private individuals could buy land like this for preservation and the general public chooses not to.
Instead they come on CNS and complain about it. But have never donated a penny to a land trust.
A number of the vociferous environmentalist are far from poor, living large in their South Sound and &-Mile Beach or the strips east coast on the North Sound (e.g. Gov Sound) reclaimed land mind you!
Let them offer fair market value and land bank it after effecting laws where they can never develop it. The point is the owners have the right to realize some value of their property and people (especially indigenous Caymanians) have to live somewhere.
DOE has no say in if, when, or how I want to develop “my” property. If Government wants to save land go buy it and leave people and their property alone.
Always sad to see Caymanians in such a rush to sell their land. The trouble with subdividing and selling family land is that you only get to sell it once.
Why fight it? Sell high and move away to a civilized country that isn’t filled with illiterate villagers.
This place will soon be nothing. The famous beach is disappearing, the finance industry will find a better place and then all Caymanians will have to live off the dive industry…and we all know they can’t hack that job.
I have to agree with you. Moving to a civilized country is such a brilliant idea! Caymanians need to realise that this little country is neither the beginning nor the end of all things good and great!
Your departure will be part of the solution.
Your departure will be part of the solution.
The counterpoint is that the landowners do possess some natural rights to do what they want, within reason, and per laws, on their land. If the buffer area needs to be extended, then it should be extended via eminent domain and necessary land for that new boundary, acquired for fair market value from the developer. We’d rather see the CIG use our funds for this, than on the Scranton GT monuments to misplaced political ego.
the doe has been calling for this review for years. why is this application singled out? a 300+ lot subdivision was approved like 2 meetings ago. no article about that
a 300+ lot subdivision where the CPA even sent it back to DoE/NCC and cited MULTIPLE adverse effects according to the National Conservation Act. And what did they respond with? basically, “no additional comments – its all good”. Things that make you go hmmmm…..
How can you in good conscience tell a land owner he shouldn’t profit from selling the land he OWNS. if the land is seen as such a national treasure then hit Kenny up for some of that land buying slush fund he have.
the last thing cayman needs is more low density low rise detached house developments built in eastern districts with nothing around them…..stupid waste of land and disaster for traffic management.
no more subdivisions until there is a sustainable developement plan for the island.
99% of the lots are half acre or larger.
If you read the application you would see that the NRA has no objections or concerns regarding the subdivision. It won’t impact traffic. It’s not 128 new imported vehicles that are going to belong to owners of these lots. If anything it’ll move vehicles from more populated areas to less. How that impacts traffic? idk not my problem.
“NRA has no objections or concerns”.
Yep, everyone and their dog knows that, just look around you with the current state of our roads.
lucky if you can get 0.25 acres nowadays.
Why apply this logic only to the “eastern districts”?
What’s missing here? As long as the DoE and other environmentalists continue to focus only on iguanas and undeveloped land remaining undeveloped, with little to no attention / mention of where PEOPLE are expected to live? the outcome will likely remain as is! That being: more TALK and DISAGREEMENT between the parties and ever-increasing property costs, along with more and more people unable to afford housing costs!
So, you want to mandate less iguanas because we’re apparently unable to control the amount of people? ??
We have too many people and cars and terrible traffic here solely because of runaway development. Rich foreign developers get permission — and often concessions — to build here, collect their money and leave. The development gets filled with poorly paid expat employees, who all have to have cars, because there is no reliable public transportation.
WHAT do you think the government is doing for YOU? They are benefitting by work permits and cruise ship head counts and all the while ignoring that which really matters to the most of us, such as Waste Management, Reliable and Safe Public Transportation, and enforcing the laws which mandate employing Caymanians, supported by a raise in the minimum wage to something a Caymanian family can LIVE on!!!
NEXT: Get the high cost of insurance under control! It’s killing us.
Why are you then focusing only or mainly on disenfranchising landowners? They have a right to sell or develop their land within the laws of Cayman, just as the rich developers and many in GT and 7-mile beach did.
Dept of Environment, as delegated authority by National Conservation Council, DOES have authority to “direct” the CPA when the land is designated critical habitat or marine protected area (even if its “interim” designation) as per s41(5) of the National Conservation Act. The issue here is simply that the subject land/property is not listed as critical habitat (nor is there any proof that blue iguanas are on it – sheer speculation hence their need to inspect it first) So their ‘authority’ cannot come into play – its simply a “recommendation” per s41(3) of the NCA. And in many other cases where DoE/NCC (a difficult differentiation to make these days) has actually had many chances to ‘direct’ refusal, they have fall short of the ballz to do it. Why? because they dont want to face a legal appeal by the developers – they’d rather hide behind the CPA and play victim. GROW some BALLZ!!!
Where does all the fil for the countless developments all over Grand Cayman come from? Are we leaving huge ugly flooded holes where the quarrying goes on? This island will soon be all concrete and old quarries.
Cayman Brac is being chipped down to a nub and barged over to Grand Cayman. Talk about short sighted stupidity. Cayman is behaving like the Nauru of the Caribbean.
Imported
It is the behavior of the DOE which is accelerating all of these applications.
Who cares about some old trees anyway. Honorable chairman of the CPA ram it thru as we need this development.
Exactly. Landowners are feeling threatened that there is a limited window before they are somehow disenfranchised of either generationally-owned property or land they just paid top dollar plus stamp duty for. We are seeing a reaction that actually works against every environmentally based initiative.
“pristine land” the national trust shouldve bought it when it was for sale.
The National Trust is funded by your donations!
well, the applicant is giving more than the 5% required for LPP by incorporating the fresh water ponds into them. different from other developers who seem to have no regard for the environment.
Bot alert.
idiot alert