Changes to law would pave way for unchecked development
(CNS): One of the most fundamental changes the UPM government is proposing to make to the National Conservation Act would, if the amendment bill passes, almost eliminate the main purpose of the law. One of the clauses removes the National Conservation Council’s ability to curtail even the most egregious development if, for example, the Central Planning Authority gives its approval to an application.
During a press conference last summer, Premier Juliana O’Connor-Connolly claimed she wouldn’t “gut” this legislation, but the bill tears at the very heart of what the act was designed to do: protect the natural environment.
Currently, under section 41 of the NCA, the National Conservation Council can, based on technical and scientific advice, direct entities such as the CPA not to grant planning permission for developments that would cause serious damage to protected areas such as marine parks or land set aside for conservation.
But this section of the law has given rise to much of the misinformation circulating about it, as well as inaccurate claims that the Department of Environment’s director wields significant power. Given the massive amount of development, even in extremely sensitive areas, and the continued loss of mangroves and pristine natural habitats, this is evidently not the case and a false narrative circulated by the powerful development lobby.
In December, NCC Chair Stuart Mailer said that, given the rate and scale of physical development taking place in Cayman, it was “blindingly obvious” that the law was not hampering development.
“The false narrative that the National Conservation Council and the National Conservation Act would somehow restrict development was a prevalent feature of long-standing objections to the NCA raised by certain vested interests before it was passed into law,” Mailer said.
“Unfortunately, those objections have been kept alive throughout the now almost 11 years of the NCA’s implementation, along with continued scaremongering that having protected species present on one’s land will somehow result in automatic refusal of all development.
“As we have seen, even if there is an endangered iguana on the land, permission can still be, and has been, issued for its development,” he added as he urged the government not to strip the NCC of its limited ability to protect the natural environment.
The power conferred by section 41 has been rarely used and only in cases where it is obvious that development in certain locations has to be curtailed, such as buildings too close to the ocean or in a marine park, or if it involves clearing habitat set aside for the critically endangered endemic blue iguana.
But despite the existing limitations, the UPM has seen fit to strip even that limited power from the law with this proposed legislation. The draft replacement clause now states that where the NCC makes a recommendation about a proposed action, an entity shall comply with that recommendation “unless it considers that there are good reasons not to do so”.
This would give the CPA the power to override decisions based on scientists’ findings and simply grant permission for a developer to build whatever the CPA deems acceptable, regardless of environmental damage.
In response to questions from CNS about this proposed amendment, a DoE spokesperson said that the change would prevent the NCC from protecting the environment. Explaining the impact of this clause in the bill, which was drafted without consulting the DoE or NCC, the technical experts said the wording enables any entity that doesn’t agree with an NCC recommendation to disregard the advice, including where it applies to a Protected Area or Critical Habitat.
This removes any binding decision-making power from the NCC.
“Instead of having the current legal provision where the NCC can direct an entity in relation to adverse effects on a protected area or the critical habitat of a protected species, the DoE/NCC will have to rely on convincing entities that the advice should be followed and the non-technical Appeals Tribunal to adjudicate disputes raised by NCC, the proponent or any other person,” the DoE told CNS.
When the law was originally drafted, the goal was to ensure that DoE scientists could, via the National Conservation Council, offer the best technical advice to mitigate the impact any development might have on the environment. Currently, where it is impossible to do so, the NCC can direct a refusal.
For years, even though the department had submitted well-researched, technical environmental advice and non-binding directions to help developers avoid damaging natural habitats when undertaking projects, it was almost never given more than a passing acknowledgement and usually ignored.
In some cases, leading local attorneys representing developers would insist that the CPA was legally bound to ignore the DoE’s advice because there was no provision in law for such advice to factor into planning decisions.
To address that, section 41 was drafted to ensure that during the deliberations of entities such as the CPA, environmental considerations were given the same weight as traffic issues, water management, socio-economic impacts, zoning and aesthetics.
In the same way that the CPA can turn down an application for a mechanic shop on a street zoned for residential family homes, the law would enable the CPA to turn down an application to build in the ocean in a marine park, as with the infamous case of the Boggy Sand Cabana.
But even then, the CPA fought against that directive all the way to the Privy Council. However, because the law had been drafted to draw the line at this most damaging type of development, the DoE’s directions were eventually upheld.
But under the proposed amendments to the law, the CPA could have allowed the Boggy Sand developer to build exactly where he wanted. Even his original application for a house in the ocean could have been approved without the NCC being able to stop it.
Among the many other changes this legislation proposes, the dilution of section 41 will mean there will no longer be any checks on any kind of development.
But public sentiment has long been clear that the runaway development on Grand Cayman over the last two decades has gone too far. Not only are Caymanians concerned about the loss of their natural habitat, but the overdevelopment of Cayman’s coastline has also priced most ordinary people out of the property market.
As developers seek to build for the luxury market, selling to wealthy overseas landowners for maximum profit rather than building for the community has resulted in a housing crisis, dwindled beach access and the removal of critical mangroves. Not only is Grand Cayman’s natural beauty fading, but the island is also losing the resilience it will need to face the impacts of climate change.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Science & Nature
Politicians want to control it as they are losing out on their 10% of yesteryear. The crew who are pushing for these changes are exactly why our beautiful islands are still called a Banana republic with glass windows. Vote wisely…
Environmentalists are typically rich liberals that already own their houses and properties.
They often just want to stay above the “idiots” and actively work to bring them to heel as one of their goddesses Hillary Clinton once said about the black folk.
Adeptus Ridiculous: The Desecration of Logic and Land
“Ah, the National Conservation Act—a rare beacon of foresight in a land where progress is often mistaken for concrete and chaos. And yet, here we are, watching its integrity get gutted, not by reason or necessity, but by greed dressed as governance.
This isn’t just legislation under attack; it’s a turning point for Cayman’s future—a battle between those who cherish its natural beauty and those who see it only as a resource to exploit.”
Unchecked Development: A Recipe for Ruin
Imagine a world stripped of its last green spaces, where the air is thick with the exhaust of unchecked ambition, and the waters are poisoned by the runoff of reckless development.
This is the future being written by those seeking to weaken the National Conservation Act—a move as reckless as constructing an Ork Gargant using nothing but spare bolts, duct tape, and bad intentions.
For those unfamiliar, a Gargant is an Ork Titan-class war machine, powered by pure lunacy and a prayer to the chaotic whims of the Waaagh! It’s big, loud, and entirely unpredictable—just like the promises of unchecked development. And much like a Gargant, when this strategy collapses (and it will), the resulting catastrophe will be massive.
Where will it stop?
When the coral reefs, nature’s underwater cathedrals, are paved over to make way for empty parking lots?
When the blue iguanas, icons of Cayman’s wild heritage, are reduced not just to glass tanks, but to taxidermy remains—frozen in time as a grim reminder of what we’ve lost? Or worse, immortalized as lifeless cast metal statues in places like Camana Bay, a hollow tribute to the living creatures we failed to protect?
When the last mangrove tree, defender of the shoreline, is uprooted in favor of high-rise developments that serve no one but the wealthy?
This is not progress—it’s vandalism. A scalpel to paradise, leaving scars we will all regret.
The Consequences Are Clear
The Adeptus sees the aftermath as clearly as an Ork Mekboy sees explosions: inevitable and messy:
• Flooding disasters, where drained wetlands cannot absorb the rains, turning new developments into swamps.
• Displaced wildlife, their homes traded for unaffordable gated communities.
• Decimated coral reefs, leaving the island vulnerable to the unrelenting fury of storms.
• A toxic ecosystem, spiraling downward to rival the lower levels of a hive city, where the air itself is poison, and the citizens never see the sky.
This isn’t just environmental degradation—it’s a descent into grim dark reality ! Picture a future where the sky fades into a distant memory, where Cayman’s children grow up under a perpetual haze of toxins, and where survival becomes a daily struggle against the fumes of our collective negligence.
Logic Sacrificed on the Altar of Profit
How does one reconcile this with the National Energy Policy? A policy built on sustainability and resilience becomes meaningless without conservation. It’s like wiring a Gargant’s plasma core with duct tape—destined to end in catastrophe.
Every action from 33 Fort Street reads like a passage from the Book of Stupidity:
• Mangroves destroyed, only for storms to devastate the coast.
• Developments approved that pollute more than they provide.
• Conservation weakened in the name of “progress,” leaving nothing but destruction in its wake.
This isn’t governance; it’s greed with a gavel.
The Deafening Silence of the Arbites
And where is our Governor, the so-called Adeptus Arbites? Silent. Watching. Doing nothing as this desecration unfolds.
Silence is not neutrality—it’s complicity. Will the Governor continue to sit idle, or rise as the steward of reason this island desperately needs? The choice is yours, Arbites—action or abdication.
A Call to Action
To every citizen of Cayman: this is your moment. Your voice can be the shield that defends the island’s future. Write to your representatives, organize, and stand united against the forces that seek to reduce this paradise to profit margins.
The National Conservation Act is not just a law—it’s a lifeline. Protect it as fiercely as you would protect your family, because this fight is about nothing less.
A Warning from the Adeptus
To those behind this assault on conservation: remember, the consequences of greed are unavoidable. The tides will rise, the storms will rage, and the reckoning will come—not just from nature, but from the people you’ve failed.
“Unchecked development,” the Adeptus thunders, “is not progress. It’s decay, destruction, and deceit, dressed in the false robes of prosperity. Where will it stop?
When the reefs are paved, the blue iguanas are reduced to taxidermy in glass tanks, the mangroves exist only in history books, and the air becomes as toxic as the fumes of a hive city?
Do not let your legacy be the silence that paved over paradise. Do not let future generations curse your name. What remains of paradise when it’s gone? Nothing but the echoes of profit-driven folly and a monument to human failure.”
Good LORD!!!!!!!! How you gonna like de 20 story hotel & condo complex u gonna see on Owen Island!!!!!Greeeeeeeed!!!!!!
No they wouldn’t.
And we don’t have unchecked development now?!
thievery of future generations and of those gone who set aside lands to keep the islands beautiful. Shameful shameful shameful
We need to completely eliminate any law that holds up development. Also eliminate work permits as we need more building and the free movement of foreign workers. Allow any company to come to Cayman and do construction. we do not need labor law regulations as that just holds our great workers up. In the words of the great President Trump, build baby build.
Oh yes, take building advice from a guy who doesn’t pay his bills.
What an asinine comment, this must be a joke or a complete moron who wrote trash like this.
Just disband the damn CPA and replace that board with new non-conflicted, civic minded people. Who’s in charge here anyway, them or CI Govt? Enough is enough. Send them packing and place some sensible non-politicos in there.
But what will the chairman and members then do for employment?
Enough to enough,now is the time to get out and protest against corruption, misuse of power, greed, and uncontrolled development. We can choose to bury our heads in the sand and plead ignorance but this will only make matters worse in the long-term. Mckeeva is running things behind the scene and being led by Dart’s and other rich developers deep pockets. Vote No to the port and stop this nonsense of poor governance.
You have no idea what you’re doing. When there’s no beach and no Caribbean landscape and wildlife, why would anyone bother coming here. The Cayman Islands are balancing on a knife edge.
When? There is already no beach and no wildlife in Grand Cayman
Self interest and greed are the cornerstones of the Cayman Islands. Caymanians hellbent on wrecking Cayman in the pursuit of wealth at all costs. Tragic.
UPM, put on your shorts go to the beach enjoy yourselves, but you can tell your developer fiends there with you and you and them, and them and you: WE GOT TO GO. Time is up fun done money done and hope were not investigated.