The Central Planning Authority will hear an application on Wednesday for a $118.5 million redevelopment project for Barkers Beach Resort.
Coe Group Ltd has applied to construct a hotel with restaurant, pool and cabanas in place of the existing development at the site, located at 361 Conch Point Road, which is currently made up of a two-storey apartment building of six one-bedroom properties.
According to the developers’ application, listed on the CPA’s agenda, renovations will be made to the existing building “adding three storeys above the existing two storey building and building two completely new buildings”.
The developer’s application clarifies the project is named Barkers Beach “as the beach leads to Barkers National Park. As a matter of clarity we are not located in Barkers National Park”.
Concerns about setbacks
One objector’s letter is included among the submissions in the CPA agenda. The objector cites worries about setbacks, among nine total considerations.
In its analysis, the Department of Planning cites Regulation 8 (10) (e) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2021 Revision) which requires structures and buildings (up to three storeys) in a hotel/tourism zone to be set back “a minimum of one hundred and thirty feet from the high water mark” with additional requirements as the building height increases.
The department notes the three buildings, pool and cabana do not comply with this requirement and the applicant has “requested a variance” in each instance.
In its application, the developer states they are unable to meet the required setbacks for one of the proposed new buildings, if they are also to maintain access to the fire lane, and it would force parking provisions to be pushed further off-site.
It adds, in terms of the apartment block already in place, that it cannot meet setback requirements “for additional floors due to its [sic] an existing building”.
Beach and environmental concerns
The objector also cites “great concerns” about beach erosion and asks what mitigation is being planned by the developers, particularly in light of a lack of “vegetation directly between the building and the shore”.
The letter then refers to marketing materials on the developer’s website, in which a white sandy beach is depicted.
The Department of Environment notes in its submission that the site has a “naturally rocky/rubbly beach” and states that the application in its current form does “not appear to include a request to modify or groom the shoreline”.
“Grooming this beach will not result in a “Seven Mile Beach” sandy aesthetic. Constant beach grooming is not typically endorsed by the DoE as it tends to lead to other impacts such as the loss of the beach profile or erosion,” the DoE states.
The department, under its delegated authority from the National Conservation Council, “respectfully stipulates” in its submission one condition for the CPA or Department of Planning to impose should planning approval be granted, along with three further recommendations.
As such, the DoE stipulates that building materials must be kept a minimum of 50 feet from the mean high water mark in order to “prevent run-off and debris from entering the Marine Protected Area causing turbidity and impacting sensitive marine resources”.
It further recommends that any sand excavated during the construction should be kept on site and, if that cannot be accommodated, a separate consultation should be arranged with the National Conservation Council.
It advises the use of “Best Management Practices” during the construction process and proposes alternatives to polystyrene be used along with ensuring debris is properly managed, to prevent it impacting the air or marine environment.
Lastly, it proposes the planting of “native vegetation” in the property’s landscaping.
Property costs and parking concerns
Citing a Compass article highlighting the struggles of young Caymanians attempting to get a foot on the property ladder, the objector also asks the CPA to consider whether a strategy exists “to address development of entry level and mid range properties for purchase by Caymanians, especially our young people? This also speaks to the development needs assessment regarding entry and mid level properties for purchase vs how much luxury and tourist accommodation our country actually needs”.
It states that the proposed project is of a scale that is out-of-keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
In this application, Planning notes the proposal falls short – by two spaces – of the required number of parking spaces for the proposed development under Regulation 8 (1) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2021 Revision).
While the developer offers a written arrangement between the project and the neighbouring property to provide offsite parking, the Department of Planning specifies that long term leases will be required. Additionally, it proposes that discussion as to whether a gravel surface is suitable for “commercial use in this instance” must also be taken into account by the CPA members.
Parking has been a sticking point for other projects before the CPA this year.
The proposal will be heard before the CPA at 2pm on Wednesday.
See the full CPA agenda here.
Related Videos
