At its first meeting since applying for a judicial review to halt plans to replace a controversial seawall and cabana on Boggy Sand Road in West Bay, members of the National Conservation Council have ratified the decision to take the legal action.
The Department of Environment, using authority delegated to it by the National Conservation Council, had directed the Central Planning Authority to turn down the planning application, due to the expected negative impact on Seven Mile Beach and the protected marine park, but the CPA nonetheless approved it in September.
Director of Environment Gina Ebanks-Petrie said the council, at a working group meeting earlier this month, decided to move ahead with the judicial review application because “there was a time limitation” involved. On Wednesday, at a general meeting of the council, members were asked to ratify that move “out of an abundance of caution”.
After the council lodged its judicial review application, Judge Margaret Ramsay-Hale agreed to a temporary ‘stay’ on planning permission for the redevelopment, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings between the council and Central Planning Authority. The judge gave directions for the matter to be listed for a hearing early next year.
The National Conservation Council is also instigating an appeal of the decision to the Planning Appeals Tribunal as “a back-up in the event that the judicial review found that the proper procedure was to go to a planning appeal”, Ebanks-Petrie said.
Cayman Property Investments Limited is seeking to tear down an existing seawall, along with a single-storey cabana, along Boggy Sand Road because the seawall structure is damaged and failing, and to replace it with a new seawall and two-storey cabana.
The current seawall, and the one the developers are proposing to replace it, has no setback from the sea, and juts out across the beach. The Department of Environment has argued that the original wall, built by the property’s former owners in 2009, should not have received planning permission in the first place, and that permitting “further development on this problematic site” was futile, and detrimental to its marine surroundings.
The CPA explained, in the minutes from the 1 Sept. meeting at which planning permission was granted, that it was “satisfied that it was not in possession of a lawful directive issued under Section 41 (5) of the National Conservation Act, by the National Conservation Council directing the Authority to refuse planning permission”.
Related Videos
