Neighbours object to $10M East End condo complex

A planning application for a $10 million apartment block on the seafront in East End has received objections from neighbouring land owners and the Department of Environment.

They said the proposed five-storey development, just minutes up the coast from the Blow Holes, is too close to the shore, too large and not in keeping with the character of the area.

Kairos by the Sea wants to create 14 apartments with 32 bedrooms, a roof gym, basement parking with 30 spaces and a swimming pool on a vacant 0.76-acre plot on Sea View Road.

The developer’s plan has been submitted to the Central Planning Authority for approval and was discussed during its Wednesday, 15 Nov. meeting.

In its analysis of the application, the Department of Planning suggested that the authority examine the suitability of the site, and the mass and scale of the development.

It also advised members to look at the building height, high water mark setbacks, location of garbage collection and the building’s traffic impacts.

The authority’s decision will be published in the meeting’s minutes in about three weeks.

Objections

Two neighbours sent very similar objection letters to the Central Planning Authority after viewing the application for planning permission.

They both argued that the proposed building will be five storeys high when accounting for the underground parking, whereas the limit is three storeys.

The letters said the land is zoned ‘low density residential’, with a limited number of bedrooms allowed on a plot that size, which the plan greatly exceeds.

The minimum setback from the iron shore is 50 foot, the objectors wrote, however the lower parking floor is 41 foot from the shore, and the pool is 20 foot from the shore.

Also breaking regulations are the septic tanks which are only 42 foot from the edge of the iron shore with the deep wells even closer, the letters said, and decking just nine foot away.

“This is an environmental issue as this area is often inundated with seawater and the contents of the septic tanks will overflow into the sea,” they wrote.

The objectors also argued that when the lower parking floor is considered, the site coverage appears to exceed the maximum 30% of the site area.

They added that the lower floor parking spaces and the fire truck access lanes at the sides of the proposed building do not meet the minimum widths.

In a final point, the letters said a development of the proposed size should have its own sewage treatment plant, instead of septic tanks and deep wells.

“The proposed building should be redesigned in accordance with the low-density residential regulations,” the objectors concluded.

Environmental concerns

Gina Ebanks-Petrie, director of the Department of Environment, analysed the plan under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council.

She explained that land cover consists of coastal shrub-land along the road boundary, with sparsely vegetated rock closer to the sea.

In her analysis, she said the department is very concerned about the proposed coastal setbacks for this development, with some being less than 10 foot.

The required minimum setback in this area is 50 foot, she stressed, adding that a significant portion of the structure is located within this boundary.

The site is on the southern coast where there are large waves and is the predominant direction for storms, she said.

“This location is not protected by a barrier reef and is not located within a lagoon that would shelter the site from storm impacts,” the environment director added.

Aerial imagery over time shows that the area is subject to deposition of large boulders due to wave activity. She said this demonstrates the importance of minimum setbacks.

The director brought up other concerns including the fissured rocks leading to construction materials such as concrete entering the marine environment.

She also said the proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the area as it is too dense and located in an area of scenic shoreline.

“This stretch of shoreline is largely undeveloped apart from a small number of single-family homes, likely in part due to the exposed location,” she wrote.

“The size and nature of the proposed development is inappropriate for the area especially given the environmental context and the vulnerability of development here.”

Ebanks-Petrie said the department “strongly recommends” the refusal of the application.

The director suggested the opportunity be taken to revise the site layout and nature of the proposed development to meet the current Development and Planning Regulations (2022).