Environment department defends conservation council after criticism

The Department of Environment has refuted claims that the National Conservation Council’s oversight on planning proposals is stunting Cayman’s development industry.

Last week, during a meeting of the Finance Committee, several MPs suggested that there should be a review of the council’s involvement in the planning application process.

In response, the environment department, which provides analysis on a significant proportion of submitted plans under delegated authority from the council, issued a statement.

“It is clear that the facts do not support the rhetoric behind the accusations of delay and ‘doom and gloom’ being promulgated in the public discourse,” it read.

The 19 Dec. statement added that it could instead be “unnecessary and time-consuming” actions of the planning boards that are causing hold-ups.

Legal obligations

The National Conservation Act, 2013, set out the requirement for the establishment of a National Conservation Council.

The council’s functions include promoting biological diversity, and the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in the Cayman Islands, the act says.

It is also responsible for maintaining protected areas and conservation areas, critical habitats of protected species and other natural resources, among other things.

Section 41 of the law requires all entities to consult with or get approval from the council before making a decision that would likely have an adverse effect on the environment.

According to this week’s statement, even before the law was enacted, the Department of Planning consulted with the environment department and other agencies on planning proposals.

“The National Conservation Act added no real delay to the planning process as the Department of Environment normally have a three-week turnaround time,” it said.

“The act simply made the consultation on adverse environmental effects mandatory.”

And that was for all government entities contemplating an action or decision likely to have an adverse effect on the environment generally, not just the planning boards, it added.

The statement continued that, in the 10 years since the legislation was unanimously passed by lawmakers, the pace of physical development has not slowed down.

“For example, of the 4,000 planning applications reviewed since 2016, the National Conservation Council has directed refusal for just 0.23% of proposals,” the department said.

“An example of one proposal which was refused was for construction of a private car park in a protected area.”

Judicial review

A 2021 planning application to demolish and rebuild a cabana and seawall on an eroded section of beach along Boggy Sand Road led to a controversial court case.

The Central Planning Authority had granted permission to the developer to demolish and replace the structures, contrary to a directive from the National Conservation Council.

The council did not to approve the project due to the harm it was likely to cause to the protected marine environment.

A judicial review before the Grand Court in 2022 centred around whether the conservation council had the power to order another government body to take a certain action.

The Court of Appeal in September this year found the Central Planning Authority did not properly follow Section 41 of the National Conservation Act, 2013.

In their ruling, the appeals court justices confirmed that the council has the final say on applications likely to have adverse effects on environmentally protected areas.

According to the statement, the National Conservation Council and the Department of Environment then met with the planning authority and sought to agree a way forward.

“However, it appears that the Central Planning Authority have introduced a process requiring multiple rounds of meetings and adjournments,” the department continued.

As a result, the National Conservation Council is issuing updated guidance notes to reflect that the originating entity must first seek the approval of the council.

They were approved on 6 Dec., and were due to be published in the Gazette on 18 Dec.

MPs suggest review

Members of the Finance Committee spoke on Wednesday, 13 Dec., about the National Conservation Council and suggested its powers of oversight are excessive.

West Bay West MP McKeeva Bush was particularly vocal in the discussion, saying it is “time to change that council – or we’re going to die”.

He said the issue needs to be addressed seriously in caucus.

MP Chris Saunders asked, “Where does the CPA draw the line with regards to that council, because it has been impacting development, big time, within the country?”

Saunders also queried if the Central Planning Authority and the National Conservation Council should be merged to “make it more efficient”.

The topic rose following the presentation of the budgeted expenditure for the ‘Management of planning applications’ during 2024 and 2025.

It its response, the Department of Environment said it has been talking with the authority and planning department on how to review applications as “expeditiously as possible”.

The statement said it previously suggested that when a planning application review is initiated, the department should provide a single reply.

However, it said, the planning authority is choosing instead to conduct a consultation first, then initiate a review, and then based on the outcome of that, request an assessment.

It added that the authority appears to be inviting applicants into meetings to seek their views on whether their application may fall under an example of an ‘adverse effect’ listed in the act.

It said both the department and council see this as “unnecessary and time-consuming”, particularly when the council was specifically drafted to remove the burden of consultation.

These are Central Planning Authority processes over which the department and council have no control, the statement said.

The department added that it remains “guardedly hopeful” that an integrated process can be worked out.

But, it said it is up to the planning boards to do their part to “allow that to happen and their customers to again benefit from an integrated and timely permit review process”.