The Proposed Amendments (2003) to the Development Plan 1997
- Comments by the National Trust for the Cayman Islands

As a statutory authority charged with the conservation and protection of Cayman's natural environments and its historic and cultural heritage, the National Trust accepts and takes seriously its responsibility to comment on the Proposed Amendments to the Development Plan. Indeed, over the past fifteen years the National Trust has responsibly utilized every available opportunity to participate in reviews of the Development Plan to the full extent allowed within the law. To date, these efforts have not resulted in any consistent and considerable advance by the Central Planning Authority in favour of environmental and heritage conservation. However, we recognize this present Government's initiatives to formulate cohesive national policies in managing and securing all aspects of Cayman's future and submit that the Development Plan and Planning Regulations should reflect no lesser foresight. We are therefore hopeful that our comments will find resonance with the Central Planning Authority and with the Government and will be incorporated into the final version of the Plan.

I. GENERAL

First, we would like to take this opportunity to express our opinion on the public consultation and education process as well as on the composition and functioning of the Central Planning Authority.

The Process of Public Input and Commitment to Public Education
The National Trust would like to acknowledge the long-hours and hard work involved with the Development Plan review process. Commendable dedication was displayed by the staff of the Planning Department, by the members of the Special Issues Committee who researched and deliberated the issues to formulate recommendations and by the Members of the Public who turned out to the district meetings and have submitted their comments. We do believe that the specialist and public input gained during the early stages provided the opportunity to establish a viable plan as first proposed in 2002. This initial amended plan would have served as a blueprint for the future in tune with the aspirations of the majority of residents and consistent with other national policies. Unfortunately, the time and the effort afforded to inform the public and to fully explain the 2002 proposed amendments to concerned individuals were clearly not consistent with the tremendous amount of time and effort expended in formulating the original proposals. In the future resources must be committed to provide for much greater public education and understanding of the Development Plan and of subsequent amendments far beyond holding district evening meetings. The Planning staff, as the technical experts, must be permitted to advocate for the planning principles embodied in the various recommendations put forward. It cannot be assumed that the general public know, recognize and understand technically sound planning; the requirement to educate and inform the public in this regard must not be underestimated.

The Central Planning Authority
In the past few years, in addition to fair representation, there has been an increased emphasis on the importance of transparency and accountability in decision making. The prevailing belief is that increased transparency results in better decisions. Regardless of the limitations of the existing Development Plan or any future improvements by amendment, the best-interests and the far-reaching consequences of the Central Planning Authority's decisions to the country and all concerned cannot be justly served unless the CPA becomes better balanced in representation and more transparent and accountable. The composition of the CPA needs to be reviewed and expanded to include voting technical specialists and, perhaps, elected, rather than appointed, representatives. The CPA should be legally required, by way of an amendment, to act according to the assessment and recommendations of either the advising sub-committee, boards, agencies or appointed ex-officio members on the relevant areas of expertise. In the event that a CPA decision is contrary to the advice and recommendation given them on the area of expertise required, the CPA should provide reasons, in writing, for varying from these recommendations. These reasons should be recorded in the Minutes, which should then be sent to all the commenting parties.

Furthermore, meetings of the CPA should be open to the public with the Minutes in their entirety made available to the public. This would be an appropriate and convenient time for the Legislative Assemble to promulgate all amendments necessary to achieve the objectives of the Development Plan as well as achieve a better balanced and a more transparent and accountable Authority.

II. HISTORIC HERITAGE

With regard to the preservation of Cayman's historic heritage in terms of Section 1.2 Objective (t) "to conserve buildings of architectural and historical importance and sites of archaeological and cultural significance," and the commendable strengthening of the Planning Policy Section 3.5, expansion of the zone and specific regulations are required:

1. The purpose of the Historic Overlay Zone (HOZ) should be broadened to cover the following:

a) preserve and protect the existing built heritage including (but not limited to) historic landmarks, buildings, structures, sites, areas, rights-of-ways, objects, cemeteries, trees, landscapes, neighbourhoods, archaeological sites, and shipwrecks (on and off-shore);
b) permit redevelopment which is entirely sympathetic to the historic fabric of the zone; and,
c) increase economic and financial benefits through the zone’s attraction to tourists and visitors

2) Specific standards and requirements to support the purposes of the HOZ should be established in the form of regulations to include (but not limited to) the following:

a) design guidelines including aesthetics, architectural style, scale, and massing
b) appropriate accessory uses
c) demolition, development, redevelopment, relocation, and conversion requirements
d) landscaping prerequisites
e) appropriate parking parameters
f) property maintenance requirements
g) enforcement regulations

3) The National Trust has the largest database of Cayman’s built heritage, in the form of the Historic Building and Sites Inventory, which is continually updated. This information should be utilised as a planning tool particularly for historic sites which fall outside a Historic Overlay Zone and where the Central Planning Authority is expected to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

4) There should be a means in the planning process for assessment or representation to the CPA by the National Trust, the existing authority responsible for the protection of Cayman’s built heritage, on any redevelopment to any protected or designated landmark or historic structures (inside and outside the zone). Restoration efforts for these properties should utilise forms, materials, textures, colours, and landscape features common to the period of history when the designated landmark was deemed most historically significant.

5) Voluntary Preservation Agreements, whereby owners of historic resources voluntarily commit to the protection and preservation of their property, should be included to permit the establishment of Historic Resource Overlay Zones (HROZ) outside the designated HOZs.

Owners wishing to enter into such agreements would do so by way of an established mechanism whereby the historic designation is bound to the property and can neither be revoked nor rescinded.

6) Historic preservation incentives, designed to provide flexibility and economic opportunities, should be established. Such incentives could include the following:

a) transfer of density and floor area ratio from an historic site to another location;
b) additional density in low-density and mid-density zones;
c) off-street parking facilities; and
d) duty incentives.

We further recommend, in keeping with Section 1.2 Objective (u) "to conserve and enhance the fabric and appearance of developed areas with a special character and visual quality" and consistent with Vision 2008 and The Tourism Policy, that

7) the Planning Policy require that specific traditional principles and elements of design be incorporated in new developments and re-developments in Tourism Related Zones.

III. NATURAL HERITAGE

The National Trust contends that the exclusion of the four recommended environmentally significant planning zones, (Conservation Zone, Nature Tourism Zone, Special Planning Area and Land for Acquisition Overlay), is at odds with the very first stated goal of the Development Plan - “to conserve open space and to promote a high quality environment” – Section 1.2 (a). The repeated exclusion of such environmentally significant planning zones after subsequent reviews, recommendations and amendments further contradicts Section 1.2 Objective (d) - "to protect and conserve areas and features of biological, ecological and geological significance" and, Objective (f) - "to encourage the protection of sufficient land for the development of a national system of protected areas."

Therefore, we support:
1) the re-instatement of the Recommended Environmentally Significant Planning Zones
The withdrawal of these four environmentally significant zones, prior to commencement of the official comment period , represents a gross injustice to:

• Stakeholder representatives working on the Special Issues Committees;
•Members of the public who followed the commentary proceedings as directed and, especially those members of the public who took the content of the 2002 Proposed Amendments to the Development Plan 1997 on face value; placing their faith in the democratic process that the Proposed Amendments would include these Zones, and hence did not feel it necessary to comment on the content of the Plan during that preliminary phase;
• Stakeholder representatives who participated and contributed to the resolutions of the Wetlands Committee; and,
• Stakeholder representatives who participated and contributed to the building of the national consensus that is Vision 2008.

The location, extent and criteria for these Zones represented the product of hundreds of hours of research, discussion, deliberation and compromise between the relevant stakeholders of the Special Issues Committees and were consistent with all other National Policies. These Zones were withdrawn and excluded from the Proposed Amended Development Plan without reasonable or adequate effort to inform the public and to educate and gain feedback from all concerned. The National Trust supports re-instating these zones for the following reasons:

a) Conservation Zone
The Conservation Zone was recommended for land that is owned by Government and the National Trust which is protected for environmental purposes. There is no privately owned land that would have been affected by this Zone.

At each of the Second Round District Meetings, the National Trust asked those assembled to raise their hand if they objected to the Conservation Zone. At the majority of these meetings, the lack of objections was absolutely unanimous, in all other cases almost unanimous. Internationally, the absence of a Conservation Zone is inconsistent with Cayman’s obligations under the Environmental Charter and Cayman's Tourism strategies.

b) Special Planning Area
The inflexibility of Standard Planning Regulations was recognized as being detrimental to both developers and the environment in specific environmentally sensitive areas. In these areas it was proposed that a special flexibility be applied to planning regulations, in order that future developers might be able to increase financial profitability of developments, while reducing associated environmental impact. The goal of the SPA is to achieve the necessary balance between development and the environment by encouraging environmentally sustainable development.

During the first round of public consultation, the National Trust recommended reducing the area of the SPA (based on recently updated Blue Iguana survey information), thereby removing many of the contested coast-line plots from this designation. Removal of the SPA effectively forces developers to “over develop” sites, which is costly both financially and environmentally.

c) Nature Tourism zone
The Nature Tourism Zone was intended for the physical development of low-impact tourism accommodation adjacent to Conservation Zones, in an attempt to diversify Cayman’s tourism product away from beach strip expansion. Nature Tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of world tourism with 2002 designated the "International Year of Eco-Tourism" by the World Tourism Organization.

According to the redrawn Planning maps, Barkers Park has changed from a National Park, well supported by an adjacent Nature Tourism Zone, to a National Park with a Hotel/Tourism Zone at its centre. In terms of land and management practices, this is impractical. Furthermore, the removal of the Nature Tourism Zone is inconsistent with Cayman's Tourism Policy and strategies.

d) Land for Acquisition Overlay
The Land for Acquisition Overlay represented a formal recognition of the value of ecologically sensitive land, and signaled an offer by Government to purchase the land from those wishing to sell using Protection Fees collected for the Environmental Fund. Instating this "overlay zone" resonates the intention of Section 12 (3) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) which clearly contemplated such a zone being created and was consistent with the creation of the Environment Fund. The creation of an "overlay" type zone not only assists in determining the value of the land so zoned for the purpose of acquisition but also provides for alternative zoning requirements where the Authority fails to acquire the land within the requirements provided in Section 12(3).

As an "overlay" provides for acquisition as well as preserves existing user rights and restrictions in the event that the land is never acquired, the imposition of this Land for Acquisition Overlay is actually more meaningful and in the interests of the current land owners than it is for the intended conservation. For instance, the removal of the acquisition overlay on the Barkers National Park is particularly puzzling as government has clearly signaled its intention to purchase the land for the purposes of creating Cayman’s first National Park. Whether the overlay is present or not, the land identified by Government as being desirable for purchase and protection remains the same.

We further contend that:
2) the Salina Reserve (Block 65A 48) be designated as a Conservation Zone.
The Trust currently maintains The Salina Reserve property (Block 65A 48) as a wilderness and conservation zone, and so should reaffirm this designation by confirming the zoning of the area as a “Conservation Zone” and not as a “Recreational Activity Area”. The Trust does not plan to develop this area for recreational use in the foreseeable future and certainly not in the next five years.

3) the bisecting road - west of Frank Sound Road (region of Block 50A & 51A) should not be built and should therefore be removed from the Development Plan.

The Mastic Reserve area and the Central Mangrove Wetland are hydrologically linked. During heavy rain, large volumes of water flow from the Mastic area, westwards, into the Central Mangrove Wetland and the North Sound. The proposed road would interrupt this natural drainage pattern, thereby increasing flooding in the eastern portion of land. Any flooding here might be expected to have significant repercussions for local land owners and severe ecological consequences for the flora and fauna of the Mastic Region (the Mastic representing the single most bio-diverse area in Grand Cayman).

The damming effect of this road may be reduced by appropriate construction incorporating bridges and culverts. This would require expensive engineering design, construction and future maintenance. Given the pre-existence of the nearby Frank Sound Road, which runs almost parallel to the proposed road, the construction of the new road is unnecessary. 4) the Special Issue Committee's (SIC) recommendations on native plant landscaping should be reincorporated into the Development Plan.

Environmental and Coastal Zone Management SIC's recommendations for developments in areas of primary vegetation, to maintain a percentage of landscape with native vegetation (SIC Report p.27), have not been incorporated into the Development Plan. Given the ecological benefits for maintaining Cayman’s flora and the wildlife which depend upon it and the potential to showcase and incorporate authentic Cayman vegetation in new developments, the dismissal of these recommendations will serve to reduce the environmental and aesthetic value of new developments and make them less representative of the unique nature of Cayman.

Submitted the 14th of March 2003,
On behalf of the National Trust for the Cayman Islands,

______________________________
Mr. Henry Propper
Chairman

______________________________
Mrs. Theresa Broderick
Executive Director

NATIONAL TRUST FOR THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
P.O. Box 31116 SMB
Cayman Islands
Tel: 949-0121 Fax: 949-7494
Email: TBroderick@NationalTrust.org.ky

Download the Word document here

Information Sheets - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fort George Watler Cemetary Gov Michael Gore Bird Sanctuary Old Savannah Schoolhouse Caribbean Spiny Lobster Bodden Town Guard House Park Mastic Reserve & Trail Miss Hilary Thompson House Heritage Beach East End Lighthouse Park Salina Reserve A Ring of Stones - Storm of '32 Red-footed Boobies of Little Cayman Cayman Brac Parrot & Reserve Booby Pond Nature Reserve Cayman Islands Parrots Grand Cayman Blue Iguanas Herbarium Insectarium Visiting Scientist Programme West Indian Whistling Duck Bats Traditional Architecture Birdwatching Wattle & Daub Thatch Traditional Sand Cemeteries Queen Conch Coral Reefs Mangroves Central Mangrove Wetland Catboats Silver Thatch Palm Wild Banana Orchid Spellman McLaughlin Home National Symbols Mission House Sharking Blue Iguana Conservation Programme Little Cayman Rock Iguana Miss Izzy's Schoolhouse Fire, the Salina & a Very Rare Plant Caring for Your Parrot Click on Photos for details•Credits