Residents urged to attend meeting on Emerald Sound

| 25/07/2011

(CNS): Both the developer’s representative and those against the proposed development in South Sound are urging everyone to come out to a meeting being hosted by Burns Conolly on Thursday evening to discuss the issues surrounding Emerald Sound. There is considerable opposition in the area to the development because of the plans to move the road, dredge the sea bed and create canals which will bring the ocean into the inland part of the property. The meeting will take place on Thursday 28 July at the South Sound community centre when Conolly says he will be answering questions about the proposals.

Last year residents in the area submitted a petition to planning opposing the project and hoped that would be an end to the application to dredge the seabed and create the canals. The objectors say that they are not opposed to the landowner developing his land but have real concerns about the negative environmental impact that the canals and sea dredging will have.

The residents are also opposed to plans to move the road inland which they say will increase the value of the owner’s property without benefit to the community as the land belongs to the crown. Connolly has denied that moving the road is about financial gain but he says it is to create a footpath and a cycle lane.

Conolly has also denied any major environmental damage as a result of the canals and dredging however a report by the department of environment has noted may serious environmental problems with the plans to dredge and create the canals in a marine protection zone.

Last week more than 50 of those who oppose the development met to begin the full scale campaign in preparation for 3 August planning meeting when the application will be heard by the Central Planning Authority.

“We do not oppose the owner developing his land, however we do oppose the canals and bridge, the moving the road and dredging,” one of the objectors told CNS as she urged people to attend Thursday’s meeting at the South Sound Community Centre at 7pm.

The campaigners are also urging people to contact their elected representatives to demonstrate their opposition and concerns. They are also hoping people will write letters and commentary for the press to show their objections and why and to enlist as much public support for what is being described as a precedent setting development. 

The campaigners are also taking a leaf out of the campaign against the East End Seaport and will be erecting large signs near the site this week about the opposition to the development and why, as well as garden signs for homes in the area.

Anyone wishing to donate to the campaign or who needs more information can contact

For more on the development see DoE queries Emerald Sound

To submit a viewpoint to CNS about the project email

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

Comments (52)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    I just wonder when these 'rich' people will get enough!!  Are they helping the poor in all their developments? They must have enough in their bank sccounts by now!  By the way – we don't take it with us when we leave this earth – the casket can only hold so much!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    As Mr Conolly has provided considerable input in a very balanced manner, can he just confirm one issue. Is the area to be developed still a “drain field” for Randyke Gardens – it, in turn, being drained via the culverts into South Sound – or has that function been superceded by some alternative drainage resource. If it’s old function is still necessary in the event of heavy rains in the area, could the ES development cause the return of serious flooding in the Randyke area. I emphasize that the flooding I am referring to is the historical problem which only needs a couple of days of torrential rain – not an exceptional, isolated, event such as”Ivan”.

  3. The Lone Haranguer says:

    We need developement. Anybody who wants to improve thier own land and put it for re-sale should be given every incentive to do so. 

    A problem we have in Cayman is that we have a lot of people who have "fixed thier business" and now do not want other people to now seek betterment because it may change there own comfortable way of life.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Well its easy for some to say choose a different line of work but am also in the construction field. For the record I think everybody who is in objection of this project needs to be at the civic centre thursday night. I Am In favor of this project. I think it would bring great value to the south sound area. Look what the ritz did for west bay road value. The thing is, most of the people in the south sound area are wealthy just remember the working class. If we continue saying no to this and that then what do you think the outcome will be?

    • Anonymous says:

      In South Sound – the rich and the working class and everyone in between, including those in the construction business OPPOSE this project.

      Come to the SS Community Centre Thursday night and take a look around and you will see for yourself. 

      The value the Ritz added???? Did you mean eye sore? 

      • Anonymous says:

        it's mainly RICH people in south sound, I don't think anyone can contend with that

        how is the ritz an eyesore?  That's one of the best looking and LANDSCAPED projects along seven mile beach especially FROM the SEASIDE if you've ever taken a walk along the coast!

        • Anonymous says:

          And thats a good thing?

          SMB looks disgusting both from the road and from the sea-basically an extension of the Florida coastline-take a drive from Vero Beach to Miami and see how many condo names are the same as in Cayman.


          You can turn it into a fun game if you like!

    • Anonymous says:

      Not much people are against development and construction. It is just that, in this proposal, there are things that most people are against e.g. moving the road, building a bridge, blocking current scenic views. If the development was only on the landside of the road, and there was no proposal to move the road or build a bridge, i do not believe there would be so much people against it.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Don't mess with mother nature i tell you. she can be a right b**** and hit us right where the sun don't shine.Nature will always concur and those fooling around will begin to realise once the sea waters begin to rise and our beloved rock begins to slowly submerge. The rest will be just a a smelly marsh up swap land full of deadly mosquitoes, iguana lizzards and crocodiles.

  6. Somesense says:

    When I read articles and comments on developments such as Emerald Sound and the Dart project for the Courtyard Marriott, I am constantly surprised at the omission of a key issue: the significant restriction of the general public's enjoyment of the sea around the island and the government's acquiecence of this. 

    I support development that enhances Cayman; my opposition to this development is why must it be done in a way that privatises the stunning Sound Sound view for a select few wealthy house owners at the expense of the general public?  This SS road is one of the last few places where you can drive or walkalong the beach enjoying the serenity of the sea.  This is yet another project that will deprive all Caymanians/residents of being able to do so.

    I know that some will argue that there will be access to the beach as there are at 7MB.  But why should Caymanians/resident swop a beautiful public area where they can walk freely and comfortably for a 6-foot-wide access that will not be a paved or well-maintained but probably be a poorly kept access that will be overgrown and have a harsh gravel pathway with some well placed airconditioners as a further discouragement.  Even if some soul still walk through the access to get to the beach, such developments are built in such a way that if you are on the beach you are made to feel like you are tresspassing; and we have all heard of people attempting to chase off users of public beaches on the premise that it is private property.  Why does the government allow this to happen to its people and its residents?

    Why not allow the development but ensure the road remains where it is.  Why not encourage the development by enhancing the road, perhaps putting in a wide, paved pavement that provides runners and moms with prams a safe environment to take a morning stroll rather than risk their lives like they currently are required to do.  Add some park benches and you have a wonderful community enhacning area that everyone can enjoy … and north of the road you can still have your luxury houses with their million dollar view of the sea.

    A win-win situation that does not hinder development.


    • Burns Conolly AIA says:

      Thanks for your comments. I would like to ensure that the correct information is out on this project and your blog is slightly misleading, likely due the myths that have been put out on this project over the last two years.


      I am correcting one part of your statement above. The Emerald Sound development is approximately 200 feet EAST of Bel Air subdivision on the LANDSIDE of the road. It ends at the junction of Old Crewe Road. As you drive along there you cannot see the sea.  Many people believe that Emerald Sound is at the area where the jet skis operate from. It is not there.


      The area between the existing road and the sea at the Emerald Sound development is currently home lots. That seaside subdivision and a seawall along there was approved many years ago and is not a part of this application. As you all know the first home has been constructed there.


      • Anonymous says:

        Get your measuring tape out Burns. Bel Air Manor apartments are about TWENTY feet from the edge of your development. All we ask is:

        1) That you don't move the road. However you want to word it, the end result is that the seaside lots can have bigger houses on them or can fit a house on them that presently won't fit.

        2) Don't dredge in a protected zone.

        Thank you,


  7. Anonymous says:

    After the Ivan experience we all went through, is there one intelligent reader here who would actually consider building &  owning a single level home ( ie..not elevated a minimum of 12 feet) in South Sound? It is the naturally created area over centuries of storms that have made it what it is today. I don't think the previously mentioned 1 ton per cuM of sea water will make that right hand turn, nor will it halt itself from inundating the lower lying areas that exist in the south-west corner of this island, despite any developer's claims. 

    • Burns Conolly AIA says:

      You are basically correct, the entire South Sound is at risk of flooding as it did during Ivan. The waves that cross the reef and reach shore, including the tidal change, will breach the road in many areas as seen in Ivan, with or without Emerald Sound. The Lands & Survey 2004 Ivan flood map shows all of South Sound fairly "blue" (that is, under water).


      The central point is that Emerald Sound will not CONTRIBUTE to that flooding because the waves will already be over the existing road prior to any water coming out of the ES canal, as ES will be filled to 6 to 8 feet above sea level.  In other words, water must rise over 8 feet to top over the ES development – by that time most of South Sound will be flooded and under 4 to 5 feet of water. 


      In some Coastal regions of Florida and Texas, it is mandatory to build on stilts to deal with the 100-year storm conditions and the inevitable. South Sound would be in such a zone.


      What the developer has said is that even SW waves will break (loose energy) taking the turn in the canal not that the bend will stop coastal flooding – that will occur now and naturally. In fact its the depth of South Sound and the reef is actually what controls the initial wave heights reaching shore.  


      What we maintain is that the entire region will be flooded PRIOR to water coming out of the ES canal. I think a careful look at some areas from your car will prove that, as at points now you almost seem at eye level with the reef. We clearly know where the sea breached in Ivan and those areas are now even lower.

      • Anonymous says:

        Burns, you are the first person to tell the truth about a hurricane.

        I'm sick and tired of  people claiming that we should learn a lesson from Ivan. The only lesson we ever  learn't from Ivan, is to be prepared.

        I hear the b*** s*** about hurricane waves  roaring  down  these proposed canals, and washing away George Town.

        Ivan had a storm surge of up to 10 feet.This means the whole caribbean sea within 75 miles of the eye  had risen, causing the ocean  water to rise over land, canals, man made lakes mangroves,seawalls, cars,homes, animals, and people.

        Canals does not enhance hurricane surge to travel inland.

        South Sound speaks for itself.  the ocean water rised above the reef, and travelled all the way inland to smith road, walkers road and parts of crew road.

        South Sound had no existing canals to assist Ivan 10 feet surges, it's the nature of the beast. 

        To the people of South Sound, if you wish to not let others be your neighbours, say so, but please stop using hurricane as an excuse.

        We were very  lucky, during Catrina Hurricane, in  louisiana had storm surges up to 24 feet.

        • Anonymous says:

          Canals as I understand it are channels of deeper water. Deeper water means that larger waves can come further shore withouth breaking. As wave after wave coming ashore in that vicinity you will have a natural piling up of water. Call it storm surge call it what you may but that is what will happen.

          • Burns Conolly AIA says:

            Just for clarity, a canal is a linear excavation INLAND. A channel is a linear cut to deepen in a offshore body of water. Storm surge is the rise in sea water level as a result of the low pressure in a hurricane. A wave is a disturbance on the surface of a body of water. All separate things.


            Waves height actually INCREASE as it enters shallow water, eventually reaching a height that it can no longer hold its form and actually "breaks".  That is why you see the waves breaking at the reef and near shore but only rolling swells in the deeper water. Tidal surge lifts the entire sea surface. In a hurricane, the large surface winds then create waves on top of that surge. In large hurricane the entire coastline is likely to be flooded ( See Ivan). The local policy is therefore logically to evacuate all persons from the coast inland during a hurricane.


            At ES we are not cutting a 'channel' in the sound and not cutting the reef. We are deepening one house lot immediately offshore to access our canal. The maximum depth will be 6 feet. The waves from the sea will break in the shallower water between the reef and the deep area PRIOR to reaching ES. So, no "wave after wave" will come ashore at ES. In fact, the 1970 Pirates Lair dredging has left some areas of the sound 7-8 feet deep which is deeper that our proposed excavation. If your theory was correct there are currently far worst areas in the sound than at ES. Fortunately the wave action in South Sound is controlled by it general depth and the reef not near shore deepening.


            • Anonymous says:

              Mr. Conolly,

              If the sound ofshore of the ES canal is shallower than six feet why will the ES canal be six feet deep? (And wont that result in 'dead water' along the bottom of the canal?)


              • Burns Conolly AIA says:


                The south sound is shallower to the southeast where the prevailing waves will come from 98% of the time. The previously dredged areas vary and are up to 8 feet and more deep which is where we plan to connect to.  The internal canal has been made shallower to assist in circulation hence its 6-8 foot depth. The original depth was over 12 feet but we modified it after computer modeling of the circulation. 


                • Anonymous says:

                  Every time there is a storm and the channel silts up, will it be dredged again and again? How many people in this development will be satisfied with a boat small enough to fit under the bridge. Are you planning on building anything or is this another East End type hole in the ground?

            • Anonymous says:

              Storm surge has two parts. You mentioned to smallest amount. The largest amount of storm surge is the piling up of water ahead of a storm due to wind speeds.


              Your concept about waves is interesting. It is true that waves do slow down as they get into shallow water, the height increases then it breaks. Fine and well. However deeper water closer to shore allows larger waves (Since the wave height is related to water depth)  to come closer to shore before breaking. Thats why the waves of Hurricane Ivan was able to pound the South Sound area so because the deeper water allow much larger waves to come ashore.

        • South Sound Resident says:

          We'd be very happy to have more neighbors and we'd be thrilled for Mr Hislop to develop his land. 

          We ONLY oppose the 'marina' component (canals and the bridge and dredging that would be required) and moving the road which is not needed for him to develop the land or seaside land. 

          There are many top quality property developments in South Sound which have been very successful without canals.

          We'd be very happy for Mr Hislop to do a property development on the landside and to develop his seaside lots. 

          We ONLY oppose the canals, bridge, dredging and moving the road. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Does it really matter if it takes a right hand turn or not? during a huricane,  the ocean will cover the land no matter what.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I'm SO tired of anti-this anti-that.  I'm in the construction industry and I've been sitting home for nearly THREE months, so all your South Sounders that are holed up in lala land saying what you want and don't want, understand this; there are people (maybe not in your circles) that are having hard times and findingextremely difficult to make ends meet.  Please consider this when you're opposing this and other large projects trying to kick off, like the other dart one.

    • Savannah Resident says:

      This is the type of persona problems that plague Cayman continuously.  Everyone only thinks about themselves first, the island and all its beauty is always and after thought.  Cayman already has to much concrete placed throughout our island and as a young Caymanian, I'll continue to highly encourage the wider community to protect our pristine habitat for future generations. 

      Furthermore, what I continue to find bafflingly is the amount of new developments continuing to take place.  Take a look at the statistics, people are leaving our country daily so who exactly will be buying these proposed condos?  Don't believe me; well have a look on E-cay.  Look at the excess amount of properties seeking tenants?  I must stress that I am not against development as the construction industry is a very viable pillar of Cayman’s economy.  What we should move towards is green and eco-development and diversity.  Sustainable development is a Caribbean wide initiative that needs to be taken seriously and Cayman is in the position to pioneer and lead the way for the wider Caribbean.

      Let's us come together as a community (Caymanian and expat, not that it should matter anyways) to embrace change, protect our natural flora and fauna and continue to educate and demonstrate our willingness to preserve the environment.  One love people

    • Anonymous says:

      Being in 'lala land' is expecting construction to continue at the rate it has for the past two decades, to the detriment of everyone else.  You need to change professions, others exist.

    • Anonymous says:

      Time to go to UCCI and retrain and switch industries.


      Along with many others in the construction industry.


      Our housing stock and building stock in general (and canal lots and generally house lots) is in serious excess of demand. The construction industry will never be what it used to be. 


    • anon says:

      Well Mr "I'm SO Tired…" why don't you bother to read the whole article before you spout off – The article states that "We do not oppose the owner developing his land, however we do oppose the canals and bridge, the moving the road and dredging"

      So there may still be a job for you in the future – altrenatively apply to Dart for a job – they seem to be doing a lot of construction nowadays and more to come.


  9. hammerhead says:

    I love the idea.  Having a marina and canal homes on the south side would be amazing.

    I own 2 properties on the SS area and would love to see this happen.

    Why does everyone fear change so much? It's not like they are building a nuclear plant… this willl increase property values if anything.

    Everyone references Ivan… did anything survive Ivan? With that attitide I'm surprised you stayed here and rebuilt knowing that another Ivan will just come and tear your house apart again.

    There is a bridge at the Ritz and 99% of poeple don't even realize it.





    • Anonymous says:

      So change is only a good thing?  Like overpopulation in third world countries? Or war?  People don't like them because its 'change'? hahahaha

      "I own 2 properties on the SS area" – Which two properties?  Other people own properties in the area, most of them don't want this construction project('development?') to go ahead.

      • Anonymous says:

        I own property in South Sound. I always have, because its my favorite part of the island. Actually its swamp converted and priced as property, but I love it nevertheless. Here are my choices of neighbors because of the changes to the law allowing for smaller plots:

        1) Emerald Sound.

        2) Small lots with Frank Hall type homes.

        Now which should I choose?


        • Durrrr says:

          A good point well made. If the application is denied, Rene should redesign the project to include as many low-cost houses as he can possibly squeeze in. See how the vocal minority likes that!

  10. AnonymousSick and Tired of the B...S... says:

    Mangrove buffers on South Sound, post “Ivan” are not on issue. What may be, is what seems to be the proposal to raise the realigned road to five feet above sea level – and by implication the plots on the seaward side of the new road will have to be raised to the same level. Presumably, this will necessitate a substantial sea wall on their seaward boundary. Any research been done on how this might affect wave action/ patterns. I think that there have been past problems farther down the Sound in that regard. Meanwhile, nice to see that Mr. Conolly has chosen almost the smallest venue possible for his “PUBLIC” meeting.

    • Burns Conolly AIA says:

      You are correct that nature removed the mangroves at the Emerald Sound site and in many other areas. Ivan killed them and Dean removed the remnants. Even given that the mangroves have been naturally removed, the Developer still intends to replant some as per the Coastal Works application.


      What is little known is that the Developer, without fanfare, assisted DOE in replanting several hundred mangroves in the area in the past. The development is very low density development with a significant portion left to landscaping, pedestrian walks, canals and open areas. In fact, less than 50% of land is used for housing, a rarity today.


      Regarding the road heights, the lots on the seaside already have Planning permission to be filled and to build their seawalls – in fact the wall is already built across three lots. However these lots and the seawall are not a part of this ES application. Raising the road is only logical as the current road is so low that it is constantly flooded by storms.


      Regarding the venue, this is a project in South Sound, the initial presentation was in the hall there so it is logical to return there. What should be commented on is the fact that the developer is willing to come before the public and present what this project is about to deal with the myths that have been published by others. This meeting is not to try and convince anyone to support the project but merely to clarify the project.  Hope you can come as well.

  11. Anonymous says:

    How many of these anti-developers have enjoyed a cappuccino in Piazza San Marcco? 

    • Anonymous says:

      This is the Caribbean not Italy.

      If you try to make the Caribbean look and feel like 'Europe' – you end up with the concrete Disney world feel we see elsewhere on this island. 

      And what is your point? I have been to Piazza San Marcco – and many of the other objectors have. And many have not. What is the relevance?

    • Anonymous says:

      Not sure of the point you're trying to make.  Piazza San Marcco is one of the most crowded places in Venice, where a cappucino costs 15x more than it does on the mainland.  The throngs of tourists vomitting out of the cruise ships pulling right in to the city appears to do nothing more but cheapen what would be an amazing experience in an otherwise remarkable city.

      Question the intelligence of throwing money at a problem when you don't even know its cause.

    • Anonymous says:


      Seeing the Piazza San Marcco was nice for a visit to see how other people live in the hustle and bustle of their lives, however I was happy to return to my tranquil South Sound where I love to live for the tranquility that it is.


      This is not a fight against development per se, it is about preservation of a way of life and our safety from storm waves.


      Any penetration of the South coast line will make for more flooding in George Town, not just South Sound area.  Further if Emerald Sound is allowed to penetrate the South coast with a canal then how many more will be allowed, 5, 6, 7???


      Then what about West Bay in the Barkers area whey not there too?


      Then why not the pond area South of Morritts, why not there too?


      Then what about the Queens Highway in the Barefoot Gardens area, why not there too to build a large inland North Coast Marina?


      Do you not see the foolishness of this whole canal to the sea concept for South Sound?




      • Durrrr says:

        'Any penetration of the South coast line will make for more flooding in George Town, not just South Sound area.  Further if Emerald Sound is allowed to penetrate the South coast with a canal then how many more will be allowed, 5, 6, 7???'


        What do you base this statement on? The canal walls will be higher than the existing road berm, so it will reduce the risk of flooding.

        And pray tell where these other '5, 6, 7' canals are going to go? In case you hadn't noticed, the South Sound coastline is pretty much fully developed west of the boat ramp – you could perhaps squeeze one more canal in, inbetween the Boulevard (?) and Bel-Air.

        Myths and scaremongering seems to be the only bases of the opposition to this project.

    • Anonymous says:

      It's evident that irony is a concept little understood  in Cayman. Folks, at high tide in Venice you need hip boots to go for that cappuchino.

      • Anonymous says:


        Thank you.

        But that didn't stop them from rebutting my point only to ask what my point was 🙂


  12. Anonymous says:

    I'm sick and tired of all our self anointed environmental experts we have. Where do they suggest anyone build any where in the world? There are snowstorms, ice storms, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, sand storms, fires, lightening, hurricanes etc. The point is that one should build according to the environment, AS MUCH AS ONE CAN. Mother nature always has the final say. Had each and every house in South Sound been built on stilts there would have been far less damage. Its not coincidence that world wide, where there is water there are houses on stilts. Its only the modern builders in Cayman who thought this was not necessary.  Perhaps they even thought the mangroves would protect them. I know this post will generate many thumbs down, but I also guarantee not one of these people can tell me how a 3 foot mangrove can stop an 8 foot wave. NOT ONE.

    • Pending says:

      The only thing that concerns me is the proposed dredging and canal building for this development and the impact it might have on the Replenishment Zone that it will occurr in.

      Has an impact assesment report been conducted?

    • Anonymous says:

      You say you are "sick and tired of all our self anointed (sic) environmental experts we have."


      I don't think spending a few years of your life studying environmental issues at university and then presenting informed  opinions should invite criticism. And as far as I can see, the DoE has very little power indeed, and acts only in an advisory capacity. The Conservation Bill hasn't been  passed, so they don't have any effective  tools to implement measures they deem necessary.  All they have is the force of argument, which in the face of money, is usually proved to be an entirely feeble weapon. As for the National Trust, the only power it has is through the small amounts of money its supporters give it to buy land, which any individual could  do anyway.


      I agree that some of us like to spout opinions before we've done proper research, but imagine how the World would be if no one had ever given weight to arguments for conservation. President  Teddy Roosvelt, one of the most admired US presidents, established the Yosemite National Park, one of the most beautiful unspoiled landscapes in the world. Without others like him, there'd be no Giant Redwoods left in Califiornia. Africa's elephants and rhinos would be on the verge of extinction, and Alaska would be open for development. Cayman would have no Botannic Park, no protected reefs, no mastic Trail, and the Blue Iguanas would now be a distant memory, gone forever, along with the Nassau Groupers. Well, if that's the kind of world you'd like for you and your children, it's certainly not for me, nor any of the people I know.


      I'm sorry, Mr Sick and Tired, but a balance bewteen the needs of the present generation and those of the future has to established by negotiation. No generation has a freehold on this planet.


  13. AnonymousSick and Tired of the B...S... says:

    I nearly laughed my socks off when CITN showed their video interview with Burns Connolly last Friday. In addressing the expressed concerns about the increased risk of flooding that might result from cutting a canal inland, he explained that this would not be a problem because they had put a right angled turn at the top of the inlet channel……what genius came up with that design theory. I believe that a cubic yard of seawater weighs about a Ton, and when many cubic yards are moving up the canal at the speed they would be in a storm, I don't think they will politely turn right when asked to….the story of King Canute comes to mind. On a more serious note, does anyone else remember that some time before "Ivan", flooding in Randyke Gardens, just from torrential rain, forced Government to cut a dyke to allow the water to drain into what I suspect is the very area to be developed, and from there they put in two culverts which run under the eastern end of South Sound Road to South Sound. At the time, it was the only expedient solution to that particular problem. Would that problem become an issue again if this development went ahead. If so, I would have thought that Government needed to look at the ramifications.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Nobody has forgotten, perhaps they will pretend to forget and use all the smoke and mirror tricks to get the development passed and then when the first big  storm comes around they will act surprised and we will have to bild a great big sea wall to protect the homes from future storms. Boggy Sand Road, East End, Savanah, Georgetown? and I bet another few feet of land will be added again, destroying even more of the ocean floor! This place is a joke!

    A buffer zone is needed to allow for the natural movement of the sand and natural vegetation. This has been proved the world over, but yet we choose to sit with our head up our in the sand and pretend the laws of nature don't apply to us! Environmental law might solve this but we will never see this law passed while we still have land to destroy develop.

    Although it is interesting to see the man who is responsible for a lot of the actual dredging on the island at the meeting. I guess NIMBY applies! XXX

  15. Anonymous says:

    Tell me Mr. Conolly, why does the development need to move the road inland 80 – 100 feet? For bike lanes and pedestrian walkways you say? Well, how large are these lanes and walkways? A bike lane and a pedestrian lane is at most 4 feet wide each currently in Cayman, some are 2 feet in the Windosr Park area, and many pedestrian walkways, though critically needed, are non-existent in many other parts of Cayman. If you put one each on each side of the road that is only 4 x 4 equals 16 feet. What is the other 64 – 84 feet for, beach-side house lots?


    If the NRA (assuming the NRA Board actually agree to the road being moved in the first place and said so in their comments to CPA re this application) is going to move the road, why not do so for the benefit of everyone and create a new public beach in the area. A new public beach along that stretch may win more support for the development as a whole.


    BTW, how many Caymanians are purchasing these proposed homes in E Sound?


    Also NRA, what are your Road Safety/Improvement plans for this fiscal year. Pedestrian walkway installments are badly needed in a lot of areas – please help.

    • Anonymous says:

      Should they only be sold to Caymanians…I guess they have a birth right…

    • Burns Conolly AIA says:

      Your calculations are logical however there are three main reasons for the road shift. One to create the pedestrian lanes and landscaping in that area as I have said before.


      The second is to leave access to the existing home lots on the seaside (not to make them bigger).  By moving the road we can have a single access point on to the South Sound road from those lots rather than 20 individual driveways which would breakup the pedestrian walks/experience in the area. A lot safer for all.


      The third and not so obvious reason( but critical reason) is to enable the road to properly align with the planned NRA's roundabout at the junction of Old Crewe Road. As the roundabout takes up space, the NRA has positioned it to the north and west of the current junction so as to not impact anybody's land there. The ES developer is the only one giving up land use there.Note this roundabout is not needed for ES but to create a link to the central South Sound road spline which is proposed by NRA north of ES. We understand that this road will lower the traffic on the main south sound road by delivering traffic directly to the schools area.


      NRA has commented and noted that the ES development is actually generating less than 50% of the potential traffic that its current Low Density Residential zoning would be expected to generate. For the record we received the road alignment drawing from the NRA. I cannot comment on their behalf as to whether they prefer the road lifted to 6 feet and moved further away from the sea or not.


      Totally agree with you that our road planning in general must contain usable Pedestrian areas as well as Landscaping- both are usually cut due to budgeting concerns.  The ES developer is paying for those in this area and providing the land.

  16. Anon says:

    Some people must have short time memory, dementia or amnesia? Did they not see what happened to South Sound during Ivan or any other tropical storms that passed on that side of the island? There is nothing wrong with development, but leave the sea alone!!! When the environmental issues are into play and will have a devastating impact on the current environment, that should be more important than money!! Wake up!!