Search Results for 'east west arterial EIA'
CPA blocked eco-meeting
(CNS): The Central Planning Authority (CPA) issued an order to planning officials not to attend an Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) meeting with the Department of Environment (DoE) regarding applications made by developers from the proposed Ironwood project in Frank Sound last year. This proposed $360 million development does not have planning permission but the investors, formally known as Eagle Assets, have successfully made a number of piecemeal sub-division applications very close to the Botanic Park and blue iguana re-settlement areas, raising concerns. In February 2013 the DoE called for planning staff and other relevant public officials to convene an EAB to discuss the potential size and impact of the project, however the CPA ordered them to stay away.
In a shocking indictment of how the current planning authority still regards environmental concerns in relation to development, the minutes from a February 2013 meeting reveal that the CPA believed that an environmental assessment board would undermine the planning process, despite the evidence before it that the project was continuing to grow. It said there was no need for an EAB because it had no standing and the authority did not want such a meeting.
The board then went on to direct planning staff – public sector workers paid for by the public purse – not to attend this meeting because if they did, it may look like they were representing the CPA’s wishes.
By this time, Eagle Assets had managed to get planning permission to sub-divide over 535 acres of land, all of it very close to the Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park. However, having managed to get permission piecemeal, it was the DoE which raised concerns that the project was emerging into a major development but that the cumulative impact was not being considered, especially given its proximity to the park and the potential threat posed. The DoE recommended a planned area development (PAD) application be made, which was ignored by the CPA.
In its notes to the CPA while the application was before the authority in October 2012, the DoE said it was very concerned about the cumulative impact and “the lack of comprehensive consideration” of the wider project plans, as this was the third parcel of land in the vicinity of the Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park that was the subject of a subdivision application by Eagle Asset Investments of well over 500 acres.
“We understand that the current application for a two-lot subdivision is potentially going to be developed into a golf course. However, to simply seek planning permission for a series of subdivisions on this scale, to facilitate future uses, is considered inappropriate. The mix, type and location of the various land uses being proposed by the applicant should be comprehensively assessed in order to ensure that uses are appropriately located within the context of a number of considerations,” the environmental officials stated.
The DoE listed issues regarding supporting infrastructure, the general environment, the commercial viability against the potential environmental damage, as well as its impact on the park and the areas where the critically endangered blue iguana were being released.
The department recommended a PAD application rather than a series of piecemeal subdivisions, which they said could not be assessed comprehensively, to ensure that any future development is appropriate, necessary, economically viable, sustainable and based on sound planning principles.
“This approach is not unusual or ground breaking; it is common practice worldwide and is not intended to serve as a tool to prevent development but to ensure that development is planned and carried out in a way which does not compromise current or future generations", the DoE stated, all of which was ignored by the CPA.
The DoE pointed out that, despite earlier advice from the DoE regarding the significant adverse impact on the blue iguanas, the application had been approved and the original protective buffer of 40 feet had been subsequently reduced by the CPA after an application to modify it down to a mere 15 feet.
Government has now offered its wholehearted support to the project, having signed an MOU to extend the east-west arterial to the project, which has raised even more issues regarding the environment, National Trust land and many other issues.
The premier and planning minister have stated that the developer will be required to undertake an EIA. Nevertheless, as the National Conservation Law continues to gather dust in the ministerial corridors because the ministry of planning and agriculture has still not made the necessary legislative changes to other laws, there are no guarantees that the Botanic Park, the blue iguanas, the critical wetlands, water lens and other important habitat in the area, as well as the Mastic Trail and Reserve will be protected.
See relevant minutes below.
DoE concerns are located under 2.6 on pages 34-36 of 24 October 2012 minutes and the order issued by the CPA banning planning staff from the Environmental Assemssment Baord meeting can be seen under 6.7 on page 73 of the 6 February 2013 minutes.
MLA full disclosure stalled
(CNS): Although government has passed the Standards in Public Life Law, the full disclosure of members and senior civil servants interests’ and that of their families is still some time away. It is not yet clear how the public will get access to the new register, which will require much more information from politicians and, for the first time, senior civil servants. Currently, members of the public must make an appointment to see the register and are not allowed to make copies but can only take notes. CNS visited the Legislative Assembly this week to see the current list of MLAs’, in some cases extensive, business interests and land ownership and, for the first time, has posted the full details as they currently stand of serving members.
On our visit we found a fragmented, disorganised file that has not been updated since Nomination Day, almost twelve months ago. Members declare things in different ways and do not always make their interests very clear on the forms supplied, which are in most cases hand written submissions.
Wayne Panton, the chair of the Register of Interests Committee, told CNS that as the new law will hand responsibility to the Standards in Public life Commission, he had not called a meeting, though he had directed all members to update their register and ensure it was accurate.
He said, however, that he would look into the current register and ensure it was accurate and that its presentation to the public was improved until the new law’s regulations were complete and the function handed over to the commission.
Although the members' register may have reflected an accurate record of their business interests, property and land ownership, directorships and share holdings, the files are not easily accessible to the public, and despite the new law, it may not improve in the future unless the register is available via a web portal.
Deborah Bodden, a spokesperson for the current Standards in Public Life Commission, revealed that the new register that the commission will oversee may not necessarily be posted online as the law does not specifically provide for them to be made available on a website, only that they will be available to the public. However, nothing has yet been confirmed and the clock is ticking on the law’s requirement that each year all politicians and civil service heads make full disclosure within thirty days of 30 June.
Bodden said options were being explored for some kind of programme to create a searchable database so the public can look for specific details about their MLAs or senior public servants but there was no certainty yet about how the register would be accessible.
Bodden said last week that the regulations were not yet complete and so far, following the departure from the commission of Karin Thompson, who had overseen the long journey to the legislation, a new chair and other members had not yet been appointed.
With the public often suspicious about the motivations of politicians, the decisions they make and the policies they develop, the need to see who owns what and who has an interest in what is an important tool in the fight against corruption.
During the previous UDP administration there was considerable speculation about land owned by some government MLAs and their family members in areas related to projects approved by the government. In addition, business interests were also said to have been passed on to family or friends while they took up their seats in the LA, allowing them to avoid disclosure.
The recent controversies surrounding the potential extension of the east-west arterial road in order to support a proposed retirement community development and golf course in North Side has led to concerns about this administration and that some serving politicians' and civil servants' family members could stand to benefit from this extension and project.
A number of politicians and senior civil servants, including the premier, the planning minister and the former deputy governor, are all said to have family land interests connected to the road or the project.
At present, politicians are not required to reveal any details about the financial or business interests, land or property ownership of their spouse or other close family members, just their own business interests and property or land.
Currently there is no requirement even for the deputy governor, who sits in the LA, or any other civil service head to reveal their interests either. However, Samuel Bulgin, the attorney general, has filed a register stating that he had apartments in Florida, Jamaica and in Cayman, as well as land in North Side.
According to the register, as it currently stands the deputy premier has by far the most interests and property of members sitting on the government front bench.
Deputy Premier Moses Kirkconnell, who is also minister for tourism and district administration on the Sister Islands, has more than fourteen directorships in companies for which he has shares and receives financial payments, most of which are tourism or real estate related. He also owns more than two dozen parcels of land on Cayman Brac and three lots on Little Cayman.
Planning Minister Kurt Tibbetts lists three business interests and several lots of land in Spotts, Savannah, Lower Valley, West Bay, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman.
Financeial Services Wayne Panton has a number of business interests, including investment and holding companies and property development, as well as Infinity Broadband, the owners of c3, the latest broadband and communication company to receive a license to supply internet TV. He also declares owning land in Savannah and rental properties.
Although Finance Minister Marco Archer declares no business interests, he declares holding land in North Side, Breakers, Spotts and West Bay, while Health Minister Osbourne Bodden declares his gas station in Bodden Town, a George Town shop as well as land and property in his constituency and the Sister Islands. Tara Rivers declares interest in just one business and land in her constituency. Premier Alden McLaughlin declares his own legal practice and just one lot of land in Spotts.
See full details of the business, shares and land interests currently declared by all 18 members of the Legislative Assembly below.
Road gazette not planned
(CNS): The gazetting of the proposed East-West arterial extension appears to have been a random decision made without any assessment of the optimum location for the by-pass were it ever to be constructed. As concerns mount about the environmental and social impact of both a proposed $360 million development in North Side, which could include an 18 hole golf course, and the route of the road extension on which the developers say the project is dependent, the Department of Environment has confirmed that it has not yet been consulted on the proposed development, despite its size, or on the road direction and has not been able to find any evidence of consideration over its route.
“The DoE is not aware whether prior to it being gazetted in 2005, the current East-West corridor was subjected to any assessment to inform the optimal alignment of the road corridor with respect to transportation needs, impacts on established protected areas and the natural environment, or any other relevant considerations,” the director told CNS in response to enquiries about the environmental threats.
The gazetted road is currently set to go through not just important pristine habitat and wetlands but land owned by the National Trust, including the culturally and historically significant Mastic Reserve and Trail. Were it to stay on its currently proposed path, which appears to be an unplanned route, it would also cut through the reserve where the Trust has worked tirelessly to bring the country’s iconic blue iguana back from the brink of extinction.
With concerns that there is nothing to indicate that any kind of assessment or consideration has ever been given to the gazetted route, DoE Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie said her department “strongly recommends” that before anything further happens the location has to be reconsidered.
“Before any further undertakings or approvals are given with respect to the road corridor the necessary assessments must be carried out so that the precise location of the road corridor can be rationalised,” the director stated. “Under the National Conservation Law (NCL) the National Roads authority (NRA) would be obligated to consult with the National Conservation Council prior to taking any further decisions on the road corridor and we are hopeful that this consultation will take place with the DoE even if on-going efforts to fully implement the NCL have not yet been completed.”
Following the signing of an MOU with the government and the developers over a potential public-private partnership, where they developers would pay for the $40 million road and recoup their investment in duty waivers, public concerns were heightened.
People are concerned about the cost of the road project, which would still be borne by the public purse in the long run, and the potential wider threats from the development including its proximity to the Botanic Park and the threat to the area’s water lens.
“While we understand that the proposed development will comprise a golf course as well as commercial and residential development, the DoE has not yet been provided with a master plan for the development which would confirm the precise nature and location of the various aspects of the proposed development scheme,” Ebanks-Petrie said.
“This makes it difficult to offer specific comments on potential impacts. However, given the location, scale and scope of the proposal the DoE would recommend that an EIA be undertaken to clarify the nature of the potential environmental impacts arising from the development in order to provide decision-makers with all the relevant information before any approvals are given,” she added.
Despite the size and the government heralding the proposed development as the sort of project that Cayman needs, especially in the eastern districts, the DoE confirmed that so far it has not been asked to provide any advice to Cabinet on any of the issues.
The development is likely to straddle the districts of both North Side and East End should it become the full mixed use community as described by the developers over the next thirty years. Even so, neither of the local representatives have been consulted or given any information about the proposed plans, nor have the MLAs seen the MOU.
North Side MLA Ezzard Miller told CNS that it was a discourtesy that neither government or the developers had involved either himself or East End MLA Arden McLean as it was evident were this project to go ahead it would have a significant impact on the land and lives of the people they represent.
CNS requested a copy of the MOU but emails sent to government remain unanswered.
‘No’ campaign steps up
(CNS): Billboards opposing the proposal by Joseph Imparato to develop a sea port, or as those against the project believe it to be ‘the mega quarry’, have been posted on the crown land which will be ripped out if the development is allowed to go ahead. The MLAs from the districts most impacted by the potential quarry have joined forces with Save Cayman, local environmentalist, dive operators, property owners, the wider public and most recently local quarry owners to spearhead an all out opposition to the proposal which has a wide range of potential negative social-economic impacts, but above all poses one of the biggest ever environmental threats to the district of East End. (Photos Steve Broadbelt)
A consortium of local quarry owners has now also officially thrown its weight behind the ‘no campaign’ and have released an official statement noting a number of problems with the potential development, not least the threat to their livelihoods and the developer’s circumvention of the normal rules and regulations surrounding quarry operations.
Not normally known for their environmental credentials, the quarry operators are joining an opposition to the project that includes divers, people concerned about the terrestrial impact, the loss of the view, the threat to the water lens, flooding during bad weather and the destruction of the quality of life in East End.
The quarry operators find themselves on the same side as the environmentalists on this occasion and have committed to supporting Arden McLean, the PPM member for East End, and Ezzard Miller, the independent member for North Side, who have commissioned and erected the new billboards on crown land.
The rules surrounding the quarrying business are stringent and the operators say they are there to prevent over-quarrying on the island and potential environmental threats such as those posed to the water lens, which they say Imparato’s project would be allowed to bypass.
In a statement released at the weekend, the quarry owners said they were presenting a united front against the project and would oppose it it whatever ways they could. “We are wholeheartedly against this project, which is not good for our country,” they stated.
Following in meeting in East End on Thursday evening where Imparato and the authors of the environmental impact assessment came face to face with significant opposition to the project from across the community, the developer said he still intended to submit his proposals to government and wanted to begin as soon as possible.
Whether or not the developer actually intends to complete a fully fledged commercial sea port, which will include a facility for the Cayman Islands Port Authority, a transshipment dock, oil and gas storage and home porting for cruise ships, as well as a mega yacht marine, remains to be seen but the excavation to dig out the basin and the channel will take as at least five years.
The current concern is that the real intention of the developer is only to access the marl, which is believed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Proposing to build a port, however, would enable him to operate this mega quarry for the first five years of the project outside of normal controls.
“The developer has been patently misleading with his statements and declarations,” the quarry owners said in the statement. "It is the view of the quarry owners that this project is nothing more than a thinly disguised, massive quarry, which possess the potential to wipe out most, if not all of their business by employing predatory pricing in the aggregate market in the short term.”
At present local quarry owners operate under a government-approved aggregate policy which was implemented by the CPA in 2004. However, the quarry owner say this developer is being allowed to “circumvent the usual stringent planning permission process entirely by passing off his project as a port, when in fact he intends to operate a quarry to extract some 15 million cubic yards of aggregate.”
Aside from gaining an unfair competitive advantage, the quarry owners said that this exemption has far greater consequences than spoiling their business. “It is a matter of grave concern that the government of a country would not only grant the right to destroy local businesses but would at the same time license a private developer to entirely avoid the legal process that governs all other citizens in the country,” they stated.
The current aggregate policy is designed to restrict quarries until the island’s supply of quarry material is less than five years reserve, which the operators say is decades away. “Given the economic downturn in recent years and the consequent recession in the construction industry, estimates suggest that there is currently approximately 50 years of aggregate reserves in existing quarries.” The estimate includes proposed government infrastructure works such as the cruise dock, airport and roads.
“We have no shortage of quarry material,” emphasised Burnadette Bodden, who operates KP’s Heavy Equipment, one of the eight companies comprising the consortium. She and the others said quarry operators have seen a reduction in the price of their product because of the slowdown in construction and the fall in demand for aggregate.
Bodden is also an East End landowner who has concerns regarding the very real treat to the water lens. Current operating regulations stipulate that no excavation should take place within a two-mile radius of the aquifer but the seaport proposal is within 2,400 feet. “That is actually less than half a mile and it is clear that the East End Seaport proposal, by its own admission is dangerous to the fresh water lens in the area,” Bodden added.
(Photo: Even with the natural bluff protection the road was destroyed in the wake of Hurrciane Ivan as this picture, taken around one week after the storm, shows.)
The quarry owners are warning the public that the authors of the EIA did not speak with local Water Authority or environmental experts during their assessment, although the DoE had input on the terms of reference. The quarry owners warn that the claims by the authors and the suggested mitigation are inaccurate.
With no justification for the seaport and the mega quarry, the consortium said the project represents unfair competition and threatens to drive local quarry owners out of business. Between them the quarry operators employ 321 people directly and another 118 independent truckers and their families are also beneficiaries of the sector, while this project, which is circumventing the usual laws and processes, will during the dredging and excavation period only employ 45 people.
The extent to which the developer would be obligated to complete the project has not been established and it is understood that he will not be required to put up any financial bonds to underscore the verbal commitment. He has admitted the development of the cargo facility, which will be given to the Port Authority, will be in the hands of government and therefore the public purse. All of the other elements of the facility will be joint venture partnerships but so far no investors have signed up to be part of the project. Although the developer has said he will be responsible for the supporting ring road around the facility, he will not be responsible for the east-west arterial link which would be required to support the development if it were to go beyond the mega-quarry state.
See the quarry operator’s full statement below.
Imparato presses on with port
(CNS): Despite meeting considerable opposition to his proposed port development, Joseph Imparato revealed that he intends to submit formal plans to the government today (10 June) along with the findings of the EIA. Calling on the people not to march or demonstrate with trucks against it, he said there had been a lot of misinformation that he had come to East End to correct. At the first open public meeting held by the developer in the district more than 200 people attended, and when the local MLA asked for a show of hands for and against the proposal only two people offered their support. Following a short video presentation and a more than hour-long walk through of theEIA, the people made it clear they did not welcome the development. (Photo Dennie Warren Jr)
The presentation was met with considerable scepticism by the audience, which packed the district's civic centre as speakers pointed out the many contradictions. Imparato and his team heard the concerns that the people had over the water lens, potential flooding, the dive sites, the natural environment, the impact on the community and the future costs to the people to complete the cargo port and supporting infrastructure once Imparato had dug the hole.
Several speakers, including people from East End, West Bay, North Side and George Town, told the developer that there was little support for the project across the island and asked him not to press ahead.
In the audience were representatives from the local business community, quarry operators, the dive industry, and the wider tourism sector, as well as political representatives.
Arden McLean, the MLA for East End, said that the people of his district did not support the development as he said his constituents viewed it as an invasion of their lives from which they would not benefit.
“Your project is not welcome in this community,” McLean said. “And when people are not welcome they should not try to impose themselves.” He also said that the developer had shown a lack of respect to the East End people when he had undertaken a massive advertising campaign to try and persuade people to support the project but had placed only a small ad in the notices section of the paper when it came to announcing his intention to come to the district. “The people should not be treated merely as an obstacle that you have to overcome,” McLean added.
A number of questions were raised by the audience about the marl and whether that would be sold here or exported, the nature of the proposed agreement with government for the development zone and the exemption from taxes and duties, how much of the project Imparato would actually develop and what joint venture partners he had with other investors for the various proposed elements of the facility, such as the oil storage, the transshipment and cruise home port and yacht marina.
Pressed by North Side MLA Ezzard Miller about how the project would be developed, Imperato said that down the line he would be seeking investors in joint ventures to partner with him. He said, however, that there were no plans to partner with government for the cargo facility as that would be up to the Port Authority to decide what to do. He also said he would be responsible for the ring road around the project, but government would pay for the east-west arterial to link the facility to the rest of the island.
He revealed that there is, as yet, no deal in place with government and that he had been asked to complete the EIA and the economic assessment before it would begin discussions.
Despite the level of opposition and the crowded hall, the people remained calm, and while there was a police presence, there were no angry exchanges. Several speakers articulated the opposition to the project and the reasons why and asked the developer to consider using his land for other projects. Woody DaCosta spoke of the very real and widespread fears of the threat posed by the development to the water lens, which were not alleviate by the comments of the author of the EIA, who said it could be prevented.
Bo Miller spoke about the wider environmental risk being too great when the project was not needed or wanted. “Thank you for your presentation but it’s a risk we don’t need to take,” he added.
Opposing the project from a very different prospective, local attorney Sammy Jackson, who was representing the quarry operators, pointed out that his clients were very uncomfortable about the arrangements between government and the developer if the project was approved. He said his clients had to follow an onerous legal process in order to quarry at all and they were faced with the biggest every quarry in the islands' history and it appeared as though the developer would be allowed to completely by-pass the usual rules, creating exceptionally unfair competition.
Billy Adam, a veteran environmentalist and campaigner for good governance, pointed out that the Cayman Islands had been warned about over development back in 1999 in a study that Imparato was himself a party too. He also reminded Pilar Bush, whose company is representing the public affairs element of the project, of her role in the Go East campaign when she was director of tourism and the goal to ensure sustainable development in the eastern districts and to learn the lessons from over development on the rest of the island. Bush answered that she believed the East End Sea Port proposal would have a tourism benefit and help boost the sector.
Rounding up his comments about the dangers of the project, Adam also noted that the right to demonstrate and march was a very important democratic right utilized the world over by the people to show their opposition.
Following the meeting, Bush told CNS on behalf of the developer that the opposition encountered in East End would not derail the process which the developer had started and still intended to follow. While acknowledging the not unexpected opposition at the meeting, she said that the developer had received considerable support across the community for the proposal. In the end the project will be down to the decision of government.
After the meeting last night the two district MLAs have confirmed that they will be posting bill boards on Tuesday afternoon on the piece of crown land at High Rock that the developer will need to use in order to begin his project. They will be hosting a fish-fry to raise support for the opposition campaign.