Developers offered use of public land

| 26/06/2010

(CNS): Changes to the Development and Planning Regulations 2006 to allow developers to pay to use parcels designated Lands for Public Purposes are now in effect. One of a number of amendments to the planning regulations this gives developers of subdivisions the option of using the five percent of the site that they were previously required to set aside for public purposes such as parks, playgrounds and, importantly, rights of way. The regulation changes have also significantly increased fees for after-the-fact planning applications to deter people from building without planning permission,government officials said.

 Land parcels that would have been designated LPP can now be built on as a result of this change. A release from the premier’s office, as planning and development now falls under his ministry, said the changes were as a result of the failure of LPP to be managed.  
“While LPP sites remained in the name of the developer, the law did not speak to who was responsible for the building and maintenance of such facilities. As a result, the vast majority of LPP parcels were left undeveloped and became overgrown,” the release sated. “Some LPP parcels have become havens for rodents and illegal activity.”
Some LPP sites however, have been put to good use as in some instances, the Central Planning Authority (CPA) made a requirement as to how the LPP site was used. This was the case with the Governor Gore Bird Sanctuary and the public launching ramp at Cayman Islands Yacht Club.
The recent amendment to Section 28 of the Development and Planning Law now gives subdivision developers the option of paying government a fee equal to the value of the LPP parcel which can then be utilized commercially. There is an application process that includes a valuation of the property and the release said the revenue from the “buy back” of LPP property is earmarked for the development of parks, playgrounds, sports fields and public rights of way.
The statement did not reveal however, how rights of way will now be guaranteed on sites where a developer builds on LPP that is also an access way for other land.
Another amendment in the regulations addresses the construction of buildings or other structures started or completed without planning permission, increasing fees by ten times.
“One of the problems with projects that are built without planning permission is that they often violate some aspect of the regulations or code,” the release stated. “When an after-the-fact application is made and the CPA requires a change, the owner then claims undue hardship, creating a dilemma for planning regulators. The after-the-fact application fee is increased from two times the regular fee to ten times the regular fee. The aim of the increase is to act as a deterrent to building without planning permission.”
The new fee only applies to buildings started after the amendment came in to effect.
Other amendments establish an Elevator Certification Permit, fees for repetitious submissions, an administrative fee for submissions withdrawn before a decision is taken and fees for electrical modification and customized reports.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Florence Goring-Nozza says:



    Mr. Bush,

    I believe that the unused government lands would serve a good purpose if those lands were iactually leased to the local people to build houses of their own on. Since a number of them are still displaced why not?

    How about building " Section 8" Housing for the poorer people allowing them access to affordable housing ?. This is done similarly in the US where the occupants are able to pay a nominal fee per month based on a % of their monthly income. therefore it is not a strain on them financially, and they pay what they can afford for housing.

    I think that you would be serving the people if a good portion of those government properties was used to solve the problem of homelessness and create home ownership.. 

  2. Anonymous says:

    Maybe it would be better for them to find ways to encourage the developers to use the LPP’s so that the people of the community could benefit more from them. Either by clearing them for a family park, or something similar.

    Rather than allowing them to just develop the land as they please. As this doesn’t take into consideration at all, those land owners who bought land in developments knowing that these particular parcels were reserved as non-developement lots, just to have that changed over night.

  3. whompa says:

    do this man ever think about the people that living in the developments. i am sure that when they bought there it was an understanding that a area would left for recreation. what the goverment should do if they had any respect for the little people is that they should make sure that every developer prepare the land for recreation  the children will have some where to play and have thier picnics    all of you people now see what the premier thinks about you all. last may he was the one who look out for the small people. i for one has stop looking to you mac you really DISAPPOINT me.   i am sorry i cannot take back my vote from the UDP. i hope you all do not come back to my house next election

    • anonymous says:



      Something don’t look right in this picture, and suspicious I must say, indeed suspicious !


      How about that?

      It’s time government allow Caymanians to lease unused government property  and lands up to 100 or 150 years. It can be done. THEY CAN PAY A SMALL NOMINAL FEE TO USE THE PROPERTY, for business or residential. Why should foreigners benefit from tax payers government land while the native suffer living like peasants? Big Mac this is going just too far. Why does every move this man make it is always on behalf of foreigners?

      He has obviously made a decision to exclude Caymanians from enjoying the Cayman Dream of prosperity and he and his friends along is to enjoy it. Its time for him to be ousted. Bring the petition, get it signed

      Its time to help people. and not your friends. if investors have millions, OF DOLLARS  then why in heaven’s name does Mckeeva Bush need to give them property for?

      THIS IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT WITH A PAIR OF BINOCULARS! you may see something moving  in the distance !!!

      I’ll tell you what it is it’s our future inheritance running away from us at lightening speed ! 


  4. PaperCaymanian says:

    More loopholes and poorly thought out decisions.I suppose in a few months we will see his Premeirness or close personal ally build something on a piece of LPP land.


    Always love your country…never trust your government.

  5. Wha Ya Say says:

    To say the Regulations have been changed because a number of these properties have become "havens for rodents and illegal activity" is a very poor excuse.

    There are a number of ways that LPP could be dealt with by the CPA to ensue that the community/devlopment benefited from the use of these properties as the law intended.

    Further, this decision appears to give no consideration to the people who bought into a development thinking that land had been designated for the benefit of the community, only to find it can now be built on.  In addition to the fee payable to Government, the developer should at the very least, have to obtain the consent of the land owners in the development.

    As a show of good faith, the Premier should put these funds into the Environmental Protection Fund thereby ensuring that they will be used for parks or similar projects.

  6. GR says:

     So the government is now removing the "green areas" in our neighbourhoods?  Surely a better response would have been to tighten the rulesregarding LPPs and the enforcement thereof rather than going after the dollars?  Obviously our well-being doesn’t matter.

  7. durrrr says:

    if the fee is equal to the value of the land, there won’t be a single developer who will utilize the amendment. what would be the point if you have to pay the full purchase price over to the Government?


    Change it to half, and I’m sure there would be a stamped of developers happy to get something for nothing

  8. Jab-Jab says:

    But the right of way is to the benefit of some other piece of land, not the land owner, so it isn’t ‘their’ right of way so how can they declare it their LPP much less then sell it to the Government?