Conservation Council Members Support Legal Action Against Boggy Sand Dike
In its first meeting since seeking judicial review to stop plans to replace a controversial sea wall and shack on Boggy Sand Road in West Bay, members of the National Conservation Council endorsed the decision to initiate a lawsuit.
The Department of the Environment, using authority delegated to it by the National Conservation Council, had ordered the Central Planning Authority to reject the planning request, due to the expected negative impact on Seven Mile Beach and Marine Park Protected, but the CPA approved this in September nonetheless.
Environment Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie said the council, at a task force meeting earlier this month, decided to go ahead with the judicial review application because that “there was a delay” involved. Wednesday, during a general meeting of the council, the members were invited to ratify this decision “by excess of caution”.
After the council filed its application for judicial review, Judge Margaret Ramsay-Hale agreed to temporarily suspend the building permit for the redevelopment, pending the outcome of legal proceedings between the council and the Central Planning Authority. . The judge has given instructions to have the case set up for a hearing early next year.
The National Conservation Council also appealed the decision to the Planning Appeal Tribunal as “a remedy in case the judicial review has concluded that the proper procedure is to appeal the planning,” said Ebanks-Petrie.
Cayman Property Investments Limited is seeking to demolish an existing dike, as well as a one-story hut, along Boggy Sand Road, as the dike structure is damaged and failing, and replace it with a new dike and hut. two floors.
The current dike, and the one that the developers propose to replace it, has no setback from the sea and juts out on the other side of the beach. The Ministry of the Environment argued that the original wall, built by the former owners of the property in 2009, should not have received a building permit in the first place, and that allow “further development on it. problematic site ”was futile and detrimental to its marine environment. surroundings.
The APC explained, in the minutes of the September 1 meeting in which the building permit was granted, that it was “satisfied that it is not in possession of a legal directive issued under section 41 (5) of the National Conservation Act, by the National Conservation Council ordering the Authority to refuse the building permit ”.
How do you feel after reading this?