In a Memorandum from Gina Ebanks-Petrie dated 24^th July 2012 to Colleen Stoetzel, Director of Planning, a Freedom of Information Request from CNS has highlighted the developments planned by Eagle Assets Investments Ltd.

These planned developments are encircling the Cayman Islands Botanic Park, one of the top tourist attractions, and has prompted a warning from Ms Ebanks-Petrie.

Eagle Assets’ latest planning application is for a golf course backing onto the Botanic Park and is under consideration by the Central Planning Authority (CPA).

In her Memorandum Ebanks-Petrie says:

Unlike other natural attractions in the Islands (such as the Mastic Trail), the Botanic Park boasts full access provision, facilitating access to the natural environment for elderly and disabled members of the resident population (and visitors)- individuals would not otherwise be able to enjoy such features.

She says, “with the advent of the completion of the new school and numerous other large subdivisions establishing in the area, it is envisaged that this area of Grand Cayman will be subject to prolific development in the next few years. It would be expected that such developments would place increased pressure on the Park, both in the form of demand from the visiting public (as the Park becomes more

accessible), and also as other natural and semi-natural areas become more scarce.

“From an ecological perspective, small areas, especially those which are long and thin in shape, are subject to the most severe edge effects (wind damage, ingress of invasive species, shade and light exposure, microclimate etc.). The cleverly designed system of winding trails which extend through the Park combine with the undeveloped land beyond its boundaries to contribute to its great feeling of size. In fact, the Park extends to just 60 acres in total area, and this is in the form of an elongate parcel. Were the vegetation bordering the Park to be removed, the Park would become highly susceptible to edge effects.

“The northern parcel (and, to a lesser extent, the southern), is land occupied by individuals from the free-roaming population of Blue Iguanas which originates from the Park. Removal of this habitat would directly impact this population. The introduction  of roadways (and associated cars) and domestic pets (particularly cats and dogs) would make this area effectively uninhabitable for the iguanas.

“Of greater concern would be the ingress of cats and dogs into the (currently unfenced) Botanic Park. The problems caused to the Blue Iguana Recovery Programme by previous incidents involving dogs accessing the Park are well documented. Were the land immediately bordering the Park to be developed for residential housing, it would likely need to be fenced (at great financial cost and aesthetic impact). Alternatively, the free-roaming iguanas would need to be translocated from the Park, removing from the Park one if its most significant and famous visitor attractions.

“From an ecological perspective, the Department of Environment regards that development of the land immediately adjacent to the Park for residential purposes is highly undesirable. Other uses, such as agricultural, would likely be much less impactful on the aesthetic features and ecological value of the Park.”

Ebanks-Petrie recommends, “as a preferred plan of action, that the Environmental Protection Fund be used to purchase both of the parcels proposed for subdivision, in their entirety. In addition, thought should be given to purchasing similar lands immediately bordering the Park, in order that the critical elements of ecological integrity and natural attractiveness be maintained in the attraction, and so to better serve the growing population in future years.

“If insufficient funds are available to purchase all the land proposed for subdivision, priority should be given to purchasing the northern parcel, which would effectively extend the northern boundary of the Park to the eastern boundary of 58A100 (a parcel owned by the Water Authority and which remains largely undeveloped – effectively constituting a pre-established buffer area, and so presenting an additional gain for the integrity of the Park). If insufficient funds are available to purchase all the land proposed for subdivision, secondary priority should be given to the parcel to the south of the road, with priority given to the most easterly portions, nearest to the entranceway to the Park.

“If no funding is to be made available to expand the Park, strict covenants regarding internal road design and speed limits, minimum areas for maintenance of existing native vegetation and landscaping with native trees, combined with a complete ban on domestic cats and dogs, along with covenants on the maximum height of buildings (in order that they would not exceed the tree line), would be required to reduce the impact of associated developments on the Blue Iguanas and other elements of ecological interest at the Park. However, given human nature and the problems with enforceability of such covenants,  the DoE regards that for this measure to have any significant benefit it would likely be required that the Park would need to be fenced to ensure the protection of animals within the Park boundary, and that any associated costs should be borne in some measure by the developer.”

To view the whole Memorandum go to: