After the Progressives (PPM) government getting a 10 out of 10 assessment for being the first Cayman government to recognise the need for a National Conservation Bill and passing one, even though a very much watered down version from the original, it has not been passed into law and I doubt it will for some time.

I will go further, it is my opinion the government will delay its implementation until just before the next election or even worse, it will end up on the top of Mount Trashmore Dump.

If and when the bill ever gets passed I believe it will be after various projects get the green light that otherwise would have been given either an amber or even a red one if the bill has been in place.

Yes, we badly need investment, but it cannot be at the ruination of our beautiful Cayman Islands by this shortsighted and blinkered mentality that the protection of the environment cannot work together with development.

It works well in other Caribbean countries, and iNews Cayman has published many examples of this happening in the Bahamas, and I had hoped this country could learn a lesson or two from them.

Now to read this morning from a CNS article entitled “CPA blocked eco-meeting” (go to: http://www.caymannewsservice.com/science-and-nature/2014/03/24/cpa-blocked-eco-meeting to read the whole story) I am almost at despair.

The article starts:

“The Central Planning Authority issued an order to planning officials not to attend an Environmental Assessment Board meeting with the DoE regarding applications made by developers from the proposed Ironwood project in Frank Sound, last year. This proposed $360million development doesn’t have planning permission but 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. The DoE called for planning staff and other relevant public officials to convene an EAB to discuss the potential size of the project and its impact but the CPA ordered planning 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 meeting reveal that the CPA believed that an environmental assessment board would undermine the planning process and despite the evidence before it that the project was growing and growing it said there was no need for an EAB as it had no standing and the authority didn’t 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 as, 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 in very close proximity to the Queen Elizabeth Botanic Park. However having managed to get permission piecemeal it was the DoE which raised their concern 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 threat posed. The DoE recommended a Planned area development or (PAD) application be made which was ignored by the CPA.”

I believe this to bet appalling. However, there is an anonymous comment giving an opposite viewpoint, is well written even if one doesn’t agree, and I feel I should air it too [I hope CNS don’t send me a rude note]:

“Why not try an unbiased approach to reporting anything that relates to the CPA process or the DoE? Better yet, please try to get some proper advice on the planning process that exists under the Development and Planning Law and local case law, as well as the basic fundamental rules of administrative law that apply to such proceedings under common law across the Commonwealth. Once you do, you will realize that as much as one might want to “do the right thing” and jump on the DoE bandwagon (since, after all, they are the good guys, eh?), there is an established legitimate process for dealing with planning applications that actually prevents the CPA from being unduly influenced by any external entity (see Ebanks vs. the Central Planning Authority as reported in the Cayman Islands Law Reports) in their function as a quasi-judicial decision maker. The CPA is taking the appropriate course here, otherwise any decision it makes would appear to be influenced or prejudiced by the usual rhetoric that would no doubt issue from this so called Eco-meeting. After all, the case law says that the rule against bias is not about whether there is actual bias, but whether there is the appearance of bias.

“In fact, accusing the CPA of impropriety here would be, by analogy, similar to accusing a Judge of impropriety for not attending a meeting of some of the witnesses of an upcoming trial that he would preside over.

“It’s bad enough that we seem to already have a society that doesn’t care about legal process, but we definitely don’t need the media misinforming the public about what obtains at Law with regards to such proceedings.”

So, the law is saying, according to the anonymous writer, that the CPA must not be influenced by hearing all the facts in relation to a project. They must block their ears, must not read, listen nor watch any television programmes  that mention any project the CPA members have before them.It matters not that they do not get to hear all the facts  even though their decisions effect thousands of other lives for many years to come, because they could “appear to be influenced or prejudiced by the usual rhetoric that would no doubt issue from …. Eco-meeting[s]”.

Mr. Anonymous would appear to be supporting the CPA already and thus does not want to hear from the other side in case if he does he could be influenced the other way. “I only want to hear facts that support my view”. If I believe the world is flat do NOT supply evidence that might sway me to believe the world is round!

If that is the law, as he says, then none of us can hear any opposing views from what has been put in front of us. We should make our mind up based on what we initially see and read and supplied by the “unbiased” opinions from the developer only. Any ‘facts’ or ‘views’  provided by outsiders who will be affected by our decision must not be heard as it may influence our first decision to change it to an opposite one.

Balderdash. And I am being polite.

The reason, in my opinion, why  the CPA issued an order to its members not to attend the EAB meeting is that somebody [or persons] had other agendas. This included doing everything possible he or she could do to obtain planning permission for a major project. To hell to any consequences that decision might be to the environment that the rest of us have to live in.

“It doesn’t matter that our decisions affect future generations. I won’t be around then,” is the damaging philosophy.

With the PPM government openly endorsing the Ironwood project, albeit stating the developer will be required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA], I can see no haste in the adoption of the Conservation Law. It would appear to me the EIA is just paying lip service. The deal is already done no matter what the EIA says and hang the consequences.

I sincerely hope I am proved wrong

I could say more but then I might end up on the dump with the Conservation Bill.