Plans to restore the beach in front of the Grand Cayman Marriott Resort moved a step forward this week.
The National Conservation Council voted that the project will not require an environmental impact assessment because the likely effects of the plans are already well known to the Department of Environment.
The next step is for the DoE, in consultation with the council, to make a recommendation to Cabinet, which has the final decision on whether the project can proceed.
The Marriott ownership submitted an application in January for a “coastal protection and beach enhancement project”.
They propose to deposit up to 8,000 cubic yards of fresh sand on a 60-foot stretch of shoreline in front of the hotel.
Low-profile ‘shoreline stabilisation structures’, buried under the sand and below the mean high water mark, are proposed to help the sand from being swept away in future storms.
The Marriott has become a poster child for the erosion issues on southern Seven Mile. The resort was recently forced to drop ‘beach’ from its name after losing all of its sand in a succession of storms.
During a special meeting of the new National Conservation Council on Wednesday, members were assured the project would not impact broader plans for a wider solution to the loss of almost prime beach front on that stretch of Seven Mile.
DoE Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie’s “strong recommendation” was that the erosion issues be addressed on “the largest scale possible”.
Various possible approaches have been discussed, including a national beach replenishment programme with the aim of restoring sand to the shoreline all the way from the Sovereign condominiums to Tamarind Bay. But the commitment of significant government funds to the issue means a complex and perhaps lengthy procurement process would be required.
Marriott needs a solution
Ebanks-Petrie said the Marriott application was for a smaller project specifically in front of its own property. She said it involved low-profile groyne structures and the project could be “subsumed” into a larger project if and when that happens, she said.
But she acknowledged the Marriott needed a solution quickly.
She re-iterated the DoE’s preference for a “regional” solution for the entire stretch of eroded beach but acknowledged this was a wider government decision and could take some time to come to fruition.
“The issue we’ve got is the timelines for the Marriott, from a commercial perspective, and what the government is able to do in terms of timelines for getting all of the approvals that are needed [for a larger project],” she said.
Council member Walling Whittaker raised concerns that other property owners would want to do similar projects and suggested a “macro solution” rather than a “piecemeal” approach.
Ebanks-Petrie indicated that the Marriott project could actually serve as a useful pilot and provide lessons as government seeks to address the larger issue.
“We are due to brief the current government shortly on the wider project. Our feeling is that standalone project is not incompatible with the wider project,” she said.
It was open to the council to request an environmental impact assessment before making a recommendation on the application. But Lauren Dombowsky, of the DoE’s environmental management unit, said much of the information needed was already in the Marriott’s application or was well known to the department because of its own research on the issue.
The decision does not mean the project is approved as yet, she emphasised, with the final decision lying with Cabinet.
Managed retreat
Ebanks-Petrie said that while the DoE is backing beach replenishment, it also wants to see more considered coastal development and ‘managed retreat’ in future.
She accepted that would be a lengthy process that happens over time as older buildings are replaced. In the case of the Royal Palms beach bar, she said there had been some ‘retreat’ there already with the damaged structures at the water’s edge being demolished.
“I don’t think the whole question of managed retreat has gone away. Where people are redeveloping a site, for example, and they have the room to move back, then we strongly recommend that,” she said.
Richard Mileham, the planning department’s co-ordinator on the long-awaited update to the development plan, said a review of coastal setbacks would be part of that process.
