(CNS): The Central Planning Authority is due to hear an application for another major subdivision on pristine habitat in East End today, Wednesday, but the Department of Environment has called for a review of whether it’s needed. The DoE said that in the absence of an updated development plan and the necessary “strategic framework for new development, particularly large-scale proposals”, it “strongly recommends” that before determining this application, “a comprehensive review of the ‘need’ for the subdivision of more parcels in the area is undertaken”.
A growing number of applications in the largely undeveloped areas of East End and North Side are increasingly encroaching on the Salina Reserve and the Colliers Reserve, where the critically endangered blue iguana is clinging to survival.
Residents, as well as the DoE, are concerned that Cayman will soon lose its dwindling, unique primary dry forest and shrubland habitat, which is not just home to the iconic iguana but a host of other indigenous and endemic flora. This ancient landscape is in severe decline and its continued development is having a knock-on impact on the bio-diversity of Grand Cayman.
This latest application is for a 64-lot subdivision on 34 acres of land off the Queen’s Highway that is very close to the Salina Reserve. Experts believe it is very likely that the blues are also present on this land. Subdivisions in primary habitat like this pose two main threats to the recovering iguanas: the loss of the reptile’s primary habitat and the installation of roads. The latter is the primary human-associated threat to blue iguanas because of the number killed by vehicles unable to react in time.
“As they recover from the brink of extinction, reproduce, and seek to establish territory, the urbanization of valuable primary habitat continues to be a concern for the future of our wild population that relies on this habitat to forage, shelter, and nest,” the DoE said in its submissions to the CPA.
Although this site is partially man-modified, much of it is untouched natural habitat, including mangrove forests and the much drier woodland and shrub habitat. Given the potential loss of these important natural resources, the DoE said the impact of a further residential subdivision on existing infrastructure and the environment should be properly considered and evaluated. The DoE added that there are serious environmental consequences from the continued approval of large-scale subdivisions similar to this.
The construction of the roads creates a direct loss of habitat as well as habitat fragmentation by clearing and filling. This is a key driver of biodiversity loss because it makes natural areas smaller and more isolated from each other. In addition, roads provide easier access for invasive species such as rats, cats and dogs and attract fly-tippers, who dump waste off secluded roads.
The DoE explained that there are also ‘edge effects’, which occur when the area directly next to a road is degraded, creating barriers to species movement between fragments of habitat, changes to the community composition and changes to aspects such as climate, sunlight, nutrients, and microclimate.
As the department has noted on many occasions in its advice and recommendations to the CPA, which continues to be ignored, there are subdivisions that were cleared and filled over 30 years ago but have never been developed. This results in biodiversity loss, proliferation of invasive species and habitat fragmentation with no social or economic benefit to offset it.
“If there is no intention to develop these lots, then there is no social benefit or improved living environment for the people of North Side to set against the environmental harm from habitat fragmentation and loss, as well as the resource implications that result from the construction of roads and development of infrastructure for the subdivision,” the DoE warned.
Offering direct advice to the applicant, the DoE said if the CPA grants permission, the land should not be cleared until the development of individual lots is imminent after each one has gone through the planning permission process to allow those buyers to retain as much native vegetation as possible.
“Clearing the entire site prematurely removes the choice from the individual lot owners and removes the value the habitat could provide… between the preparation of a subdivision and the development of an individual lot,” the DoE stated. “Primary habitat and native vegetation can be retained and used in a variety of ways on a property,” the experts added.
Native vegetation can be used as parcel boundaries and between buildings to serve as privacy, noise and sound buffers and screening. It can be incorporated as low-maintenance and low-cost landscaping, as native plants are best suited for the site’s conditions, including the temperature and amount of rainfall.
The natural landscape can serve as an amenity, providing green space and shade for those who live nearby or on the property, as well as a habitat for endemic wildlife such as anoles, birds and butterflies. This habitat helps to contribute to the conservation of our local species.
It can assist with drainage, directly by breaking the momentum of rain, anchoring soil, and taking up water and indirectly by keeping the existing grade and permeable surfaces. It can help reduce carbon emissions by leaving the habitat to act as a carbon sink and allowing natural processes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Destroying native vegetation releases carbon stored in the plant material, soil and peat.
“When located in an area of wider primary habitat, wildlife corridors can be created connecting areas of a habitat that would have otherwise been isolated through development, allowing for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations,” the DoE said.
There are also naturally occurring freshwater ponds on this particular site and mangroves, which, if retained, can assist with drainage, as the developers will need to manage run-off to prevent the flooding of adjacent properties.
The DoE has made a number of recommendations. However, despite the continued attacks on the director, the department and the National Conservation Council, it does not have the power to direct the CPA in relation to any of its recommendations. Despite the importance and scarcity of the habitat, as well as its proximity to the iguana reserve, the land in question is not a protected habitat.
See Wednesday’s CPA Agenda here.