UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Facing the future: the function of planning in the Cayman Islands Ebanks, Carson K. 1994

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_1994-0388.pdf [ 1.77MB ]
JSON: 1.0099122.json
JSON-LD: 1.0099122+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0099122.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0099122+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0099122+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0099122+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0099122 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

FACING THE FUTURE:THE FUNCTION OF PLANNING IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDSByCarson K. EbanksBES (Hons.), The University of Waterloo, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSINTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(The School of Community and Regional Planning)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1994© Carson K. Ebanks, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_____________Dpafment of (_Or’7rtLj,oJIiThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateLAJ(D(DE-6 (2188)ABSTRACTThe Cayman Islands, since 1 935 have,in one form oranother, had planning laws onits legislative roster. Over timethere have been modifications to these planning initiatives.Duringthe course of modification varying degreesof conflict have occurred. Usually it hasbeen expressed as political dissatisfaction.Despite this there has been an implicitrecognition that planning is a necessaryand therefore enduring activity.The degree and kind of planningthat is both culturallyacceptable and contextuallyappropriate has yet to be fullyarticulated. Impediments to thisarticulation are multifacetedand include:legislated proceduresfor publicdebateon the planningfunction,thecultural contextwhere land ownership (and therefore use)is perceived as a basic right, previousattempts at rational comprehensive planningthat were both substantively andprocedurally inappropriate, a general confusion betweendevelopment control andland use planning, an historical confusion between capitalworks programmes anddevelopment planning.As a result, a national vision of what the islandsshould aspire to in a spatial or land usecontext has failed to emerge. Additionally, anappropriate method of planningas a processremains largely undeveloped. Incrementalism hascome to be accepted as the preferredform of planning. Its flexibility is its most admirablequality, but one which also preventsit from articulating a long term strategy. Incrementalismand a subjective method ofproposing planning initiatives have led to instances whereeither the results ofthe plans areat odds with their intentions, or theinitiatives have failed to be accepted.Public participation in the planning process is a means throughwhich consensus onan appropriate spatial form can be expressed.In keeping with an incremental approachelectoral districts should, through politicalmeans, determinethe most appropriate methodsof public input. A growingawareness ofplanningand expanded functions of the planningdepartment, an increasing sophistication of theisland society and an increased awarenessof ecological processes in business circlesoffer reasons for optimism on the future ofplanning in the Cayman Islands context. A collaborativeplanning approach is best suitedto determine an appropriate planning function,through correct timing, clear problemidentification, and an articulation of the community’scollective aspirations.TABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACTiiTABLE OF CONTENTSIIILIST OF FIGURESvLIST OF TABLESViACKNOWLEDGEMENTSVIIA NORMATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORKIntroductionPublic Participation2.1.1 Public Participation Defined2.1.2 Conditions under which participation can occur2.1.3 Models of public participation2.2 Theoretical and Pragmatic Considerationsin Planning For Islands .2.3 Normative Criteria For Land usePlanning3. 1: INTRODUCTION11.0 Introduction11 .1 Purpose of the Thesis11.2 Context1.3 Methodology1 .4 Organization/Structureof the ThesisCHAPTER 2:2.02.1CHAPTER 3:2681111121214141821AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PLANNINGAND DEVELOPMENTINITIATIVES FROM 1935 TO 1975IntroductionThe Regional Planning Law (Law 11 of 1 934)The 1947 Development PlanThe Land Development (Interim Control) Law 1 969The Land Development (Interim Control) Regulations1 970The Development and Planning Law, 1971 and Regulations, 1972The Proposed Development Plan, 19753.7.1 DescriptionPLANNINGINITIATIVES1977TO 1989Physical PlanningRoad PlanningHurricane Preparedness PlanningCHAPTER 4: OF CONTENTS, ContinuedPageCHAPTER 5: THE ADEQUACY OF PHYSICAL PLANNING 745.1 The Institutional Ability to Identify Problems 745.2 The Protective Function of the Institutions 765.3 APluralityofViews 775.4 Mechanisms for Conflict Resolution 795.5 Cultural Acceptability And Contextual Appropriateness 815.6 Implementation And Monitoring 83CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 856.1 Creating A Vision - Planning As Process 866.2 Creating a Vision - Planning As Products 886.3 Conclusions 916.4 Implications 92BIBLIOGRAPHY 97ivliST OF FIGURESPageFigure 1 Models of Citizen Participation (SandercocksTypologies on Arnstein’sLadder of Citizen Participation)1 7Figure 2 Public Opposition to the 1 975 Development Plan56Figure 3 Public Acceptance of the 1 977 DevelopmentPlan 61Figure 4 Hurricane Evacuation Zones andShelters, Grand Cayman 70VLIST OF TABLESPageTable 1 Characteristics of Shelters72viACKNOWIEDGEMENTSMany people have, throughvarious means, helped to make this work possible. Iwish to express mygratitudetothem and offer my sincereapologies to anyone inadvertentlyoverlooked. To Linda, Kay, Joy,JonathanJ.,Judy, Caroline and Denis for logistical support.To the staff of the Planning Dept. for effort and discussions.To the Cayman IslandsGovernment for opportunity and financial support.To the staff and faculty of the Schoolof Communityand Regional Planningfor intellectual stimulationand friendship. To Donaldfor discussions and solitude. To my mother, Rubyfor continuous encouragement. Andfinallyto mywifeSue and childrenJonathan, Leah,Erin andJessica, for unwaveringsupport,unbelievable patience and, love.I am deeply grateful.vii1CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1.0 Introduction1.1 Purpose of the ThesisThe purpose of this thesis is to define, in conceptualand pragmatic terms, the mostappropriate and acceptable processes and organizationsfor planning for a group of smallislands that are largely economically dependenton international/offshore finance andtourism. In this regard this thesis attempts to respond tothe following questions:a)What are the most contextually appropriate and culturallyacceptable organizationsand processes through which physical planning goalscan be accommodated (i.e.articulated, debated, decided upon, implemented, monitoredand revised iteratively)?b) Can aset of criteria be identified which should be used in developing these goals?c) Given (b), arethere physical goals which decision makers should seek to achieve forthe Islands?In order to determine the above it is necessary to evaluate the existingplanninginstitutions and initiatives in light of the question “Have they (the existing institutionsandinitiatives) evolved sufficientlyin nature, and scopeand in a timely manner, to satisfactorilyaddress the planning concerns perceived and experienced by the rapidly evolvingislandsociety? To this end evaluative criteriaare outlined in Chapter 2. In this thesis, institutionsare defined as legitimate agencies and organizations primarily, but not necessarilygovernmental in origin whose mandate (in whole or part) is to influenceplanningprocedurally or substantively. Such agencies include theCentral Planning Authority, theDevelopment Control Board, theNational Trust of the Cayman Islands, the Chamber ofCommerce, and the National Planning Committee. Initiatives are defined asactions thathave attempted to inject meaningful change inthe manner in which planning is perceived2or practiced. As is the case with the institutions, initiatives are likely to be primarilygovernmental in origin, i.e., have been brought aboutthrough policy or legislativeprocesses. However, the impetusfor change may or may not have originated from thegovernmentadministration. Indeed, oneaspectofthis study is an attemptto determine howchanges in the planning function have occurred and against normative criteria, toevaluatethe appropriateness and acceptability of the mannerin which change has taken place (aswell as the changes themselves).1.2 ContextThe Cayman Islands are a British Dependent Territory locatedin the northwestCaribbean. These Islands are Grand Cayman, Cayman BracandLittle Cayman. In total theyencompass 102 square miles (263 square km.) and in 1989 supported anestimatedpopulation of 26,500.Unlike many other Caribbean Islands, the Caymans arenot endowed with deep,fertile soils, abundant fresh water, spectacular mountain views,nor exotic tropical rainforests. On the contrary, they have been described as “flat,scrubby, and thoroughlyAmericanized above water...” (Equinox Travels, 1987, p.24).This descriptivecharacterizationdoes not dojustice to the sheer variety, the integrityof physical land forms,or their intricate aesthetic qualities. However, the publication does goon to say that theislands have been blessed with underwater natural wonders thatrank with the best in theCaribbean. In addition the primary hotel zone is described as“... nearly six miles ofunbroken, uncrowded sand, the colour and textureof fine baker’s sugar (which) form(s) asweepingcrescentthatembraces someofthecalmestclearestwaters in theCaribbean” (ibid,p.34).3Poetic licence aside, it is these natural resources, (includingthose notacknowledgedin this particular publication), a stable political system, aggressive marketing,and theprovision ofhigh qualityservices and facilitiesthat haveenabledtheCaymans to realizeandsustain an enviable economic reality. For example per capita gross domestic product(G.D.P.) estimated at US$2851.00in 1970 had soared to an estimated US$18,200.00 by1988 (C.I Government, 1988, p.8; Chamber of Commerce,1989, p.34). Notwithstandingthe fact that G.D.P. is a notoriously inappropriateindicator of economic well being withina society, one must acknowledgethat to have made such gains in 18 years suggests ahealthy economy. Historic data suggest that demographic changein the Cayman Islands isdirectly related to the level of economic opportunity. This may beindicated here byresident population and tourist arrivals statistics. Bothof these sets of figures have risenrapidly over the years as well; in 1960 the resident population being 8,511 with a1963tourist arrivals figure of 3,440. By 1989 and 1988 these numbers had jumped to 26,500residents and 219,000 tourists. Against this backdropof escalating numbers recent localpublications, (both ofthegovernmentand some elements in the privatesector) have echoedwide-spread misgivings and uncertainties about the consequences ofcontinuous rapidgrowth. A recent government document stated for instance,that:In this regard, and amid increasing expression of concern at the pace andscale of development, Government was pre-occupied with the preparationof arevised Development Plan and new regulations as the centre piece of economicstability (C.I. government, 1988a, p.25).Similar concerns are to be found in planning andhistorical literature for the islandsboth in the 1 970s and 1 980s. W.M. Hamilton, the first Director ofPlanningstated in 1970“We don’t want to swamp the Islands with peopleand destroy their character, the key tomaintaining good development is controlledgrowth” (quoted in Williams, 1970, p.90).4Despite a long standing recognition by technical expertsofthe need for a rigorous physicalplanning function it seems that limited planning action has takenplace. The 1 988 annualreport puts it succinctly “While public debate continued as tothe desirability, practicality,and wisdom of imposing restrainton development, the economy continued to set its ownpace. keepingtheconstructionindustryat full stretch” (Cayman Islands Government, 1988,p.37; emphasis added).Although theCayman Islands had accepted theneed for planning in a legal sense (inthe form of a regional planning law) since 1935,planning as an organized governmentactivity generated little controversy, perhaps because it receivedminimal attention until1969. The government of the day seemingly wereconcerned with a surge of economicactivity such as the islands had not previouslyexperienced. Interim regulations proposedat that time had the effectof stimulating a protest march, emergency meetings of theLegislative Assembly, armed policemenbeing posted at the George Town town hall, andeven the arrival of a British Navy ship in GeorgeTown harbour (Hannerz, 1974, p.165).Despite these tensions, there wereno violent incidents, the protest ended peacefully, andthe regulations were modified, then withdrawnin 1970, despite having been preceded bythe Land Development (Interim Control) Law in 1969 (Hannerz,1974, p.l66).These were replaced by the Development andPlanning Law (1971) andaccompanying regulations in 1 972. These initiativescalled for the preparation of aDevelopment Plan, and after extensiveand prolonged preparation the proposeddevelopment plan of 1975 was presented publicly.It proved to be too controversial innature and process and prompted two public protestmarches, one in 1975 and another in1 976, following a number of highly chargedpublic meetings. In accordance with the5provisions ofthe law, an intensiveobjection andrepresentation period,and appeals processensued and the plan was withdrawn.New Developmentand Planning Regulations wereapproved in 1977 in conjunctionwith a vastly modified development Plan, thisbeingdeemed “the firstdevelopment plan forthe Cayman Islands.” During 1978the Developmentand Planning Law (Revised) replacedthe 1 971 Law. Except for primarily minoramendments, this Law, theattendant Regulationsand the Development Plan (1 977) are currently applicable.Administratively, the planning function, comprehensively defined,is split betweena number ofgovernmentagencies.The MinistryofCommunity Development, Sports, YouthAffairs and Culture is responsible for communitydevelopment,low cost housing, sports andplaying fields, sewage and water. The Portfolio of Financeand Development is empoweredto undertake national development planning, andis also responsible for compilation andproduction of statistics. Immigration falls underthe jurisdiction of the Portfolio of Internaland External Affairs. Construction, dredging,fisheries, forestry, game and bird sanctuaries,parks and gardens, environmentand natural resources, townand countryplanning(the heartof physical planning) and tourism are administered under theMinistry of Tourism,Environment and Planning. While lands, agriculture, publicutilities, and roads are theresponsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Communicationand Works. Clearly theplanning function, which is by nature extensiveand multi-faceted, is relatively fragmentedwithin the administration. In this context, inter-governmentalrelations regarding the coordination of the various planning activitieslikely increases the complexity of andconstraints on both sectoral and land use planning. Becauseof its historically highpropensity for generating political controversyand divisiveness (via perceived land use6conflicts) regarding the development and control of land use, physicalplanning is likely tobe further constrained in itsapplication, evolution and effectiveness.It is within this context, and in light of expressed uncertainties concerningthe valueof “uncontrolled growth/development” that this thesisis written. It is hoped that this workwill prove helpful in understanding presentandfuture planningconcerns by providing bothan historical analysis of, and a normative yet pragmatic prescriptionfor the developmentofPlanning initiatives for the Cayman Islands.1.3 MethodologyThis thesis seeks to determine - in both theoreticaland pragmatic terms - the mostappropriatetoolsand processes throughwhichanacceptableand effectiveplanningfunctioncan best be accommodated in the Cayman Islands.Planning has existed as a legitimate government sanctioned activityfor fifty-nineyears. Given that planning laws, regulations, studies, planninginstitutions and otherassociated agenciesand laws have beenrevised and progressively become more prolificandextensive throughoutthe years, it appears that Caymanianshave accepted in principle, thatthere is a role for planning. Administrativemechanisms have also been progressivelyexpanded and reorganized to providefor its legal application.Thus it can be argued that planning has been, is, andwill continueto be viewed bythe Caymanian society as a necessary,and therefore enduring, activity. The primarytheoretical consideration of this thesis however,is that the degree and kind of planningwhich is both culturally acceptable and contextuallyappropriate has yet to be fullyarticulated. It is being suggested, therefore, thatas a direct result, the emergence of a7national vision of what the Cayman Islandsshould aspire towards in a spatial or land usecontext has not yet emerged.To determinewhyand to whatextentthese failureshave occurred and persisted, thevarious Planning initiatives and institutions are analysedwithin the framework of six basicnormative criteria, namely:1) The institutionalorganizations should have the ability to clearly identifyproblems.2) Planning institutions that protectthe islands against negative externalitiesandpromote a healthy society should exist.3) Aplanningprocess whichgenerates useful informationand respectsa pluralityof views should exist.4) Mechanisms and organizations that provide for conflictresolution regardingphysical planning actions in light of social, political, environmentalandeconomic objectives should exist.5)A planning process that is both culturally and otherwisecontextuallyappropriate should exist.6) Effective implementation,includingsequencingand monitoring, should exist.Notwithstanding the above, it is realized that the process and products ofplanninghave historically been political in nature. Therefore a prerequisite of theplanningfunctionis that it must, to be effective, be politically acceptable.For this reason the administrativeapplication of the planning process or sequence deserves(and will be given) detailedconsideration. In light of concerns for ensuringconsideration of a plurality of views forcultural acceptability and, contextual propriety,fairly detailed consideration of processbecomes indispensable.In pragmatic terms, since the principal initiatives or instruments to implementlanduse planning (i.e. process andpractice) are the Development and Planning Law (R), the8Development and Planning Regulations (1977) and the Development Plan 1977, analysesof these documents are prominent in this study. Additionally, the function of theCentralPlanning Authority (CPA), the appointed statutory body responsible forapplying theseinstruments, is also analysed.The day to day administration of the Laws, Regulations, and the DevelopmentPlanare carried out by the Planning Dept. whose primary purpose is to enable theCPA toeffectively fulfill its statutoryobligations. Therefore, theactivities of this Land Use Planningofficearealso reviewed. Dataand information sourcesincludeCayman Islands GovernmentPublications, local journals and newspapers, literatureon planning theory, on tourismplanning, on planning for islands and the planning initiatives of othertourist destinationssuch as Bermuda and Hawaii.The broad multi-disciplinary thrust of the thesis represents a pragmatic approachtoreconcilingthe complexities of simultaneouslyaddressing land use policy making, land useplanning, and developmentcontrol underthe rubric of physical(spatial) planning in a smallisland setting.1.4 Organization/Structure ofthe ThesisThis thesis is divided into six chapters with each chapter further subdividedintosections. The organization of the thesisrepresents a logical sequence of discussion thatbegins with:1) Introduction.2) A NormativePlanning Framework.3) An HistoricalOverview of Development and Planning Initiatives 1 935 to1 975.94) Planning Initiatives 1 977 to 19895) The Adequacyof the Current Planning Function.6) Conclusions,Recommendations and Implications.Chapter 1 introduces the thesis and outlines its purpose, the context inwhich theanalyses take place, the methodology of study including suggested normativecriteria forplanning action to respect and, the basic structure andorganization of the paper.In Chapter 2, a Normative Framework is developed through which planninginitiatives can be analysed. Theoretical and pragmaticnormative considerations of publicparticipation in planningare examined as are theoretical and pragmatic aspectsof planningfor small islands.An historical overview of development and planning initiatives ispresented inchapter 3 from 1 935 to 1 975. It was also necessary to reexamineearly historical legalframeworks to properly understand the context in which these initiatives developed.1969to 1976 are the pivotal years in Land Use planninghistory when contentious publicdebateoccurred, regarding the process of modernizing the planning function.Each initiative isdescribed in terms of notable events that occurred,the forces shaping the society, theinstitutions involved and the planning gain either realized or attempted.Subsequently, in Chapter4, examples of Sectoral Planningare described. Thesectorexamined in detail is Physical Planning (DevelopmentControl and Land Use Planning).EmergencyPreparedness Planningand Road Planningarealso profiled, butextensivecriticalanalysis was not feasible within the confines of thisthesis.In keeping with the main thrust of this thesis, an elaboration of thediscussion inChapter 4 that has concentrated on determiningthe adequacy of the current land use10initiatives and functions, is undertaken in Chapter 5. Criteria developedin Chapter 2 havebeen augmented by supplementary inquiries. Previous evaluativework is also discussed.Relative to the findings of Chapter 5 and inlight ofthe theoretical/philosophical andpragmaticconsiderations ofChapter2, conclusions are drawn in chapter 6. Alternativesareoffered regardingthe articulation of desired futures, avoidingthe pitfalls of inadequacies inthe planning function and development of aconsensual national vision of both anappropriateplanningfunctionand a physical/spatialsetting. This includes recommendationsfor re-conceptualization of the planning function and initiativesin both conceptual/theoretical and pragmaticterms. Thethesisconcludes with a discussion on the implicationsof implementing such changes.11CHAPTER 2: A NORMATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK2.0 IntroductionA normative theory, or framework of planningis, at its most basic level, a statementof values and goals. It seeks to prescribe howthings OUGHT to be and to identify whatmethods of planning society shoulddevise to realize a desired state. To be pragmatic, anormativeframework for planningmustaddressimplementation strategies and programmesand recognize that each state, or stageof development is transitory (i.e., “a condition ofbecoming”) (Bolan 1 983, p.4). Thisbeing the case, the immediate questions that arise are:- Who ought to/should plan?- Who decides who ought to/should plan?, and- Howshould/oughtthe process of decidingtheabove be planned andimplementedby whom and to satisfy whatgoals?These basic questions suggest the need for acritical analysis of methods andprocesses of planningdesirablegoalsor futures and the routes or courses of action throughwhich they will be pursued. Such goals are atthe root of a normative planningframeworkand are aimed ataddressingthejuncture betweentheappropriateness, theeffectiveness, theefficiency, and the acceptabilityof planning both as a process and product. To lay thegroundwork for an analysis in the Cayman Islands’context it is necessary to address theissues of public participation, and theoretical andpragmatic considerations in planning forthe Islands. Thedevelopmentof normativecriteriafor land use (physical) planningcan thenbe put forward.Public participation must be addressed because itcan provide for a multiplicity, orplurality, of views to emerge and to becomearticulated in a way that is culturally12appropriate. During the course of this study it may bedetermined that, procedurally, themechanisms for public participation extantin the Cayman Islands have become dated.Indeed, these mechanisms may be identified asboth a cause (i.e. a contributory factor) fordisputes and, a legal method through whichconflict within the planning process may beresolved.The theoretical and pragmatic aspects of planning for Islands must beconsidered asit would not suffice merely to superimpose orpropose planning strategies normallyencountered in mainland areas. This is becauseislands demonstrate characteristicsthatarepeculiar to them such as insularity, or a scarcityof resources, or reduced diversityto namea few.Tourism in the Cayman Islands is what thelocals agree on as “a pillar of theeconomy.” This suggests thatwithoutsuch a pillarthe economywould collapse,orat leastbecome uncomfortably imbalanced. Becauseof tourism’s importance, any proposedplanning initiative, which ignoresits would have no chance of success. Thus, substantialconsideration of tourism is essential. Analysesof the above issues it is argued candemonstrate what the necessary normative criteria are toguide the planning function.2.1 Public Participation2.1.1 Public Participation DefinedPublic participation has been defined asthe involvement in the planning process of all the individuals, groups,interests,organizations and communities who might be affected byits outcome (Alexander,1986, p.105.)13The Skeffington Report (1969, p.1) echoes similar sentiments on what participationis and who “the public” is while stressing thatit isthe act of sharing in the formulation of policies and proposals ... participationinvolves action and discourse by the public throughout the plan making process.(emphasis added)Skeffingtona!(1969, p.1) contend that two limitations should be made:one is that responsibility for preparing a plan is, and must remain, thatof the localPlanning Authority. Another is that the completion of plans - the settingintostatutory form of proposals and decisions - is a task demandingthe higheststandardsof professional skill and must be undertaken by the professional staffof the localPlanning Authority.An equally broad based definitionwhich alsoacknowledgestheexistenceofstatutoryorganizational divisions of responsibility is:Participation in planning is a systematic processof mutual education and cooperation that provides an opportunity for those affected, their representatives,andtechnical specialists to work together to create a plan. (Connor, 1985,pp.1-3.)It has also been described as “a decision forming partnership, an exerciseincollaboration” (Fagence, 1 977, p.4). These definitions donot suggest whether or not thepartnership is one ofequality, between participants, norwhether it is designed to reach onlythose who actively participate in community/civic affairs.Neither do they suggest whetherparticipation should take the form of rigidly mandatedforums or informal contacts. It musthowever, to be effective, be able to resolve conflictgiven the inherently political nature ofplan making. The political volatility of planning initiatives that are characteristicof theCayman Islands (which will be elaborated on inChapters 3 and 4) indicate that furtherdevelopment of mechanisms for conflict resolutionare appropriate.Therefore, for the Cayman Islands, a normative and pragmatic definition ofpublicparticipation it is reasoned can be stated as: “An exercisein collaborative effort, education,14technical analyses and conflict resolution undertaken byrepresentatives, technicalspecialists, interested groups and communitiesto createand implement plans, and planningstrategies.” The above definition address:(1) the concept of knowledge as a transitorystate/process, (2) underscores the need for the developmentof consensus to be sought asboth process and product, evidentin planning initiatives, and (3) recognizes a multiplicityof actors in the process and their distinct roles.2.1.2 Conditions under which participation canoccurIssues 1-3 above assumethat there are certain conditions existing in society underwhich public participation in physicalplanning can occur. The first of these is that theconcept of a pluralityofviews is embraced in socio-politicalrelations. Government, in thisregard, can be viewed either as a balancerof power or as a neutral referee of sorts,regulating the competition of interests vying for a voicein the process of planning.Additionally, governmentalso may be seen to bebenefitting from the productof planning.Secondly, public participation tosome degree is assumed to be mandated inlegislation to endeavour to allow for fairand equitable treatment to all of those seeking toparticipate. Thirdly, there is assumed to beadequate financialand organizational resourcesavailable for the administering of public participation as anintegral part of the planningfunction. Another assumption, is that there isthe political will to accommodate publicparticipation. The fifth assumption is that there isan availability of technical expertise thatis cognizant of various models and processesof public participation in order to advise thepublic on reasons for and against the use of them.2.1.3 Models of public participationSandercock (in Sarkissian and Perlgut, 1986. pp.10-12)outlines five possible modelsof participation for consideration.Four of these are discussed namely, participation as:15market research, decision making, the dissolution of organized opposition and socialtherapy.Participation as market research gives overriding recognition tothe power andresponsibilityofthe civil/administrative bureaucracy(Sandercock, 1 986,p.10). Bureaucraticefficiency is the rationale for this approach, wherein members of the public areviewed asclients offering advice and suggestions on planningdetails but not on policy (Sandercock,1986, p.10).Direct participation or participation as decision making is based on aview of thepublic as rational policy makers. (Sandercock, 1986,p.10) states that underlying this view“are certain fundamental conceptions about men and societies - the reasonablenessof menand the natural harmony of their interests, an optimisticview of human nature that rejectsthe conservative proposition that people always act out of self interest.”Sexist languageaside, this is one of the more progressive views of public participation,especially since asSandercock (1986, p.lO) notes, it provides for “desirablepractical consequences andintrinsic worth in the development of human personality.”Another model of public participation is to view it as a means of dissolvingopposition. With a desirable proposal and, dependingon the nature of theopposition, thisin itself should not be viewed negatively. Insofar that it thwarts attempts atmeaningfulchange and/or is designed to present planning decisions as ‘technical’, rather thanbothtechnical and political, issues, its desirability is questionable.From a teleologicalperspective, it may bewelcomed if it achieves theend ofconsensus. But consensusthroughthis approach will likely be fragile and short lived.Finally, participation can be perceived as social therapy wherein the prime purposeis to carry out public projects in a relationshipakin to welfare programmes (Sandercock,161986 p.11). The Skeffington Report (1969, pp.34-36) outlines a number of meansthroughwhich public participation in various types of surveys ranging from estimating treeplantingneeds to determining urban design guidelines couldoccur. Sandercock (1986, p.11) notesthat this type of involvement is “on the boundary of participation asdecision making.” Itis also noted that such an approach is “pragmatically experimental andadaptable ... to findsmoother ways of adapting people to change.”Figure 1 depicts Sandercock’s models of participation, superimposed on Arnsteins’well known ladder of Citizen Participation. Where they are placedon the ladder isintuitively determined. Also, the broadening at the lower end of the ladder isintuitivelydetermined to reflectthe relative numbers in society (akin to a populationpyramid) thatarelikely to be engaged in the various types or methodsof participation. The main pointhowever, is to indicate that in a real-life setting these modelswill likely overlap.From the preceding discussion one can see that these models do not negateeachother in a functional sense. In a given situation all mayoperate simultaneously to satisfythe participation needs and abilities of various groups within a community.For example, public participation in a tree planting programme may simultaneouslysatisfy the a) market research needs; (e.g. what kindsoftrees, where, and why - are desiredby a community), b) decision making needs (e.g.additional programmes and or policieswhere further participation is desirable), c) dissolution of opposition (e.g. - from agroupopposed to land clearance), d) social therapy (e.g. planting,pruning etc. “to beautify thecommunity”).From a pragmatically just perspective there can be no one model or typeofparticipationthatwill beacceptableto a community atall times, or on all issues. Therefore,it must be recognized that the extent of participation tobe catered for must be on aFigure 1DISSOLVINGOPPOSITIONSOCIALTHERAPY17Models of Citizen Participation (Sandercocks Typologies on Arnstein’sLadder of Citizen Participation)DEGREESOFTOKENISMDECISIONMAKINGMARKETRESEARCHDEGREES— OFCITIZEN POWER— NONPARTICIPATIONSource: Arnstein S.R. 1969 - with modifications18continuum such as described above in Figure 1. This has the ability to resolve conflictandcater to various publics. The normative definition previously given in section 2. 1.1incorporates these considerations. Specific ways of undertaking participation are discussedin Chapter 6.2.2 Theoretical and Pragmatic Considerations in Planning For IslandsIn planning for islands, one faces a number of problems both shared by and alien tomainland locations. These include rapid urbanization, a scarcity of resources, difficultyinobtaining adequate capital or data, insularity, (isolation), identity, to name but afew. It isperhaps more useful in this discussion if they are categorized by labelling themtechnical/institutional, bio-physical, and socio-economic constraints on thedevelopmentofland use planning. In a small island setting technical/institutional constraints canmanifestthemselves in:a)A lack or shortage of technically trained and competent personnel.b) A lack of acceptablestandards that specify for e.g. how much, how big, etc.c) Difficulty inaccessing data sources.d) The inability to generateand/or retain information.Bio-physical constraints manifest themselves as:a) A scarcityof natural resources.b) Limited land area.c) An extremely fragile environment.d) A lack of diversity(species, habitat).Socio-economic constraints manifest themselves as:a) Scarcity of capital.b) Underdeveloped institutionsfor conflict resolution.c) Susceptibility toexternal forces.d) Ahigh potential for conflict of interest inherent when a multiplicity of rolesfor individuals exist.19Although most people would agree on the necessity for planningfor islands there seems tobe no general consensus onhow to proceed (Coccossis 1987, p.86). McElroyI(1987,p.94) identified a numberofstructural constraintsto planningfor islands and notedthattheywere exacerbated by what was termed a “pervasive web of inertia and policy caution.”These included: “particularism i.e. intense face to facepersonalism and kinship that reduceobjective decision-making, inhibit confronting serious issues and reinforcethe status quo.”Further, the combination of strong partisan politics and, restricted jobopportunity amongcivil servant planners and technicians fosters insecurity and caution on theone hand andhigh turnover and weak institutional memory on the other (Sigham, 1 967 in McElroy et al,1987, p.95). Dinell, in a compellingdiscussion entitled“Hawaii: Planningfor Paradise” hasidentified what is perhapsflplanning issue for Island planning in general:that is ... securingagreement on what constitutesthe majorplanningdilemmas forthe state. One person’s dream is another person’s nightmare. What the developerperceives as a gift, the environmentalistviews as one more nail in the coffin. Whatthe entrepreneurviews as necessary progress, the native rights advocate perceives asa continuation of the rape of the land (1 987,p.153).In otherwords, whatis needed is a consensus on whatplanningoughtto accomplish.To rationally arrive at this decision, however, a community will need to become awareofthe opportunities and constraints thatwill result from a given action. For example,beachfront visitor accommodations will bring employmentand expanded economicopportunity, but will also result in pressures on infrastructureand will limit recreationalopportunities for residents. The clearing and filling ofmangrove swamps will create newwaterfront properties for future projects but will also result in the loss of ecologicalproductivity, the disruption of food webs and, the alterationof micro-climates includingrainfall patterns. All components or subsystems ofan island contributeto its environmental20qualityand are interrelated. Therefore, developmentofeconomicand social systems shouldnot be considered in isolation of environmental management. For example, it has beenpointed outthat Tourism depends on environmental quality more than any other economicactivity (Coccossis, 1987, p.86).Nevertheless, land use planners may frequently consider hotel schemes, etc. in lightof existing zoningwhile ignoringenvironmental impact. On the other hand, they often aredistanced from policy input and legislative initiatives (McElroya[p.94). Thus, they areplaced in a quandary. Such quandaries intensify confusion and are reflective of theconstraints previously identified. These internal planning deficiencies arefurthercompounded when false dichotomies such as “what will it be - environment ordevelopment?” are bandied about in elite circles and come to be generallyaccepted as fact.The most glaring planning deficiency however, has been identified as “the failure todevelop an appropriateanalytical framework for understanding island structure and thebroad process of change, and for predictingaccurately the effects of policy” (McElroyj1987, p.95, emphasis added).Inherent in the definition of most problems are the seeds of their solution. Ifdeficiencies and constraints in planning processes and functions are clearly and accuratelyidentified this can form the basis of their resolution. For example, in the island context, alack ofawareness of ecosystems functions and, the impacts of land use decisions canbeginto be addressed through ecological studies, environmental audits or resource cataloguingand land use capability studies. Additionally, appropriate space standards for variouscomponents of the built and natural environments can be developed through land usecapability studies, comparison between existing conditions and internationally acceptedstandards, user needs surveys and, public discourse.21Furthermore, in the small island context, open discourse is relatively easy to,inconjunction with an extensive network of forums for conflict resolution, be developed.These can take many forms, both formal and informal. Examples abound and include butare not limited to; town meetings, working (or focus) groups, drop in centres, public factfinding excursions, and workshops. The above assumes that there will be shared valuesbetween individuals and groups in the Island Community and that from these, norms andtherefore, a normative theory of planning, can be formed.2.3 Normative Criteria For Land use PlanningWe can learn from our differences what some parts of the world look likefrom some viewpoints, and whereand underwhatcircumstances the world doesnotlook like that; we can stop overgeneralizing and start piecing together the actualdifferences and particulars and variations of our diverse planet. We can sort outwhether any of our observations have no demonstratable connection to theworld atall, have been entirely self- created and are in urgent need of correction. We canmap the capacity of the human mind for delusion or perpetuation of outmodedbeliefs. And above all, by examining more carefully the revelation of ourselvesinour models, we can learn more aboutwhy people, includingourselves, dowhattheydo, value what they value, fail where they fail, will what they will (Meadows,Donella H., 1982)As will be seen in Chapter 3 resistance to planning initiatives in the Cayman Islandshas been largely expressed as action to prevent perceived threats to a (quality and) way oflife from being entrenched in legislation or government policy. Planning tends to beconcerned with development and change over time, and the literature on planning theoryis replete with concerns for “the public interest” and the community.” Such concerns areexpressed “in a world of intensely conflicting interests and great inequalities of statusandresources ...“ (Forester 1989, p.3). No attempt has been made here to systematicallyevaluate these interests or to determine which are “right” or “good” in the Cayman Islands22context. Such analysis would, of necessity delve deeplyinto the worlds of religion, moralphilosophy and, behavioral psychology which is beyond the scope of this thesis.Neither has there been a rationalistic attempt at finding the commonalties of theseinterests and deductively arriving at a set of shared beliefs and values,that would result ina consensus as to the desirability of the normativeplanning approach being proposed.Rather, based on a largely pragmatic world view as an observer, studentand practitionerofplanning, six normative criteria are put forward within which the current planningfunctioncan be evaluated:1. The institutional organizations should have the ability toclearly identify problems.2. Planning institutions that protect the islands against negative externalities andpromote a healthy society should exist.3. A planning process which generates usefulinformation and respects a plurality ofviews should exist.4. Mechanisms and organizations that provide for conflict resolution in the discourseon physical planning action should exist.5. A planning process that is both culturally acceptableand otherwise contextuallyappropriate should exist.6. Methods for the effective implementation of planning decisions thatincludesequencing and monitoring should exist.The clear identification of problems implies that the problems may be able to besolved. Problems once clearly identified, may be givenfinite dimensions. Negativeexternalities must be protected against as they may result in the concept popularized byGarret Hardin “the tragedy of the commons” with which weare familiar. In the Caymancontext, the tragedy of the commons and externalities may be experiencedin increasedenvironmental degradation as a result of excessivemangrove swamp removal forconstructing projects. The cost of operating an hotel or agolf course constructed on the23former swamp land will not reflectthe loss of habit or water qualitythat results. Such coststhen can be viewed as externalities.Definitions of problems in a pluralist environment are multiple. Different interestgroups have differentsenses and valuations of the problems at hand (Forester, 1989, p.57).Using the example above on environmental degradation, we can see that dive operatorsmay view the problem as a reduced quality of a recreational and economic resource, thegolf course operator may see no problem at all and may see increased economic andrecreational opportunities, the ornithologist may view the problem as a threat to theexistence ofa rare or endangered bird. These diverse views will generateconflict regardingboth problem identification and the appropriate physical planning action necessary toaddress problems.While formal planning tools, such as the Planning Law or Regulations, will specifya process and a timing of that process through which a land use proposal must be put, theyare unlikely to specify the discretion that a planner will have on the amount and type ofinformation that is given, to whom or what role the planner should play. It is also unlikelythatthe less tangibleaspects oftheabove i.e. thetype ofinformation,the role ofthe planneretc. can be clearly stipulated in law to account for the vast variety of potential conflicts.Therefore,other mechanisms and organizationswill be necessarythroughwhich conflictcanbe resolved. If theyare to be effective they must be culturallyand contextuallyappropriate.Mechanisms and organizationswhich bytheirnatureare inappropriate,forexample politicalparty based neighbourhood groups, or negotiations within which very little differentiationbetween facts and fears occurs, will not suffice.Additionally, the mere resolution ofconflictwill notensurethatappropriateplanningaction occurs. Obviously legal mechanisms are required to implement plans. The quality24and effectiveness ofthese plans, however, must beassessed ifthe plans areto be consideredmeaningful. Therefore, implementation and monitoring strategies should be legallyaccommodated in the exercise of the planning function.25CHAPTER 3: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FROM 1935 TO 19753.1 IntroductionThe first Legislative body for the Cayman Islands was created by the JamaicanLegislature on December 5, 1831 and, on December 10, 1831 representativeswereelected(Hirst, pp.214-220 in Davies, 1989, pp.29-30). The Legislature consisted of the Justices ofthe Peace (8) and of Vestrymen (21), the latter of whom were elected officials that servedfor a 2 year term, It was not until 1863, however, that the Imperial Parliament, by way ofan Act for the Government of the Cayman Islands, conferred power to the JamaicanLegislature to make laws for the Cayman Islands (Davies, 1989, pp.30-31). Any laws priorto that time enacted by the Cayman Islands “legislature” and the Jamaican legislaturehadbeen “without any express authority” (Davies, 1 989, p.31).Therefore, retroactivelegislationwasdeemed necessaryto ratifyand validatethe lawspreviously passed by the (Cayman Islands) Legislative Assembly. The effect of the 1863Cayman Islands Actwas thatthe Cayman Islands formally became a dependencyofJamaica(Davies, 1989, p.32). Under the 1863 Act the Jamaican legislature could confer, to theJustices and Vestrymen, the power to make laws for local (Cayman Islands) purposes.The local administration had, until 1898 been the responsibility of a commissionedChief Magistrate or Custos, who was theJamaican Governor’s representative. The CaymanIslands Commissioner’s Law of 1898 empowered the Governor ofJamaica to appoint (afterselection by the Secretary of State forthe Colonies) a Commissioner for the Cayman Islands(Davies, 1989, p.60). Such Commissioner was legally empowered to exercise extensiveExecutive, Judicial and, Legislative powers, presiding both as Judge of the Grand court (in26all cases except capital felony) and over the Legislative Assembly of Justicesand Vestry(Davies, 1989, p.34).This appointment, as Davies (1989, p.60) points out, was novel in that the post wasfor the first time filled by recruitment from outside the Islands. It also became a full timesalaried position. Throughout the tenures of future Commissioners (and laterAdministrators), itwould becomeobviousthattheadministrative-and legislative-advancesas well as the level of public expenditureon infrastructural development depended largelyon the vigor, vision and commitment of the Commissioner (Administrator).One example is during the tenure of thefirst commissioner Frederick SheddenSanguinnetti (1898-1906). Williams (1970, p.65) notes that “the pace ofchange quickened.George Town (the capital) became a port of registry, there was now eight schools and aGovernment Savings Bank.” Additionally, a road that still bears one of his names (SheddenRoad) and links GeorgeTown to theNorth Sound was constructed. Another example is thatofGeorge Stephenson Shirt HirstCommissioner from 1 907 to 1 911. Duringthis period thefollowing main roads were constructed: Elgin Avenue (named for Lord Elgin the Secretaryof State for the Colonies), Mary Street, the road from West Bay to the North Sound and,Crewe Road (between GeorgeTown and BoddenTown) wereconstructed, (Williams, 1970,p.68). Additionally, new streets, court houses and, schools were being constructed inBodden Town, East End and West Bay.Perhaps the most impressive example, however, was that of Allen Wolsey Cardinall,Commissioner from 1934 to 1940 (later to be knighted for notable Public Services).Commissioner Cardinall, successfully guided the completion of; two wireless transmittingstations, roadsthat linked Bodden Town to East End, and Frank Sound to North Side, aswellas Town Halls (that were to be used aseducational and community centers) in West Bay,27Bodden Town, East End and North Side and the Library and Post Office in George Town(Williams, 1970, pp.77-78). This was all the more impressive as his tenurebegan duringthe height of the depression.Despite Williams (1970, p.67) assertion that, “ ... the Vestrymen provided one lawmaker for every 206 inhabitants, perhaps the nearest affinity to the democratic ideal of aGreek City State the twentieth century has ever seen, and then came up for re-electionevery 2nd August,” the reality was that the main administrative and judicial power wasinequitably vested in the Commissioner who also presided over the Legislative AssemblyofJustices and Vestry, It was under this backdrop and legislative arrangement, thatthe firstPlanning Law was enacted in the Cayman Islands.3.2 The Regional Planning Law (Law 11 of 1934)The first planning legislation to be enacted was the Regional Planning Law (Law 11of 1 934) assented to by Governor Denham on September 1 6, 1 935. As with future planninglegislation, this statute was based on British Law, and thus embraced the British model ofplanning. Organizationally, it was modified to integrate with the local legislative andadministrative structures then extant.The membership of the Regional Planning Board, that was established thereunder,was relatively broad based and was comprised of eight members. They were theCommissioner (later to be called Administrator), the Government Medical Officer, theInspector of Police, two Justices of the Peace and three Vestrymen appointed by theCommissioner. It is importantto note thatthe separation of powers, i.e. legislative, judicialand administrative touted by Montesquieu do not appear to have been given muchconsideration at the time of enactment of the Regional Planning Law. Indeed this ideal of28separation of powers wasnot to legally commence until 1956-1957 with the appointmentof a Stipendiary Magistrateand not to be fulfilled until 1 967 with the appointment of anAttorney General (Davies, 1989, p.34).The purpose of the 1935 Law was stated as “... tocontrol and to secure the properdevelopment of certain areasin the interest of the public health, the amenity of theneighborhood and the general welfare of the community.”Under this law, the RegionalPlanning Board (RPB) could recommend that aRegional Planning Area be declared. Suchdeclaration was theresponsibilityoftheCommissioner,actingwith theadviceoftheJusticesand Vestry. As with the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1932 ofthe United Kingdom, theRegional Planning Law could apply to bothbuilt up and unbuilt lands. In reference to theUnited kingdom Act this was described by Heap(1987, p.9) as its “... most remarkablefeaturePreviously only unbuilt lands actually being, orlikely to be, developed were withinthe scope of the Town Planning Act. Heap (1 987, p.9)also notes that this was a sweepingextension of the town planning powersof local Authorities. Unlike the United Kingdom,however, there was no tiered Governmentsystem in theCayman Islands.Thus, the highestranking proponent of the planning proposal (theCommissioner) to establish a regionalplanningarea (RPA) was also the PresidentoftheAssemblythatwoulddeclare itand legallycause it to come into being. The Regional PlanningBoard would then cause a regionalplanning scheme (again drawing heavilyfrom the United Kingdom nomenclature) to beframed for the RPA. Even though the Governor ofJamaicawas required to consent to theframing of laws for the Cayman Islands, he was notrequired to consent to the framing ofthe planning scheme. The scheme was requiredto be approved by the Commissioner and29Justices and Vestry, butthe Regional PlanningBoard, with theapproval oftheCommissionerand theJustices and Vestry could vary or revokethe scheme.Under the scheme, and in accordance with the1935 law, discretionary powerswould be given to the Regional PlanningBoard which included:(1) (S.6) power to make arrangementswith owners and occupiers of land regardingdevelopment proposals.(2) provisionand procedure for appealing against decisions of the RegionalPlanningBoard.(3) to determinesubject to arbitration, the limits ofplots or estates including power toadjustthem and to effect propertyexchanges,eithervoluntarilyor compulsorilywithor without payment by way of equalityof exchange.(4) power todemolish etc. buildings or structures.(5)the imposition of restrictions with regard to the user oflands and to building lines,space about buildings, the height character anduser of buildings etc.In all, these powers were extensive and numbered 14 intotal. Number 7 wasparticularly interestingsince it enabled afine not exceeding ten pounds to be levied on anoffender, convicted by any two Justices ofthe Peace for contravention of any provision ofthescheme, and a further fine of onepound per day for each day ofthe continuingoffence.Recall that the Regional Planning Board’s membership includedtwo Justices ofthe Peace!Therefore, it was possible for the same two Justices (membersof the Regional PlanningBoard) to contribute to the declaration of a scheme,contribute to the determination ofwhether or not it was being complied with,and subsequentlyconvictand levy a substantialfine on an offender.The fine was relatively high as the annual revenueof the Islands was still, accordingto Williams (1970, p.77), under 10,000pounds. Number 13 of these powers (S.6, ss.13)enabled the delimitation of zones whichcould either prohibit buildings or specify uses of30buildings. Despite this power, zoning wasnot to be established until the LandDevelopment (Interim Control) (No.2) Regulations 1970 were enacted underSection 18 ofthe Land Development(Interim Control) Law, 1 969.Section 13 ofthe Regional Planning Law conferredupon theRegional Planning Boardthe power, subject to the approvalof the Governor of Jamaica, to make substantialregulations to realize the aims of theplanning scheme. This is noteworthy in that themaking of regulations would in thefuturegenerate great controversyand, thereafter, wouldlead to a requirement that planning regulations wouldhave to be approved by the entireLegislative Assembly. With its 1 3 sections,the Regional Planning Law focused on theprovisions of various aspects ofplanning for areas, but neglected that aspect of planningknown as development control. Rather than being prescriptive byspecifying actions andtime frames within which they should occur,the Section 6 powers conferred upon theRegional Planning Board wereenablingand discretionary.Theirapplication was contingentupon the declaration of a RegionalPlanning Area and, even in this event, it was notmandatoryto apply all of the provisions. However at leastone would have to be exercisedto cause a scheme to come intobeing.Nevertheless (or perhaps because of this), theRegional Planning Law remainedbasically intact until it was replaced by the Land Development(interim Control) Law, 1969.Even though the Regional PlanningLaw was relatively comprehensive, and introduced“novel” concepts such as planning schemes, densities, zoning, buildingheights, their useand characterand, setbacks from property lines,it appears to have enjoyed little, if any useat all as a planning tool.When the Cayman Islands constitution ordersof 1 959 and 1 962 were enactedbecause of the dissolution of theWest Indies Federation and the independence ofJamaica,31profound changes occurred in theCaymanian legislative and administrative structures. Athreeyear cyclewas established for electionstobe held and the LegislativeAssemblywouldbe constituted of 12 electedmembers, 2-3 official members, 2-3 nominated members, andan Administrator (Colonial Reports).Thereafter, the Cayman Islands functioned as a BritishColony, independentofJamaica (Davies, 1989, p.38).Powers thatwere formerlyexercisedby the Governor of Jamaica,were conferred on the Administrator (Davies, 1989, p.38).Because the 1 962 constitutionorder was not laid before Parliament, a 1 965 order wasissued to revoke the 1962 order and be appliedretroactively from 1962 (Davies, 1989,p.38).On July 1st 1965, amendments were made to theRegional Planning Law to, amongotherchanges, alterthecompositionofthe Regional Planning Board [The Regional Planning(Amendment) Law 1 965]. These amendments included adefinition of “an area” as “thewhole or any geographical part thereof of any Islandforming part of the Cayman Islands”(Regional Planning Law, S.2). UnderSection 3(d), the reference to “Government MedicalOfficer” was altered to read “Health Officer,”the Inspector of Police to “Chief” and, ratherthan two Justices of the Peace oneJustice of thePeace for each (electoral) district.Ratherthan retaining members ofthe Legislative Assembly asRPB members, Section3 (e) was amended to establishfor the first time a RPB for the lesser islands (now SisterIslands) consisting of the DistrictCommissioner, twoJustices of the Peace and, the MedicalOfficer. This was the forerunnerof a separate Development Control Board that wouldemerge in later years. Suchinitiatives would further consolidate the general confusion inthe island communities that equated “planning”and “development control.”32Additionally, during the period that the constitutionorders were made, vesting thepower of the Governor of Jamaica in the Administrator, a curious changeoccurred inSection 12 of the 1 935 law.Any question or matter which under this law or under anyscheme is to bereferred to arbitration shall be referred tothe arbitration of a single arbitrator to beagreed upon between the Board and the personaggrieved or, in default of suchagreement to be nominated bythe Administrator.TheAdministratorthus was able to simultaneouslycarryouttheabovewhile he was:a) Amember ofthe Regional Planning Board thatwould recommend aplanningscheme.b)Presidingover the Executive Council thatwould declare an area to be subjectto a scheme, andc)able to approve or modify the scheme.Despitethe multiplicity of potentially conflictingroles, and widespread powersableto be exercised by the Administrator, thereappears to have been no conflict of interestthatrequired the Administrator to disqualify himselffrom performing any of the roles. Moresurprisingly, theconsolidation ofthese roles appears nottohave generated anycontroversy,or socio-political conflict. Ironically, this would occur later on asthe Island Administrationexpanded the planning function and diluted the concentration ofadministrative, legislativeand, judicial powers.In summary, while the Regional PlanningLaw was relatively comprehensive andallowed for relatively extensive land use planning to occur,very little was achieved in thisregard. The multiplicity of roles filled by a few individualscreated the opportunity forserious conflict of interest to occur. This appearsnot to have happened either. Substantialcapital works projects were completed despitea scarcity of resources such as capital.33Capital works projects were evidently seen asmore urgently needed than land useplanning, rather than one aspect ofan integrated development strategythatembraced bothland use planning and capital works projects simultaneously. Nevertheless,while theRegional Planning Law was in effecta Development Planwas drafted in 1946. Adiscussionon the form, content and implication of the plan follows.3.3 The 1947 DevelopmentPlanIn orderto address whatwas described as the need to ensurethat “development mayproceed on a planned basis” (section 11, Dev. Plan 1 947) the Commissioner soughtadviceand assistance from Jamaica for “a draft sketch plan of development and welfare.”Subsequently, a multi-disciplinaryteam from Jamaica visited the CaymanIslands in May of1 945 to “investigate conditions and to consult with the Commissioner concerningthepreparation of such plan.” The team consisted of the Secretary of Social Welfare Services,an Inspector of Schools, the Architect of the Public Works Department and a SecretariatOfficer (Section 11, Development Plan 1 947). They drafted the plan in 1 946.The objects of the Plan were stated as “to meet the urgent need for improvement ofthe social and economic conditions of the people of the Cayman Islands” (Section12,Development Plan 1947). The stated method was “a programme of works whichit isconsidered can be undertaken in the next ten years” (Section 13, DevelopmentPlan 1947).Eight broad sectors were addressed namely: Agriculture, Education, Medical andPublicHealth, Social Welfare, Forestry, Fisheries, Communications and Miscellaneous.The latterincluded capitalworkssuch as construction ofcivic buildings, improvementofaships basin,construction of a sea wall, and the employment of a superintendent of worksto supervisethe works envisaged.34Additionally, the salaries for accounting and storekeeping staff were also providedfor. The Plan’s major thrust wasthe costing and provision for capital works projects and,the recurrent expenditure necessaryfor their maintenance and operation. Training needswerealso estimated and, costs fortheircompletionprojected.Throughoutthe plan theterms“scheme” and “schemes” were referencedliberally. This terminology, however, did notcoincide with the definition of “scheme”referred to in the Regional Planning Law as waspreviously elaborated on. Rather, these “schemes,”viewed as development and welfareschemes, amount to what is termed today“capital improvement programmes” with theaddition of a training component.The Plan did not, by its own admission, “providefor proper topographical andcadastral surveys” (Section 1 5) therebyignoringthe link between its ten year capital worksand training programmes and, thebroader land use provisions of the regional planningschemes provided for in the RegionalPlanning Law. It is very unfortunatethata bifurcationof these development strategies occurredduringthese nascent stages of both capital worksprogrammingand land use planning.This would prove to be a decisive factor in settingthestage, for the manner in whichboth of these activities would be perceived in the future.Capital works programming was to advancein concert, and become integrated with theGovernment budgeting process. Its easilyvisible benefits, in the form of completed workswould be perceived as a more legitimate formof “development planning,” than that of“regional,” “town,” “land use,” “physical,”or community planning. Rather than an equaladvance the role of land use planning wassubordinated to, and somewhat usurped by,capital works programming.The adoption of the title “ DevelopmentPlan” for these capital works programmes,that sometimes included training andstaffing needs in their budgets, would constrainthe35progress of a more broad basedand longer term land use planningfunction. What is likelyto have unwittingly contributedto this impediment is that these plans actively touted theefficacyof, and societal gainsthatcould be realized through, longterm planning. Ironically,with the exception of the 1947 plan that indicateda ten year time frame, the programmesoutlined in these plans were to beof three to five years duration.This is not to suggest that such programmeswere without value. On the contrary,without them many of the buildingprojects and infrastructural improvements thatcontributed to the Islands development couldnot have been realized. Nevertheless, whilecapital works programmesgrew by leapsand bounds, land use planningwas leftsubmergedin a quiet backwater. Ratherthan being used to anticipate and guide change, land useplanning would become dormant only to re-emergeand create a storm of intense politicalconflict, Ironically, it would come to be viewedas reactionary in nature and anti-development. Meanwhilethe 1947 plan, in itsfirst draft form, was accepted bytheJusticesand Vestry. Implementation, itwas noted, would depend on the financial position of theIslands for each budget year.3.4 The Land Development (Interim Control)Law 1969The Regional Planning Law (with minor amendments)was still in effect whenCommissioner A.M. Gerrard arrived to take officein 1952. Gerrard was often at odds withthe Executive Council and LegislativeAssembly on various issues. One of the moreimportant of which was the need for additionaltaxes to fund the modernization ofGovernment itself and Government capitalspending (Williams, 1970, p.81). Anotherobvious area of contention washis insistence on the need for Development Planning.Hannerz (1 974, p.63) notes that36There would be a need for developmentplanning, Gerrard argued, and everybodywould not be able to do as he pleasedwith his property. To handle this planning,also, the Administration would need to be strengthenedwith new specializedpersonnel.Despitethese utterances, nochanges were madetotheRegional PlanningLaw duringhis tenure from 1952-1956. However, a number of capital projectsproposed in the 1947Hplanflwere completed during thisperiod including; the twenty eight bed George TownHospital, and the nurses quarters. Various otherprojects not mentioned in the 1 947 plan,includingairfields in Grand Cayman and Cayman Brac,and an adequatesupplyofelectricityin George Town and West Bay were completed(Williams 1970, p.81).With the increasing complexity of lifeand the influx of foreign nationals, discord inthe political arena emerged in the 1960’s (seefor example D. Martins biography of O.L.Panton). Onearea ofdebate, rifewith conflict,was theGovernmentAdministration’s desireto take steps to regulate land useand “development.” Hannerz (1974, p.115) has stated thatthis was “the greatest irritation among influential Caymanians.”For planning as anorganized and acceptable government activity, theexpression of such irritation could nothave had worse timing.The local weekly newspaper, The Caymanian and theHansard (the official record ofthe Legislative Assembly meetings) are repletewith the details of a number of largelypoliticallycontentious issues thatarose in the Islands atthattime.They are also graphicallydetailed from a social anthropologicalperspective by Hannerz (1974) in his workCaymanian Politics - Structure and Style in aChanging Island Society. These apparentlyunrelated incidents had a common thread; they wereall in opposition to the GovernmentAdministration of the day. They rangedfrom dissatisfaction with the way the electoralregisters were compiled, to the importationof prefabricated buildings, and included the37boycotting of a session of the Assembly, aprotest march against proposed regulations forDevelopment Control and a law for the registrationand ownership of land, and a statisticslaw. Hannerz (1974, p.113) notes that at thistime various social changes were alsooccurring which included economic expansion,the perception of racial and class conflict,and as previously mentioned aninflux of foreign nationals. The latter were generallyviewed with resentmentand suspicion, especiallyiftheywere “experts” in a particularfield.Chronologically, thesecond incidentamong theseconflicts was theaborted electionin November of 1 968. Ostensiblythis arose as a result of how the electoral registers wereprepared. The first, and more importantfrom a Planning perspective, was the rejection bytheentire elected LegislativeAssembly. save onemember, ofan interim Land DevelopmentControl Law in the March session of 1 968. Becausethis meetingwas held in Cayman Brac,it is suggested that this conflict had a profound andlasting effecton how planningcome tobe perceived in the Brac in thefuture.Despitethis, by Februaryof 1969, duringthe first Budgetmeeting ofthe sixth sessionofthe Legislative Assembly (p.7) theAdministrator,Mr. A.C.E. Long indicated that legal andadministrative arrangements to effectivelydeal with land development issues and landregistration would require early attention. On April 1 7th 1969,the Land Development(Interim Control) Law came into operation havingbeen passed on the 25th of March 1 969.The stated objects of the Law were: “... to produceordered and sensible development ofthe Islands and not allow indiscriminatebuildings and development which may be againstthe public interest.”Jt was also noted, that the 1935 Law was antiquatedand permitted uncontrolledbuildings and development. The focus of thisnew interimistic legislation clearly wasdevelopment control, rather than planningpjIt included definitions of development,38building, and building operations. Another novel aspect of the Lawwas the established oftwo Development Control Boards. Whereas the1935 Law vested the powers of RegionalPlanningprimarilyin LegislativeAssembly members,this lawspecificallyexcluded membersof Executive Council from membership tothe Development Control Board. Section 3subsection (3) reads as follows:“no member of Executive Council shall be eligible forappointment to the Authority.” The ExecutiveCouncil was instead set up as an appealsbody, through which refusals of the Authority couldbe heard.The powers to amend the plans for development forwhich permission was grantedwere also vested in the Authority. This being contingent on receiptof a request from thosewho submitted the plans. Permission to effectdevelopmentwould lapsewithin a one yeartime frame, if in the opinion of theAuthority, no development was substantiallycommenced. A schedule of exempted workswas also included, as was the form ofapplication required to be submitted to the Authority.Registers of all development applicationswere to be kept by two ExecutiveSecretaries, one for each board. This lawalso covered the erection or placement ofadvertisements, subdivision of landand, changes of use to buildings or land. An apparently(initially) innocuous (that was to later prove highly controversial) provisionwas Section 18,that empowered the Executive Council with the discretion to make Regulations.Despitethe passage of this law, with little objectionor fanfare, the introduction of the Regulationsproved to be disastrous and can be offered up asan example of how not to introduceplanning legislation.The Administrator in his address during the LegislativeAssembly meeting (minutesof a special meeting 25th March 1 969,p.26) stated:39I am sorry that this law did come quickly. It camequickly because I was horrifiedat the time that you haven’t gotan adequate law. You must have something. If youhave a fire and you haven’tgot a poker you have to use a stickuntil you can get apoker. The point Honorable Members, is it notbetter than whatyou have got, verymuch better. It enables you to accept the driver’s seat which iswhere theGovernment should be in these matters. We donot wish to be controlled bycommercial enterprises, big developers or otherpeople interested in developingtheIsland. Naturally, and quitecorrectly, theydo it largelyforthepurposeofthe moneythey get out of it, this is the capitalist system. Our duty,Honorable Members is notto make money, our duty is to be responsible andprotect the 10,000 people wholive in these Islands who will not be aware in detailofwhat is happening, who relyon us hereto see thatthey are not exploited andthattheir land is not used wrongly,and that we do not turn what looks like a beautifulswan into an ugly duckling.this law was originally drafted by a man withmany, many years experiencethroughout the world . . . It is of great importanceand you have a responsibility -a deep one - as awarenessfor the need for planning grows in this Island and to seein future years what you did to createwhat they are looking at. Think of it in thisway, I assure you all that there is no time to waste.You have to take a little bit ontrust. I am telling you that there is no time towaste.This expressed deep seated appreciation for planning,and recognition ofthe urgencyto effect planning action, was sufficientto convince legislators to see the bill through theLegislative Assembly. Duringthe last part ofthe December1969 session of the LegislativeAssembly, however, three of its members representingthe district of George Town (thecapital) boycotted the meeting (Hannerz, 1974,p.126). The contentious issue of the daywas the cost of hiring new expatriate civil servants. Singularly identifiedamongthese werean Economist and a Town Planning Officer.This was a harbinger of the reception thatfuture initiatives to expand the planningfunction would face.3.5 The [and Development (InterimControl) Regulations 1970The apparently innocuous Section 18 of the 1969law was exercised in March of1 970 with the creation of the Land Development(Interim Control) Regulations (TheRegulations). Upon publication they created acrisis. A protest march was planned and it40got underwayon April 20th1 970, attractingabout500 people (The Caymanian,April 23rd.1970). Subsequently, district meetingswere held by opponents of the Regulations andattended by the Administrator.During the march, the protest marchers hand delivered apetition to the Administrator that requestedhim tocall the present legislature into emergencysession and repeal immediately theStatistics Law 1 969, and Regulations andZoning of 1 970, (sic) and the Land InterimDevelopment Law 1969 (sic) and, renounce all Governmentclaims to so-calledswamp lands. After the above is done dissolve thepresent House of Assembly andcall for new election within two months (The Caymanian,April 23rd, 1970).The Administrator was requested to assent tothis within seven days. A furtherpetition was presented to the Administratorfor Her Majesty the Queen that beseeched HerMajesty in part:[Due] to the recent actions of the LegislativeAssembly in passing very detrimentallaws, ... interveneon our behalfandhave our present LegislativeAssemblydissolvedand that our Administrator, Mr. Longbe recalled and a new person appointed inhis stead (ibid).No signatures were attachedthereto.An emergency session of the Legislative Assemblywas called on May 1, 1970. Inthe meantime, a Royal Navy shiphad arrived on 27th April at the invitation oftheAdministrator (Hannerz, 1974, p.149).Armed guards were posted inside the Town Hallwhere the meeting was being held, and alarge crowd both within and outside of thebuilding had gathered. The outcomeof the meeting was that, despite amendments beingmade on April 22, 1970, theRegulations were to be repealed. It was resolvedthat allelected members of the LegislativeAssembly would be appointed to a committee toreexamine the regulations and tomake recommendations for a new planning lawandregulations (Hannerz 1974,p.165). The personappointed to head the committee was noneother than the Member who had opposedthe appointment of a town planning officer.By41the 5th of May 1 970, the interim regulations had been suspended, despite thefact that anew Departmentof Planning had been set up. In the face ofwidespreadpublic opposition,the interim regulations had lasted a mere 44 days.The provisions of the Regulations though fairly comprehensivewere not onerous.In fact, the Development and Planning Regulations(1972) that were to follow would bemoredemanding in terms ofsubmission requirements. Parkingrequirementsdidnotchangefrom 1970 to 1 972. Buildings heights werelimited to 45 ft., and provision was made forzones. Permission was required for the removalof beach sand; and for occupancy ofbuildings, with special consideration being grantedto Caymanians who traditionally builthouses in a piece meal fashion, dependingon thesupply of materials and capital. Setbacksfor buildings were specified, as werethe requirements for subdivisions, including adiscretionary requirementfor landsfor public purposes. Site coverages for various types orcategories of buildings wereaddressed and thesewereto be in accordancewith a draft planthat had been “currently adopted for guidanceof the board during the Interim ControlPeriod.”This was the first genuine attempt at the establishmentof zoning. For the first timealso, a commercial centre was designated, as wasan area in the capital, denoted by gridreferences on thewaterfront,where no new buildingswereto be permitted.This apparentlywas done in an effort to protect the open characterof the waterfront, although it was notexplicitly stated.3.6 The Development andPlanning Law, 1971 and Regulations, 1972The Developmentand Planning Law 1971, (The Law)came into operation onJanuary17, 1972 having been passed on December 20,1971. Regulations followed in March of421 972. Substantial gain was now being made regardingintegration ofthe land use planningfunction with the development control function.Both were afforded legal status. The lawwas indeed comprehensive for the period as was promised bythe Legislative Assembly. Itwas divided into six parts and two schedules.Part I dealtwith central administration. Thereunder,anine memberCentral PlanningAuthoritywas established, as was a four memberDevelopmentControl Board forthe LesserIslands. Staff, including a Director ofPlanning and other officers as appeared necessary,were also provided for, to ensure that the Authoritycould properly carry out its statutoryfunction. Such function was described as “consistency and continuityin the framing andexecution ofa comprehensive policyapproved byExecutiveCouncil with respectto the useand developmentof land, in accordancewith thedevelopmentplan forthe Islands preparedin accordance with the provisions of Part II or otherwise in operation byreason thereof”(The Development and Planning Law, 1971).Part II consisting of some 6 pages, including: detailed time frames for action,theprovisions that could be made within a plan, conditions to be fulfilledfor acquisition ofproperty, proceduresto amend the plan, specification ofwhich entitieswereto beconsultedduring plan preparation, time framesfor notices, methods and time frames of the plan, atime frame within which objections could be made,and an appeals tribunal to hearappealsagainst decisions of the Authority. Planning’s new era appearedto be dawning, but therewere inherentproblems with the level and method ofconsultation requiredoftheAuthorityby the Law and the time frames for public displayof the Plan. These flaws would beaccentuated when a plan was produced and proposedfor adoption in 1975.Part Ill contained a full 13 sections over 15 pages and dealt with thecontrol ofdevelopment of land. It specified a definitionof development that was taken from the43United Kingdom Town and County Planning Act (seefor e.g. Heap 1987, p.115) andmodified, to exclude certain activities, operationsand types of structures. The Authoritycould also delegate certain of its functions to the Board. Whenthe delegated functionsresulted in refusal (by the Board) of planningpermission for an application, the Authoritywould act as an appeals tribunal established under Part VI of the Law.Provision was also made for revocation and modification orders wherethe Authorityrequired. The enforcement of planning control alsofigured prominently, and for the firsttimethe conceptof enforcement notices was introduced. Appealsprocesses werealso speltout, in the event that an enforcement noticewas issued. Such appeals would be resolvedin court. A time frame of four years was given within which unauthorizeddevelopmentcould be enforced against.The Authority was also granted the power to make tree preservation orders, subjectto Regulations being made that would specifythe form and process of the order. For themaintenance of waste land, due to the deposit of waste etc. the Authoritywasempoweredto serve a notice requiring abatementof the injury. Decisions of the Authority could alsorender the Authority liable to pay compensation.Under Part V the Authority was empowered to acquire and dispose of landforplanning purposes, the land being required to have first been identified in a developmentplan. Part VI specified the powers of entry by anyone authorizedby the Authority relatingto the preparation of a developmentplan, or the determination of an application or otherfunction. A method or format for the service of notices required under thelaw was alsospecified.Regulations could be made, by the Governor in Council,for certain activities amongwhich was the production of a buildingcode. However, such regulations had to be first44approved in draft form by the Legislative Assembly.The political folly of having ExecutiveCouncil alone enact regulations was obviouslystillprominenton the list ofthings notto do.The law was also specific in that it was legally bindingon the Crown. The secondschedule of the law dealt withmatters for which provision could be made in developmentplans viz:- roads (preservation of land, closure, construction, dimensions etc.)- buildings (size, height, bulk, setbacks, site coverage, parking,objects thatcould be affixed to them, their use or prohibition, etc.) design, number,classes.- community planning (zoning and use,density, layout, spacing etc. ofsubdivisions, determining the provision of community facilities e.g.schools,churches, recreation grounds;- amenities (lands for public or private open space, burial grounds etc.forcommunal parks, bird sanctuaries, the protection of marine life;thepreservation of buildings, reefs, archaeological architectural historicartisticsites and objects, preservation of trees woodlands etc.- public services (facilitating the provision of water supply,sewerage etc.) -transportand communication facilitatingthe provision ofairand seaports,theextension of telegraphic, telephonic etc. communication systemsand, thereservation of lands for the above.- miscellaneous (subdivision control, e.g. lot size, roads, services, andeffectingland exchanges etc.Clearly, from a legal perspective, the planning and development controlfunctionshad merged and the ground work had been laid throughwhich both could be vigorouslypursued. But, one crucial aspect of planningthat appears to have been ignored oroverlooked at this juncturewas that of public participation.This oversightwould have direconsequenceswhen an attemptwould be made tocomplywith the requirements ofthe lawto complete a development plan. TheDevelopmentand Planning Regulations would assistthe Authority in addressing the day to day aspectof development control through the45application process, with the administrative supportof the planning department. The taskat hand therefore was the productionof a development plan.3.7 The Proposed Development Plan, 1975During the 1 970’s the United Nations were actively assisting CaribbeanCountrieswith their Planning and Development needs and, by 1 972, had secondedan Associateexpert (planning) to the Cayman Islands (Ebanks, K., 1 993).Additionally, six young Caymanians had been trained in physicalplanning andtechnical infrastructure under the United Nations training programme headquarteredin St.Lucia, W.l. Participation in the United Nations Development ProgrammePhysical PlanningProject, or UNDP as it was known, indicated thatthe Cayman Islands administrationappreciated the need for land use planning. Previously, neitheran acceptable andappropriate process of planning, nor consensuson thecontentand form of a plan however,had been articulated. This was to prove to be a verycomplex and taxing task, It wouldalso proveto bea highlycontentiousactivityandwould continuetocompounddivisivenessin the political area.3.7.1 DescriptionThe 1975 Development Plan consisted of three parts, namely: a survey andreport -i.e. the existing situation with objectivesand policies; the plan - a map indicating proposedland use zones and a number of roadways alongwith,the planningstatement - basically detailing regulationsthatwere required to implement theplan. A synopsis of its structure and content follows.The overriding theme of the plan was controlled growth over a fifteen yearperiod.At the end of Chapter One, that addressed thebackground to the plan this theme was46symbolically stated in a manner designed toattract the attention and gain the support of adiverse group of people; “withthe turtle as the symbol of the Islands, the slogan for itsfuture development mightrightly be taken from the Mariculture Turtle Farm (Road Sign),Slow - Turtle Crossing Ahead- or in more elegant phraseology - Festina Lente - hastenslowly” (Development Plan 1975, p.6).The plan was divided into sixteen chapters. Chaptersone through ten formed thesurvey and report. This survey and report, rathersurprisingly, began with the first chapterentitled “Objectives.” Upon examination,however, one will note that only one primaryobjective was put forward, thatof a programme of moderate growth. Accompanying thedecision were arguments against rapidgrowth and the benefits of moderate growth. Manymore subsidiary aims were articulated,and these included: a balance in population ratiosbetween Caymanians and non Caymaniansof 3:2; the spatial decentralization of growthoutside ofthe GeorgeTown/WestBay area, theavailability ofgood housing, education andhealth care to alt, academicand vocationaltraining, benefits to the infirm and aged, historicand environmental preservation and aharmonious working of the planning authority andthe developerto maintain and enhancethe resourcesofthe Islands. Such “motherhood andapple pie” statements despite their goodintentions, did not suffice to assuage the fears ofthe Island communitythatthe processof plan making and its contentwere severelyflawed.ChapterTwo, entitled “Background,” provided aphysical geographical and historicalsynopsis of the Cayman Islands includinggeology, relief, climate, discovery, settlementpatterns, migration and a mention of administrativestructure.Chapter Three, entitled “Population andManpower,” chronicled population growthfrom 1891 to 1973 notingthat early populationgrowth (1 891-1 960) ranged between 1.1 to1.4%, in the period between 1960-1970it increased to 2.8°I, and from 1971-1973 avery47high increaseof 7.3% growthannuallywas experienced. Alsoaddressedwithin this chapterare age, sex and racial distributions of population, householdsize, labour force andmanpowerrequirements. Thechapter is repletewithpopulation projections, both in graphicand written form and a map indicating preferredpopulation distributions in 5 yearincrements to 1990 in each ofthe electoral districts of Grand Cayman. It would bebeneficial, it noted, to assume population growthfor the plan period to range between20,000 and 30,000 with thelower end figure being decreed desirable.Chapter Four, entitled simply “Economy,” consistedof sections on the declining roleofCaymanian seamen as economiccontributorsto overalldevelopment,the roleofshippingwhich was also in decline and, substantiallymore extensive sections on tourism, offshorebanking and finance, agriculture and manufacturingwhich were considered growthindustries. Projections indicated thatthe rate ofgrowthwould decline between 1976-1980to 7% (annual average) and to 5% between 1980-1990.Constraints to growth were notedas a shortage of manpower, inadequateinfrastructure, potential restrictions on offshorebanking, uncertain world economic trends and the controllingof population growth.Controlled growth, it was assumed, was desirable to theisland community and thatthrough this strategy the Caymans would developin a beneficial manner. The efficacy ofcontrolled growth however would prove to be elusive.Chapter Five, entitled “Land Use and Subdivisions,” featureddetailed soil maps anda classification system withinwhich thequality of soils and theirsuitability forvarious typesof development were presented. As with other chaptersof the plan, planning wasjuxtaposed against laissez-faire development. Normative pronouncementswere made onthe desirability of planned vs sprawled communities,the need to retain undeveloped openspaces and the undesirabilityof uneven development between districts. Attempts were48made to rationalizethe amountof property neededfor residential development by utilizing;density, area of property already subdivided, household sizeand projected population. Itwas emphasized that three times the acreagerequired for housing over the plan period(1 975-1 990)was alreadysubdivided and laid out.Implicit in this statementwas thatfurthersubdivision should at least be discouraged,if not prohibited.Problem areas ofsubdivision developmentwerealsooutlined and these includedthecost of providing infrastructure topartially built out subdivisions, the ecological impact ofclearing land, the issue of speculative constructionby non Caymanians, and the costs ofmaintenance and completion of roads in subdivisions.Procedural guidelines were suggestedthrough which government, in concert withprivate utility companies would determinestandards to be adhered to, maintenance ofservices would be addressed at the initial stageand the phasing of development wouldoccur. A number of development control initiativeswere also suggested including bothsubdivision and building codes.In Chapter Six, which was entitled “Infrastructure,” anumber of pronouncementswere made. One ofthe most short sighted ofwhich would have to be the removal of roadcorridors such as the east - west spinal road andmore importantly, theWest Bay motorway.These had been previously identifiedin the interim plan of 1 972. In the 1 975 plan it wasassumed thatthe proposed population policywould be adopted in its entiretyand from thisall other projections followed. These roads therefore, weredismissed as unnecessary andtoo costly. (Development Plan 1 975, p.42).The Plan also envisaged atremendous monitoringofroad users, which would requirespeeds, weights, numbers and sizesof vehicles to be regulated, relative to the capacity ofthe road. Substantial considerationwas given to car parking and pick up pointssimilar to49whatwe now knowas parkand ridefacilities.Road surfacingand surface drainage receivedmuch more consideration than did the provisionof future road corridors.Detailed consideration wasgiven to the revamping of the airport, including therelocation of terminal buildings and the extension ofthe runway out into the North Sound.A ports plan had been completed duringthe preparationofthe 1975 developmentplan, andthe 1975 plan repeated the proposals thattheportplan had putforward. One considerationthatfigured prominentlywas the need to ensurethattrafficvolumes did notadverselyaffectthe functioning of the downtown area, as themain port is centrally located in downtownGeorge Town.Calls for more co-ordination between private utility suppliers and governmentweremade, especially regarding the supply of electricity.The demands for water supply and,sewerage were also prominent factors. However,the projections, again based on fullacceptance of the population growth policy, were toprove extremely inadequate. As anexample, the plan projected water consumption at1.25 million gallons per day in 1990,while today (1994) estimated consumption is well above 2.2million gallons per day. (R.Mclaggart, personal conversation, 1 994). The plan alsonoted thatwater mains are cheaperthan sewerage systems to install, and implied that theprovision of water should takeprecedence.Water ferriesweresuggested as a means of improvingpublictransportation, butthesehave not come into being. This is likely due in large part to:a) thecosts associated with the initial set up;b) therelatively small numbers of potential customers; and,c) theintense competition from thedive operationsofthetourist industry, forthoseableto own and operate boats.50Chapter Seven, “Tourism,”was surprisingly less prescriptive than other chapters ofthe plan. However, substantial considerationwasgiven toan analysis ofthetourist industry.Growth charts, tourist facility mappingand tables of tourist arrivals by national origin forselected years were included. Bed occupancy ratesand length of stay were analyzed andprojections made for their increase and decreaserespectively during the plan period.General statements were maderegarding the need to protect natural resources such asbeaches, coral reefs and mangrove areas. Manyof these areas and their flora and faunawere viewed as tourist attractions.In short, the chapter on tourism did not appear torecognize the important role that tourism wouldcome to play in the Caymanian economy.Neither did it appear to formulate prescriptive actionsnecessary to secure the naturalresource protection which was alluded to.Chapter Eight, which was the chapter on “CommunityFacilities,” includeddiscussions on a broad range of topics such as educational facilities, hospitalsand medicalservices, solid waste disposal, social and welfareservices, news media, recreation andleisure activities, parks and conservation areas,parks and public gardens and recreationareas. No detailed analyses were offered. Broad,generalized statements constituted themajor body of this chapter andapart from the educational and hospital facilities noprescriptive proposals or space standards emerged.The need to conserve natural areasappeared liberally throughout thischapter. Some locations were named for specific usesbut spatial extents were not proposed,neither were phasing programmes, acquisition ofproperty, funding etc. In short, chapter 8 appeared tosuffer from over-generalization.Chapter Nine concentrated on “Housing” and presented some of themore in-depthanalyses of the summary. A brief synopsis of thearchitectural forms and material changeswhich had occurred over time was included.Previous projections for land use activities51were re-iterated again using the projected 21,700 population figure at the end of theplanperiod.In compounding the myth of land as being productive only if it is used for humanactivity, land unsuitable for housing, agriculture, etc. was labelled unproductive. Theemergenceofapartmentbuildings, primarilyforoverseas residentworkers, skilled, unskilledand professional was noted. Future housingdemands in each ofthe electoral districtswereprojected. These projections, it was noted, weretentativeand subjectto changedependingon the amount of development allowed. New standards for density allowances wereproposed and the concept of low (3 houses per acre) medium, and high (eight units peracre) density residential zones wasintroduced. The housingdemand projections previouslymentioned in the discussion on the subdivisionof land and their build out rates werereiterated. The conceptof infill developmentthat had previouslybeen discussed in chapterfive of the plan appeared once again. The need for initiatives to provide low incomehousing (insensitively called poor houses) was stated. The roles that government and theprivate sector were to play were not developed upon. It was noted however, that self helphouse building was a significant feature of Caymanian housing.The cost of housing finance was described as being out of reach of a majority ofCaymanians, with only one third able to assume a mortgage of $30,000.00 at12% after a15 year period for a 1,000 sq. ft. house. With this recognition, 12 housing objectiveswereproposed to bridge the gap between housing demand and housing supply. Some of thesehowever appeared contradictory. For example construction of single family housing was“preferred”, yet lower construction costs were to be encouraged. Again, many of theseobjectives were vague. This section of chapter 9 like much of the report of survey was52prefaced with the disclaimer that insufficient researchhad been carried outto determine adetailed (housing) programme.Chapter Ten, entitled “Ecologyand Environment,” discussed both the natural andbuilt environments. Beginning withcoral reefs and the effects of dredging, it described theecological role of mangrove swamps and the needfor swampland management. It alsopointed outthe need for conservation and protectionof beach ridges. Much of this chapterwas replete with brief descriptionsof subsystems of the island ecosystem, the effect ofplanning on settlement patterns, the virtues of traditionalmethods of constructingthe builtenvironment, the impact both negative andpositive of tourism, the benefits of properlyscaled development, the importanceof beaches, mangroves, ironshore, beach ridges,vegetation, road layouts and the effects ofarchitectureon thescale and function ofthe builtenvironment.It suggested a partnership between the departmentof planning and the privatearchitectural offices, to give careful consideration tothe character of development with aview to realizing a “Cayman Image” similar to that developedin Bermuda and the DutchAntilles. One tentative suggestion also put forward was for the creation of aNational Trust.The concluding remarks were that researchwas underway to provide more definitivepronouncements on ways to positively contribute to longrange development.Chapter Eleven, entitled “Present Structure of Development,”described in 12 pagesthe existing spatial layout of areas and an overviewof the state of infrastructural services.The electoral district of West Bay was considered to be a quasi-dormitorytown for GeorgeTown as were the other districts. George Townwas exerting urban primacy and this wasanticipated to continue. Warnings were issuedregarding the inadequacy of roads, water,and sewer lines in GeorgeTown and theWestBay area. The importance ofthe latter as the53main tourist resort area was noted. The needfor careful planning and monitoring of thisprime tourist area figured prominently inthis chapter. Specific concerns were: thereservation of sites for hotel development, publicaccess to the beach, the folly of ribbondevelopment, the need to maintain the architectural/aestheticquality of the area, theproliferation of shopping centres,the need for conservation areas, the control of dredging,thegrowth oftrafficvolumes, theeliminationofthe motorwayand the provision ofcorridorsfor cycling and walking.George Town’s spatial layout and services wereagain considered in a broad,generalized manner. The needfor a tourist information centre and a foreshore walkwaywere deemed desirable, but no in depth analyses wereoffered to determine appropriatespace standards, or theadequacyof services. Similarly, the other three electoral districts ofBodden Town, North Sideand East End wereall superficiallyanalyzed.Specific recognitionwas given to the need for a “rapid communication road” betweenthese outer districts andthe capital, yet no effort was made to retain or replace the east-westarterial that hadpreviously been proposed by the interim development planof 1972. A loop road wasproposed in Bodden Town and an east-west road linked to FrankSound road from Collierswith a north-south link to East End were the onlyother road proposals.Chapter Twelve, entitled “Future Patterns Of Development,” set out7 primary goalsand 6 secondary goals of the plan. The importance of the tourism industry tothe economywas underscored, while the need for limiting the number oftourists was advocated. Theneed forwhatwastermed “concentrated decentralisation”was putforwardto preventsprawland ensure that high amenity development occurred.Laissez-faire development was again denounced andthirteen negativecharacterizations of it stated. Two of thesewhich are evident today are: the choking of54main roads through increased traffic and, ribbon development with its higher costsofservices and infrastructure.Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen dealt with “Cayman Brac” and “Little Cayman.”These two islands have not experienced the development pressures ofGrand Cayman. Asa result the need for planning has not been seen to be asacute as that of Grand Cayman.Thus, the developmentof planning initiatives and institutions have not been pursued to thedegree that they have in Grand Cayman. Nevertheless,calls were made for an integrativedevelopment strategy for the lesser (now sister) islands. Additionally, itwas noted thatdetailed area plans had yetto be produced for all oftheelectoral districts,Cayman Brac andLittle Cayman included.A population projection produced for Little Cayman was surprisingly much more ontarget than that for Grand Cayman. Little Cayman was seen as a conservation and“highlyselective” touristarea, yetthe notion of locatinga break bulkoil terminal storagefacilitywasnot ruled out. Ironically, this was being considered for the western end of theisland whererecently, most of the tourist development is taking place. These chapters again concludedwith the almost apologetic disclaimer that broad outlines were all thatwere possiblewithinthe context of the report, and again they urged further study.Chapter Fifteen entitled “Planning Statement,” consisted of a number ofzoningproposals that were to be read in conjunction with the zoning map. Accompanyingthezoning proposals werespecifications on site coverage, densitysetbacks, lotsizes, minimumlot frontages, and carparking requirements. It is surprising thatmany of these stipulationswere articulated given the stated intent of the housing section to reduce building costs.In mostzones, therewas a maximum site coverage for houses but in mediumdensityresidential zones therewas a minimum site coverage aswell. Additionally, there appeared55to be a confusing number of requirements regardingsetbacks, maximum and minimum sitecoverages, the requirements for provision and thesizes ofstorageunits, within and betweenzones. The Authoritywas given broad discretionary powers and these were to prove to beculturally unacceptableto the Island community.Chapter Sixteen consisted of allof the appendices which included rainfall,temperatures population and demographicdata inthe Cayman Islands and otherCaribbeancountries, work force composition, preferred population distributions andwork forcecompositions, soil types, acreages of soils, import tonnages of goods arriving by sea, watersupply by building type, tourist arrivals by air and national origin, an analysis of touristfacilities giving lists and numbers of Caymanians and non-Caymanians employed, a listingof tourist support services such as restaurants, car rental agencies, etc.From the above description one will notethatthe proposed 1975 development planwas extremely ambitious in the amount and variety of subject matter that it covered.Thedata collection and tabulation exercise was quite impressive given thefact that automationwas not highly developed at that stage. In fact, it was not until 1979 that governmentpurchased its first computer.Whatthen was the resultofthe proposed plan? Like previous planning initiatives thisproposal resulted in unanticipated protests. Two marches occurred, one on December22th1975 and, another on February27th 1976 (The Nor’wester, April 1976,p.13). Slogans suchas “Death Warrant,” Destruction Plan,” “UnitedNations leftists,” “Communistic Plan” etc.were prominent in the media and on the placards at the marches (seefigure 2).Contentanalysis ofthe local publications from April of 1975 (when thepublic inputbegan) reveal a number of areas of contention that were recurrent.These are discussed inorder of importance below.56Figure 2 Public Opposition to the 1975 Development Plan‘‘It FRIGHTENED BRACKERS’DANGEROFRESJRICTIONpIaflunUer1jre:— CUT THE RUDCET SCRAPTHE DEVELOPMENT PLANRETURN OUR SWAMP LANO,’fVILAs winextra‘WOULD MAKE LAND VAlUELESS’::;1or Plan objections :‘::::‘SCRAP THE PLAN’— ‘Confiscation proposals willBrackers adamant:..rum Cayinan’s reputat1on’Plan unacceptableJ -‘‘STAGNATION’BY PLANUS investorattacks the Plan4TheDestruction P1an’Source: Various issues of The Nor’wester magazine published in the Cayman Islandsduring 1975-1 976.The ProcessThe plan, even though prepared undertheauspices ofthe Central PlanningAuthority(CPA) was based on the work of the United Nations advisory team. In 1969, the UnitedNations had prepared a draft plan which was approved by the CPA on January 25th 1972.This plan was known as the Interim Development Plan. A further Draft Plan was producedin March of 1973. Early in 1974 a United Kingdom development adviser was appointedto review the social and economic aspects of the plan. A United Nations team arrivedinDecember of 1 974 and the proposed 1 975 Development Plan was drafted, It was amendedin consultation with the CPA. Subsequently, the plan was approved by Executive Counciland then the 1 90 page document of texts and illustrations, with high gloss multi- colouredmaps, was printed.57The planning law extantat thetime (the 1971 Law) mandated thatthe public was tobe notified of the Proposed Planand that copies were to be made available for publicreview. A statutory one month period was laid downin the law, duringwhich objectionsand representations could be made. Despite thisminimalist public input requirement,several steps were taken to solicit public input.For example an eight page newspaper supplementwas published on April 3rd 1975.Exhibitions were undertaken which included photographs andother illustrative material, aquestion and answer column was openedin the local newspaper and, a number of publicmeetings held, as were discussions with civic groups. Alocal magazine, “The Nor’wester”,devoted practically all of its May 1 975 issue to thePlan.Nevertheless, these actions culminated in the marchesin December 1 975 andFebruary 1976. Clearly, the public inputaspect ofthe planwas flawed. Rather than beingdeveloped systematically throughout the process,with the communities, the plan wasprepared by technical experts and then put out for public input.By the time it reached thepublic, it was set in a polished, professional format, that suggested little roomforamendment.A time frame of one month for review by the general public was far tooshort. Whyshould we only have one month to review a documentthat took the experts years tocomplete? was the indignantquestion ofthe day. Theadversarial approach for publicinput,entrenched in law, was not recognized to be a constrainingfactor. Public presentationsand press releases were thought to compensatefor the short time frame embodied in law.Despite the fact that the plan was replete with disclaimers on the needfor furtherstudy in order to arrive at more detailed programmes,it stated “the 1972 plan was aninterim measure pending preparation of the definitiveplan which is now presented”58(Proposed Development Plan, 1975,p.115). This assertion, and the finished formatpreviously noted, had the effect of convincing thecommunity that the plan was cut anddried, official assurances to the contrary.The ContentSome blame for its failure must also lie withthe content and structure of the plan.The sheer volume of its pages and the myriad of issuescovered, could easily be construedas an extremecase of informationoverload, even in a much more sophisticated metropolitansetting. The number of maps, charts,tables etc. were in many instances superfluous, sincevery little analysis of their implications was explicitin the plan. Additionally, and perhapsmost damaging was the thrust which the plan took.Explicit in its approach was thephilosophy of moderate growth, conservationand, general restraint. When the plan wasbeing formulated, the island economy was buoyant.However, by the time it was produced, the economic picturehad been altereddrastically world wide. For a small group of islandswith a fragile economy, primarilydependenton tourism and offshore banking and financethegist of the plan, though noble,was inappropriate at that time. Moreover,it was predicated on the premise that the entirecommunity would laud and embrace a controlledpopulation growth policy. All of itsprojections, based on controlled population growth;with the exception of the populationgrowth for Little Cayman, would prove to be inadequate.Atthetime more importantly, thecontrolled growth scenario was culturally unacceptable.Moreover, what did not appear to have been given sufficient consideration wasthefact that 1 976 was an election year. Planningin the Cayman Islands, as noted previously,has historically been a politically contentiousissue. In 1976, the proponents of the plan59weredefeated atthe polls. The newlyelected governmentwerethen obliged to take up thegauntlet of planning.60CHAPTER 4: PLANNING INITIATIVES 1977 TO 19894.1 Physical PlanningPhysical Planning in the Cayman Islands is primarilythe responsibilityofthe CentralPlanning Authority (CPA) and the Development ControlBoard (DCB). The Administrativearm of the CPA is the Planning Department. Inundertaking this responsibility the CPA isbound by section five of the Developmentand Planning Law (Revised). This law waspreviously known as the Development and PlanningLaw (1971) and was revised andconsolidated in 1 978. Additionally, the Developmentand Planning Regulations (withamendments) 1 977arethecurrentRegulations, havingreplacedthe 1 972 Regulations inJulyof 1 977. These legislative measuresand the DevelopmentPlan 1 977, form thestatutoryandpolicy umbrella under which the CPA and DCBoperate.Unlike its forerunner, the 1975 plan, the 1977 Development Plan is athin, easilyread publication. From chapter three one will recallthe dissension that was rife duringthedebates on the 1 975 plan. Content analysisof the island periodicals and newspapers forthe period 1975 to 1978 reveal thatdissenton planningissues peaked in 1976 and droppedof sharply in 1977.A number of dynamics explain this phenomenon. First, elections had justbeenconcluded late in 1976. The losing team1was the proponentof the 1975 Plan. They did1Since there are no political partiesj,teams areformed. These are grouping ofpotential candidates from each electoral district thathold similar views on various aspectsof economic, physical and social issues. There isno extreme right or left wing, and inpolitical terms most politicians would have to be consideredcentrists, with perhaps a biasslightly to the right of centre61not retain any seats in the legislative assembly andtherefore were unable to raise anyopposition from that quarter.In addition, the newly elected government(in 1 976) formed district committees, toreview the proposals of the 1 975 plan that had by this time been subjected to revision anda rigorous appeals process. Subsequently, thenew proposals were put before a SelectCommittee of the Whole (of the legislature). By July 28th of 1977, the islandshad a newDevelopment Plan and new Planning Regulations. Headlines in islandpublicationsheralded the decision (See Figure 3).Figure 3 Public Acceptance of the 1977 Development PlanThe new Pla‘Deemed proper’- - —IEnd to a bitter,. Revised versioneightyear saga,, lo rio wru by[‘oogLqut ppooIFlexibility is in discretion is out-‘_______________________I‘Flexibility’ the theme ofi. toorow onew Development PlanW°olofmuob1i!/j;Source: July and August issues of TheNor’wester, 1 977.For the past sixteen years the physical development that has occurred hasbeenguided by the 1 977 plan, the Law and, Regulations. For the sister Islands, guidelinesweredeemed acceptable and desirable, therefore only the Lawis applicable to them.The major changes to the plan were:a) Removal of a proposedcanal at Red Bay.62b)Increased Residential Zoning and the mapping of three district residentialzones based on density.c)Reduction of the public open space/zone, and the provision of dispersedpublic open spaces around the coast.d)Reduction of the protected mangrove zone, a name change to stormbeltandreduction of the storm belt from 1,000 to 500 ft.e)Reduction of the Agriculture Forest Reserve Zone, a name change toAgriculture/Residential and an increase in density to one (1) houseper acreup from one house per five (5) acres.f) The expansion of commercial areas and the dispersalof commercial zones inoutlying districts.g) An expansion in industrial zoning and two categoriesof industrial zones.h) Deletionof the term heritage coast and replacement by the name sceniccoastline with relocation of some sceniccoastline areas.I) Expansionof the hotel/tourism zone and a name change from hotel.j) The provision of publicaccess pointsalongthe coast from the road to the sea.k) The provision ofsubstantially more road corridors.Flexibility was the theme of the 1977plan and this was juxtaposed against“discretion.” The latter it was stated (Ihe Nor’wester, September1 977) had been misusedby the CPA. In contrast tothe 1975 plan, the 1977 plan did not expound on the need forplanning. Neither did it attempt to justify the merits of aconservation ethic. Instead, itpresented a matter of fact “business as usual” approachthat specifically identifiedcharacteristics of Caymanian culture (namely: self reliance, sea-faring,free enterprise andland ownership interests) and denounced any planningeffort that would frustrate this wayof life, as beingdoomed to failure. The 1977 plan introduced aconcept of flexible zoning,wherein proposed primary land uses were identified and other proposed uses permitted,63provided that they demonstrated that they didnot adversely affect the primary use of thezone.There was neither an attempt at determining apopulation growth policy nor anyinternal distribution of population. Fresh water supplies, it wasnoted, would requireimprovement and, in this regard, a reportwas forthcoming from consulting engineers.Similar statements were made forthe provision of sewerage. A series of appendices wereincluded that listed density, site coverage,lot size, parking and building heightrequirements. These were also stipulated in Regulations.Additionally, road, water and,sewerage requirements were stipulated that were duplicated inthe Regulations.The pro-growth stance of the 1977 plan is undeniable. For example,some of thepolicies listed under the heading strategy are:a) to accommodatethe present and future population of the Island to the bestadvantage having regard to the quality of life andthe economic well beingand prosperity of the people and to their individual requirements.b) to maintainand encouragethe furtherdevelopmentofthetouristindustryandof the banking industry.c) to encouragethedevelopmentofmanufacturingindustry, service industryandfood production with the object of making the Island more self sufficient.However, the conservation of fresh water supplies and the preservation of natural resourceswere also noted as policies. The flexible land use conceptof the plan has proven to be apopular and enduring approach to physical planning. Its adequacywill be given furtherconsideration in chapter 5.644.2 Road PlanningThis section examines the general roadplanning initiatives that were undertakenbetween 1977 and 1989 on Grand Cayman. Theseinitiativesare examined from a land useplanning perspective. Such examination doesnot purport to be a detailed analysis oftransportation planning needs. Rather, it isintended to describe the methods by which roadcorridors are created and roads provided.Early road construction efforts as describedin chapter three were undertaken as ad-hoc capital works projects on an (intuitivelydetermined) as needed basis. Thus it can besaid that the current road systemhas evolved without the benefit of systematic trafficanalyses.Section 6 of the development and planning lawstipulates that proposed roads canbe defined in a developmentplan. Pursuant to section 6 (4) and the Second Schedule, thereservation of land for roads orrights ofway, closing or diversion of roads or rights of way,construction of new roads and alterationofexisting roads, the line, width, level constructionetc. of roads can be providedfor in a Development Plan. TheAuthority, however, pursuantto Regulation 6 (2) shall not designateland as subject to acquisition if it appears to theAuthority to be unlikely that the acquisition willtake place within 5 years of the date ofoperation of the plan.Further, under Regulation 6 (3), if the Authority has not acquiredland subject toacquisition within one year of the date of operationof the plan, a land owner (or someoneowning an interest) may serve the Authority with a noticerequiring acquisition. A failureof the Authority to comply within 6 months(or a longer negotiated time) renders thepropertynotsubjecttoacquisition. Therefore,longterm planningfor road corridors beyonda five year time frame is severely constrained.65The road provisions of the 1972 interim planhad been removed in the 1975 plandue to its controlledgrowth philosophy and population control policy. Specifically,proposals for the road then known as the West Baymotorway and the east-west arterialceased to exist. In the 1977plan these road provisions were not reinstated. Instead,alternative proposals that anticipated- and attempted to encourage - the eastern expansionof developmentwere put forward, as was anextension to the Mount Pleasant road in WestBay.The north east coast road, now known as theQueens Highway, and the MountPleasant road extension were completed. A relativelyextensive series of agricultural feederroads werealso completed. Over time, junctionimprovements atthe more congested areashave been undertaken, as well as the realignment of dangerous curves androad shoulderimprovements. Extensive road surfacing and repairshave also been mainstays of the roadsprogramme. The upgrading andcontinuation of roads has taken place incrementallythroughoutthe districts.New road corridors and road construction takesplace in two ways. First, under theroads law, Executive Council is the Highway Authority.Certain of its functions may bedelegated to the Public Works Department.It is Executive Council, however, that decided(and decides) when and where roads were (will be)constructed. Oncethegeneral locationof the road has been decided, Public Works Departmentis instructed to complete the roaddesign. The proposal is then put forward to thePlanning Authority which considers therecommendation of the Planning Department and eithergrants or refuses planningpermission for the road. The Lands and Survey Departmentis then instructed to completea boundary plan and once thisis done, and negotiations concluded for land acquisition, theroad is gazzetted and subsequently constructedby Public Works Department. The decision66to locate a road corridor is,broadly speaking, based on subjective assessments.Additionally, area residents and technical personnelmay be consulted. There is noevidence to suggest, however, that the decision tolocate a road corridor results fromsystematic or standardized rationalizations such as levels ofservice,tripgeneration, averagedaily traffic, peak hour flows, etc. Neither was thereevidence to suggest that the roadcorridor proposals formed part of a larger road network plan. Further, thelinkage betweenprojected future development and projected future traffic volumes does not appear to begiven sufficient consideration.The second waythat roads are constructed is when privateinterests wish to constructa subdivision or a project for whichroad access and provision is necessary. Plans, eitherprepared in advance or after consultation with the Planning Department,are submitted tothe Planning Department for evaluation. PublicWorks is requested to comment on theproposal and after receipt of such comments a recommendationis made to the CPA. TheCPA can either grant planning permission or refuse it.Thegranting of planning permissionis usually subject to conditions, one (in the case of roads) of which is that the developershall liaise with the Public Works Department prior to and during road construction,toensure that the road is adequately constructed. Over time,the standards to determineadequacy have evolved into a relatively comprehensivewritten format, specifying widths,curb heights, horizontal alignments and othergeometric requirements.Once the roads have been certified by the PublicWorks Department to have beenconstructed to the requisite standard,the Planing Department signs a final approval planwhich allows the developer to, through the Lands and Survey Department,register thedevelopment and the roads. Once sufficient buildingconstruction has occurred to deriveaccess from the road, the PublicWorks Department is then requested to organizegazzetting67of the road as a public road. Once a road has been gazzetted, the PublicWorksDepartment is obliged to maintain the road. The original developer is notobligated to incurany further road costs.In an attempt to improvethe traffic circulation and road planning function, a masterground transportation study was commissioned and was completed in 1988.Aninternational firm of Consulting Engineers Architects and Planners - WilburSmith andAssociates - undertookthe study and workedwith a local steering committee of senior civilservants representingthe Planning, Public Works, Lands and Survey, and LegalDepartmentsalongwith the Financial Secretary’s office, the Portfolio responsible forRoads Planningandthe Royal Cayman Islands PoliceForce. Substantial technical analyses, such as tripproduction, benefitlcost analysis and reviews of the existing legal andorganizationalarrangements for road planning occurred. Comprehensive recommendations forroadstandards, road corridors, policychangesand legislativeamendments,and fundingwerealsoproduced.Despite a technically sound report and presentation, the Master GroundTransportation Plan failed to be accepted as governmentpolicy. This failure has primarilybeen attributed to the excessive costs that were projected to be incurred over time.Additional contributory factors have been suggested as: excessive widths for roadsandjunctions, restriction of access to affected land owners and onerous design specifications.The Master Ground Transportation Plan also attempted toestablish a “longer term” (i.e. aten (10) year) horizon for road projects.In many instances, because of the relatively high level of urbanization, muchof theroad junction and corridor proposals entailed considerable encroachmenton, or removalofexistingdevelopment. This would have necessitatedeitherthe relocation or modification68ofaffected businesses and homes. It can beargued therefore,thatthecultural characteristicsstated in the 1977 plan played a significant rolein the rejection of the Master GroundTransportation Plan.4.3 Hurricane Preparedness PlanningHurricanesare a source ofgreatdestruction in theCaribbean. The Hurricaneseasonoccurs officially from 1st June through 30th November, buthurricanes have occurredoutside this period (Cayman Island Hurricane Preparedness plan,1990, p.1). In 1989, justpriorto theoccurrenceof HurricaneGilbert, a Hurricane PreparednessPlan forthe CaymanIslands was produced.This plan has and continues to be subject to revision annually.It is a forty sevenpage document with another sixteen pagesof maps. Within its ten chapters and sixappendices, a variety of topics are covered. Theseinclude the Hurricane emergencyorganization (although no organization chartis provided), hurricane warnings, internalcommunications, duties ofthepolice, search, rescueand initial clearance, action to betakenby the 1st of June each year and, a series of actionsafter phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. The phasesrelate to notification that is received on the location, speed etc.of the hurricane and, anestimation of when it is likely to strike, or when thethreat has passed.The aims of the Hurricane Preparedness Plan are stated asbeing to ensure that:a. All practical precautionsare taken in advance to minimize, prevent andprotect against the risk of injury to people and the loss of or damage toproperty during a hurricane.b. A pre-determinedplan exists for providing assistance and relief after ahurricane.c. Damage assessmentand recovery measures are in place to deal with a posthurricane disaster situation. (Cayman Island PreparednessPlan, p.2)69The plan also describes the variouscategories of storms and their effects. These arenoted below and are taken verbatim from the plan.Category 1:Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarilytoshrubbery, trees and foliage.No real damage to other structures.Some to poorly constructed Street signs. Stormsurge 5 to 7 feetabove normal. Somefloodingof low-lyingcoastal roads, minor pierdamage, beaches inundated,some small craft in exposed anchorages torn frommoorings.Category 2:Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage toshrubbery and treefoliage, some trees blown down. Some damage tobuilding roofs, windows anddoors. No major damage to inland buildings.Considerable damage to piers,marinas, beaches and small craft in unprotected anchorages.Storm surge 8 to 10feet above normal.Category 3:Winds of 110 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage tornfrom trees; large trees blowndown. Damage to roofs, windows and doorsof buildings, and some structuraldamage to small buildings. Storm surge 11 to 12 feet abovenormal. Seriousflooding along coasts, with larger structures battered,and smaller structuresdestroyed, by waves, floating debris and inundation.Category 4:Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs, trees andall signs blown down.Extensive damage to roofs, windows and doors. Complete failure of roofson manysmall residences. Storm surge 13 to 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lowerfloors of structures near coasts due to flooding, inundationof beaches, waves andfloating debris.Category 5:Winds greater than 155 miles per hour.Shrubs and large trees and all signs blowndown, with considerable damage to windows and doors. Somecomplete buildingfailures, with small buildings overturned or blown away. Stormsurge greater than18 feet above normal. Major damage tolower floors of all structures less than 15feet above sea level within 500 yards of shore. (CaymanIsland HurricanePreparedness Plan, 1990, pp.1-2)*H,ioon.Sh.It.r,E.Meá1c41a’iLr.ZONEICATEGORYIHURRiCANEEvouoteoilunprotectedbeocltroZONE2CATEGORY2HURRiCANEEvcucoU000stelzonesIZONESCATEGORY2HURRICANEEvocoateoilc005tai&Iow.IylngzonesZONE4CATEGORY4HURRICANEjereos-I, C . C 0 (DC 0 N 0 -P CuJ n3atBarkersN1POINTGrandCaymanNorthSoundWestPorntWEST66ORGEJacksonPWnttSouthWest‘QintSIDESOUNDBREARFRSC71It is also noted that:These categories are notto be confused with Evacuation Zones which are shown onthe Maps. A category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane recommends evacuation ofZones 1, 2 and3 on all three Islands.” (Cayman Islands, Hurricane Preparedness Plan,1 990, p.2)The following is a descriptive analysis from a spatial or land use perspective. Theonly critique of the organizational structure is as it relates to land use/spatial planning.From Figure 4, which is a composite map combining the maps for public shelters,for evacuation zones, and for emergency medical centres, one may note the following:a) There are 1 7Hurricane Shelters on Grand Cayman.b) Six of the shelters are also Emergency Medical Centres.C) There arethree evacuation zones.d) 12 of the shelters are located within evacuation zones.Additionally, evacuation zone 1 contains the major tourist resort area, where someofthe highest density apartment development is located. The major hotels are also locatedwithin this zone. In fact all of the lands designated as hotels/tourism zone, with theexception ofsome propertyat; theSafe Haven complex,theCayman Islands YachtClubandthe Brittania complex, are located within evacuation zones 1 and 2.Within these evacuation zones, one will also find four ofthe six emergencymedicalcentres. Indeed, Grand Cayman’s only hospital is less than one half of a mile from the seaand within evacuation zone 2. Building setback requirements for waterfront propertyinthese evacuation zones range from 20ft. on canal front lots to between 100 to 190 feetinhotels/tourism zones. Table 1 indicates the characteristic of the hurricane shelters.From Table 1, one can see thatfive shelters (both shelters in North Side, the BoddenTown Town Hall, the Weslyan Academy and United Church Hall in West Bay) meet theTable 1 Characteristics of Shelters72reMAI<6Jcfit4AY 41AL.. to .ft f4.t EMENy M.PicA. cf4TG.C4’ MULTPVIe W&L. Z7ft o Iftl4P$MA %4L.4-ft 4-tWT YW6YAN C-MRTlA4 4’--ft‘ +UNtTPGtt)4 HALL.‘t ‘f i.5 14±iTV TZWS4 fLAl..L.I CiPoft. Nc’84e 5EMSNcy MEPC,AL. cep4,7wry‘i I t•40 ‘ft 2*OPPN —P1 cwCr’i cft ‘(e6 ft I4.T1W4 I+M$. 4c’ft Y!ftfAU. Z&DDf&f o±MPILcNW.VA4AH 1MA’WL 2’.ft yfe I9±14ecy N4L..NTER’(m4Mcrn1Ty Au.6’fe Y5-zof ao’±KORTh $W j — —TJHHALL. ‘‘-•1o+Mg&y MpLcM-rEI4 F&VNTlS1 OttV)f+?ft. ‘( 64eMTNPJ.-CMC4Tc7f4. ‘(flft-- EM.ENC’’ MeP1CAI..r1MAgy6C4‘e -zxG4Y4ANMø1— — —‘TO4 LVTYCfl DZa’I4IL’BMRNc’,’ MPC6L- C.N1EC*Jl1gyEcZ’f.‘E5Wft 1.+WT Ht’M4’‘(E 2f Z9±— — —— — —— — —— — —NAHJRNAY64.1-h4U.Nt &.f tt*UTO l473plans criteriato sustain majordamage from acategory 5 Hurricane. Moreover, fullythirteenshelters will have to be evacuated if the directivesof the evacuation zones are to followedin the event of a category 3 Hurricane.Furthermore, if a category 2 Hurricane hits Grand Cayman, compliancewith theevacuation zone requirements will result in the evacuation of 12 shelters.Therefore, onlyin the event of a category 1 Hurricane can all of the shelters be utilizedif compliance withthe requirements of the evacuation zones ismaintained.74CHAPTER 5: THE ADEQUACY OF PHYSICAL PLANNING5.1 The Institutional Ability to IdentifyProblemsAs outlined in Chapter 1, oneof the six basic normative criteria was that theinstitutional organizations should have theability to clearly identify problems. Theidentification of problems waswhat was attempted in the preparation of the 1975developmentplan. This planninginitiativewas also an attemptatthe legitimation ofa formof rational comprehensive planning. This is notsurprising, since it was the model ofplanningthat was dominant in the 1 950s and 1 960s and waswidely supported in the ‘70s,having evolved from the physical planning modelsof the 1 920s and 1 930s (Alexander,1 986, p.75). Comprehensive planning it is noted,is characterised by a recognition of:the complexity of factors affecting and affected bywhat were previously perceivedas purely physical or land-usedecisions. These factors include social anddemographic characteristics of population;economic variables such as income andlocal or regional economic base; and transportationfactors, travel patterns, modalsplit and transportation networks. Comprehensive planning aims totake all of thesefactors intoaccount in a rational analytical planningprocess (Alexander, 1986, p.75).Thecontingentofexpertsthatwas assembled to createaplan and planning initiativesto replacethe interimisticdocumentsofthe early 1 970s and late 1 960s drew heavily on thedominant planning paradigm of the day. Thiswas one way that they were able tosimultaneouslyarrive at a model of realitythatexplainedhow the Island societyfunctionedand, reach a prescriptiveconclusionabouthow itshould evolve. There have been numerousattempts at successfully reviewingthe DevelopmentPlan since its adoption in 1977. Thesehave generally taken the form of reviews by outside agenciesand, despite being“comprehensively” undertaken and filled with manynumerical dataand scientificfacts, theyhave largely failed to have any impact onreforming the physical planning function.75Many of these technical studies called for restricting sprawl and theprematuresubdivision ofproperty. Thestandardrationalizationsagainstthis form ofdevelopmentsuchas inflation of land prices,unproductive use of land, unproductiveuse ofcapital to maintainservices to sparsely populated lands, the generallysuperior economic performance of morecompactly built and better plannedareas, etc., have also failed to bring about a consensuson the need for an expanded land useplanning function.Meanwhile, co-ordination of the development control functionover developmentprojects has progressively increased in scope and complexity.For example, the standardsfor road construction, sidewalk construction, parking lotconstruction,landscape provisions,electrical, plumbing, fire resistance, buildingconstruction and general site planning,favourablycomparewith requirements fortheseaspectsofdevelopment in more developedmetropolitan areas. This may be explained by the fact that much of thedevelopment hasoccurred as a result of offshore banking and tourism, theclientele of which are relativelyaffluent and therefore desirous of, and willing to pay for,high amenity development.Nevertheless, some of the consultant producedstudies overtime have indicated thatthere are land use problems which are growing inintensity such as traffic congestion, solidwaste disposal, inadequate public transport, thedeterioration of the island Image and theproliferation of “anywhere” architecture. Additionally,there has been no consensus on theneed for the establishment of standards, forparks, play grounds, sports fields, publicbeaches, launching ramps etc. Neither has therebeen any consensus arrived at on theextent of preservation of naturalareas that is necessary to retain various ecologicalcommunities and cultural activities.More fundamentally, there is no general consensus onwhether or not such preservation is a desirablenational objective, much less where and towhat degree it should occur.765.2 The Protective Function of the InstitutionsThe second of the normative criteriaput forward was that planning institutions thatprotectthe islands against negative externalitiesand promotea healthy societyshould exist.Upon examination of the Planning Lawand Regulations one will find that there are norequirements for the consideration of environmental/ecological factors in the developmentcontrol process of reviewing applications for planning permission. Neither do thesedocuments consider or require the consideration of socio-economic,demographic,functional and other factors in the formulation of Development Plans and the review ofdevelopment projects. In fact, the development plans referred to in the Lawhave beencriticised as “nothing more than zoning plans whose inadequacy for the purpose (ofdevelopment planning) is common knowledge” (PollardJL1991, p.143).The Planning Law can be described as primarily enabling, rather than normative orprescriptive regarding the provisions of a development plan. It provides for what canbedone, but does not mandate what planning initiatives should be carried out, or when. Theprescriptive provisions amount to procedural requirements, for example for the publicationof advertisements, the extent of the public comment period etc. In this regard, it containsthe flexibility to address the consequences and effects of future development pressures,anticipated or otherwise. On the other hand, because of this flexibility,preventative oranticipatory action is constrained. Within this framework, optimal solutionsare thereforelikely to be forfeited in the interest of expediency.Thedominantplanningparadigmwhich has emerged in the Cayman Islands has beenthat of incrementalism. Many critiques of this model of planning action have been putforward, the main thrusts being that it does not recognisethe impact of power in the policymaking process whereby the elite exclude others, and that it assumes thatall conflicts can77be resolved, and that consensus is always attainable.In reality, a forced compromise maybe the end result, that is perceived as consensus.Another, perhaps morefatal, set of criticisms of incrementalism has been putforwardbyWalker (1 984)and Eddison (1 972). Incrementalor marginal adjustments, it is contended,prevent major problems from being tackled by major initiatives. Combined with thecompartmentalisation of problems - i.e. the re-defining of problems to fit existingprogrammes, policies and legal or administrative structures - incremental problemsolvingbecomes distorted and incapable.Nevertheless, juxtaposed against rational-comprehensive planning, which was in1975 soundly rejected, incrementalism has remained the culturally acceptableform ofplanning in the Cayman Islands. For a group of (previously) insular, small islands whoseheritageand aspirations reflects “self reliance, seafaring, free enterpriseand land ownershipinterests” (Cayman Islands Development Plan, 1 977) a cautious approach to policymakingand planning initiatives is not surprising. Its protective function, from a bio-physicalperspective, to date does not appear to be appropriate. However this is difficult to verifysince the baseline data necessary to compare the various states of the Islands’built andnatural environments over time are absent. Systematic analyses are therefore suggested asdesirable initiatives for the future in this regard.5.3 A Plurality of ViewsThe third normative criterion was that a planning process which generates usefulinformation and respects a plurality of views should exist.Part 1, 1.2 of the DevelopmentPlan for the Cayman Islands 1 977 states “It is intended todefine and develop a planningstrategy for the Islands which is however flexibleenough in concept and implication to78accommodate individual requirements, specialcircumstances and changing conditions.”Thereare no other pronouncements on planningas a processwithin the Development Plan.It is suggested, however, that implicit in this is the conceptof respect for a plurality ofviews.Furthermore, Section 8 of the Development and Planning Law specifies that in thecourse of preparing or amending a development plan the CPA shallconsult with variouspublic authorities and consult with other bodies or persons as it thinks fit.The CPAis obliged to ensure that the proposals are published in a newspaper circulatingin theCayman Islands and a two month period for objectionsand representations is provided for.Subsequently an Appeals Tribunal is required to hold anenquiry into the objections andrepresentations both of which the CPA is bound to consider prior to submittingboth itsproposal and the Appeals Tribunal’s report to the Legislative Assembly for consideration.Additionally,theAuthoritymay chooseto consultfurtherwiththepublic priorto submissionof the plan to the Legislative Assembly. This last step, however, is not mandatoryunlessotherwise directed by the Governor.From the above, it is clear that there is opportunity for a plurality of views to beconsidered in the planning process. The stages and degree of this publicconsultation,however, can be subject to a number of critiques. First,substantial discretion in theory isleftto the CPA regarding whom it should consult. It is thereforearguable thatthe CPA canexclude certain actors from the consultation stage.Secondly, to anyone familiar with typologies of citizen participation, it is clearthaton Arnsteins ladder (See Chapter 2) this type of participation reaches rung 5 (consultation)and within this framework is considered a degree of tokenism. MeasuredagainstSandercock’s typologies it can be labelled as market research, which aspreviously stated79views the bureaucratic efficiencyof the Government administration as its rationale.Simultaneously, it views the public as clients able tooffer advise and suggestions onplanning details but not on policy.Thirdly, the semantics and method of inputare at least suggestive, if not adeterminant, of an adversarial process.For example, it is stated that “the public may beconsulted with” rather than “must be invited toparticipate.” Further the public is enabledto make “objections andrepresentations” (through a public inquiry) on proposals ratherthanprovide policy options or offer suggestions for alternative proposals throughreferenda, orworkshops, or similar processes. As Travis(1969, p.96) has pointed out in using theScottish Planning Bill as an example this “asks the planner to publicize, buttragically doesnot oblige him to get public participationthroughoutthe planning process.”Regardingthegeneration of useful information, againsection 7 ofthe law is enablingrather than prescriptive. It is mandatorythat theCPA shall at least once in every five yearscarryouta fresh surveyoftheareaconsidered for a proposal and discretionaryin that it maycarryoutsuch surveys more frequently. The usefulnessofthe information in the surveywilldepend on the goals and objectives of the CPA at thetime. There is no stipulationregarding the form and contentof such a survey. Therefore, the issues that are raisedtherein maybe other than those most acutelyrequiringattention. Once again the flexibilityand pragmatism of the incrementalistapproach manifests itself by allowing the CPA todefine the form and content of the survey.5.4 Mechanisms for Conflict ResolutionThe fourth normative criterion was that mechanisms and organizationsthat providefor conflict resolution in the discourse on physicalplanning should exist. From the80precedingdiscussion it is evidentthatthe Section 8 actions oftheappeals tribunal providesfor a legally entrenched method of conflict resolution regarding debate on developmentplans. Additionally, Sections 40 and 41 of the Lawoffer legal mechanisms for thoseaggrieved by a decision of the CPA and the DevelopmentControl Board on an applicationfor planning permission as a component of the development control function.Theimplications of the provisions of these sections warrant further comment. First,in keepingwith the rules of due process an applicant or objector may represent themselves totheAuthority in person or in writing prior to a decision being made. Secondly, once thedecision is made, an appeal to a Tribunal may be made.Both respondentand appellantarerequired to be present before the Tribunal. Both the Tribunaland the CPA are appointedbodies. Thirdly, anyone aggrieved by a decision oftheTribunal may appeal such decisionto the Grand Court. Clearly the decisions of the CPA, regarding applicationsfor planningpermission though dominated by highly structured legalistic processes provide for fair andequitable treatment within the constraint of affordability.The mechanisms for conflict resolution in the development plan making arenahowever are not as certain in terms of their outcome. Once the Tribunal has compiled itsreport and submitted it to the CPA, the CPA is bound to consider it. That is to say theremust be sufficient evidence to prove that the CPA in thefinal submission of its plan hasreviewed and considered the Tribunal’s Report. This may or may not impact onthecontents of the Plan. However, a further discretionary provision exists within the processthat might result in the CPA consulting further with those that initially madethe objectionor representation if instructed to do so by the Governor. This form of input in the pastcontributed to overt political dissension, which was manifestin highly charged publicmeetings and public protest marches. It is well known that in order to quicklyresolve a81conflict one can escalate the conflict. However,the results are not always predictable nordesirable. Therefore, based on its historical propensitytogenerateconflictand divisiveness,policy debate on land use and planning issues appears to be aprime candidate forexpansion of conflict resolution mechanisms.This is suggested for a number of reasons. First, those mechanisms that exist arehighly legalistic in natureand, as such, arefundamentallyadversarial.Further,theypromotethe propensity for objections to initiatives to emerge bynot mandating that citizenparticipation is undertaken throughoutthe plan making process. Additionally, the “topdown” bent ofthe planning process almost guaranteesthatany opportunityfor citizen inputcomes at a very late stage. Despite this fact, the initiatingagency may choosetoprovideforit earlier. Nevertheless, any prior provision to that legally mandated, can beviewed aswithout legal standing, and therefore less meaningful.5.5 Cultural Acceptability And ContextualAppropriatenessThe fifth criterion was that a planning process that is culturally acceptable andotherwise contextually appropriate should exist. Lichfield (1 979, p.7) suggests that intheU.K. context, dissatisfaction with the planningsystem resultsfrom a general unacceptabilityofa whole system where “we seem to stagger from issue to issue, and there is no clearleadas to what should be done”. In the Caymanian context,cultural acceptability to planninghas been expressed as political acceptability. Rational comprehensive planningwasshownto be notacceptableand thereforeits apparent nemesis, incrementalism was able to fill theplanning void.However, in terms of incremental change, it is primarily the development controlfunction that has advanced in concert with the quality of private developmentinitiatives.82Land use planningp on a national scale, has largely been ignored. Cumulatively,thedevelopment of subdivisions, commercial buildings, apartment and hotel complexes,industrial buildings and public buildings etc., have combined to create land use patterns.Such patterns are characterised by:1) Generally, a non hierarchical road system.ii) A tendency to locate buildings in fore shore areas.iii) A general propensity for wholesale landscape change by development projectsincluding public roads.iv) A general underdevelopment of public recreational facilities.v) Inadequate parking provision in theCentral Business district.vi) Traffic congestion to and from the Central Business District in the AM and PM peakhours.vii) A general under provision of conservation areas.Additionally, in some waterfront locations, for e.g. Cayman Kai/Rum Point and the BoggySand Road area inadequatesea-side setbacks have failed toaccommodatecoastal dynamics.Resulting from this has been the “loss” of beaches and the perceived need for “propertyprotection” in the form of armoured shorelines by sea walls, or groynes.Theextentand pace ofmangroveswampland loss was chronicled previously(Ebanks,C., 1 988), and earlier by the Natural ResourcesUnit (now Department of Environment).However, the need to limit swampland filling has not yet been agreed to. Adverseecological effects that will result from excessive removal of swampland is alsowelldocumented (See for example Ebanks, C., 1 988).More recently, concern has been expressed about the destruction of buildingsofhistorical value due primarily to theirarchitectural quality. In this regard, the National Trusthas taken a fairlyactive preservation role. Still, there is no articulated overallpolicyon longterm land use planning. This is due, in part, to the provisions of the Development andPlanning Law wherein, as noted in the section on road planning in thisthesis, acquisitionof property is limited to a five year period.835.6 Implementation AndMonitoringThe sixth criterion was that methods for the effective implementationof planningdecisionsthatincludesequencingand monitoringshouldexist. The DevelopmentPlan, andthe Developmentand Planning Lawand Regulations are conspicuouslysilent on the meansof implementation and monitoring of developmentplans. Although sections 6 and 30 ofthe law provide for conditions and limitations toacquisition of property by the CPA, thedevelopment plan has not been implemented in thisfashion.Generally, becauseoftherelativefragmentationoftheplanningfunction asdescribedearlier, implementation of projects are left to theparticular Ministry with jurisdiction overthe given activity. The land use aspectof government development projects appears to bea secondary considerationrelative to the budgeting process. There is a public sectorinvestment committee that includes membership from the senior, technicalcivil servants.Within this body, all ofthe largegovernment projectsare reviewed from amulti-disciplinaryperspective.Mostofthese projects, however, will not have been identified in adevelopmentplan.Rather, in keeping with the incremental approach, they will have beenidentified in theannual budget process either as a one, two or threeyear project. Therefore, whiledevelopment projects have been provided for in terms of implementation,there is verylimited potential for the implementation of theDevelopment Plan, except by affectedMinistries. The degree that they will be affected dependsprimarily on how involved theywere with the plan preparation, andhow both the plan and the ministerial agendas areintegrated.Monitoringevaluation is a necessary componentofthe planning process. Alexander(1981, p.138) notes that84without a diagnosis of the deficiencies of planning efforts which ismore than thelargely intuitive recognition we have now, we can expect little improvement beyondthe groping attempts at trial-and- error and thesuccession of fad by fashion whichhave characterised the evolution of planning as an organisedactivityThe requirements for an annual reportby the CPA, a mandatory fiveyear reviewofthe planand a provision for more frequentdiscretionaryreviews imply thatthe need for monitoringhas been considered. However, as a highly organized systematic activity that providesevaluative criteria to distinguish between intentionsand outcomes, planning monitoring inthe Cayman Islands is largely underdeveloped. Alexander(1981,pp.138-1 39) contendsthat“Success or failure must be judged both as functionsof internal or process consistency andofappropriateassessment of, and adaptation totheopportunitiesand constraints oftherealworld environment.” Initiatives that mandate evaluative or monitoring actionfor planningin the Cayman Islands context require additional formulation.85CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSDevelopmentcontrol, i.e. theevaluation ofapplicationsfor planning permission, hasbeen the primary form of planningthat has taken place in the CaymanIslands. At least onepreviousstudy(Roakes, S., 1987) proposedvariousmethodsthroughwhichthedevelopmentcontrol function could be reformed. However, Roakes’s study was basedprimarily on acomparison between the U.K. methods of developmentcontrol and that of the U.S. Bothwere juxtaposed against the Caymanian system. The comparative analysis wasaugmentedby interview questions posed to members ofwhat was termed 11the developmentcommunity.” These individuals were persons engaged in either architecture/engineering,real estate, construction, or the CPA. Some of them wore anumber of hats in fillingmultiple roles, e.g. CPA Member/Contractor/Developer.The proposals put forward, however, seemed to complicate rather than simplify theprocess (the latter of which it had set out to do). Alexander (1986,p.42) contends that“Development administrators, for example, may do their jobs in a PlanningAgency, butifthey are only applying existing regulations and controlsthey are doing very little or noPlanning.” It is presumed that Alexander does not includethe modification of regulationsand controls in this categorization. It is suggested that in developingareas, especiallysmallislands, developmentcontrol has a far greater impact on the aesthetic qualitiesthan it doesin larger, more developed metropolitan areas and, is therefore more crucial.Developmentcontrol issues are the tangibleaspects of planningthatthe communityobserves, complies with, are constrained by and given opportunities through. In societiescharacterised by face to face relationships, scarcity of resources, and vulnerabilitytooutsideevents, development control must be bothprotective and enabling. It must also be86anticipatory, and augmented by a correctmeasure of land use planning. Striking a balanceis the crucial ingredient in planning both as aprocess and a product.Thefollowing recommendationsare putforward in a spiritof concern aboutthewayplanning is done and the effects of both the process and the contentof plans. It is hopedthat if these are given sufficient consideration,some positive change will occur in the wayplanning is both perceived and practiced.6.1 Creating A Vision - Planning As ProcessIn the preceding discussion, much wassaid about the inadequacies of the currentplanning function as a participatory process. Additionally,the definition of planning putforward as appropriate for the Cayman Islands included collaborationand education. Thisis not to suggest that the education alluded tois solely that of positivism. Rather, it isenvisaged as a meeting of minds from a broadlyconstituted,community based perspective.Within this framework are the seeds for the emergence of an Island Style of Planning. Inkeeping with the basic philosophical tenet of the approach no definitive mannerform ofaction or physical plan of what must be done is put forward. Rather, anumber ofalternative forms for physical plans and ways within which thepratice of planning can bemoreautonomouslydeveloped are suggested. Each neighbourhood,orelectoral districtcandecide for itself how it can bestarticulate its aspirations to theelectedofficials. A mandatedpublic input procedure, however, that is entrenchedin Law will have to exist to augmentthe more experimental approach of community consensusbuilding. This will ensure thatwhat has been decided upon has an acceptedavenue to become legally binding.(1) Planningstaffshould make a concerted effort to impart both process and substantiveskills to the community throughformal and informal networks and contacts. Group87dynamics, such as coalition building, co-optation, mediation, negotiation and otherprocess oriented activities are beneficial methods of enquiryand action.(2) The beliefsand value systems ofthoseengaged in the process should notbeassumedbut should be made explicit.(3) Planners should visitvarious communities alongwith the representatives fortheareato see first hand what problems are being experienced and to learnfrom thecommunities what dreams and visions they may hold for the area (and beyond) andfor themselves, the area residents.(4) The concerns of elected officials should be high on the planners lists of informativemechanisms through which information is filtered and proposals suggested.(5) Planning initiativesthat will affect a community should involve the communitythroughout the planning process including the feedback and monitoring stages.(6) When, within an area, a specific grouping of people may be affected by a proposalthat group should be afforded an early opportunity to participate in the planningprocess.(7) Communities should be facilitated by the Planning Department to articulate theiraspirations and visions regarding their quality of life. However, it must be realizedthat these observations or expressions of desired futures are transitory, likeknowledge itself, and thus are dynamic, to some degree. Therefore, this exercise willhave to iterative.(8) Forums other thanpublic meetings should be used to insure that communitymembers of various socio-economic levels and ages are given opportunities toparticipate in the planning process.(9) A clear descriptionof the legal ramifications of decisions that are arrived at shouldexist to reduce the ambiguity of this aspect of the planning process.(10) The various initiatives that are proposed should be clearly labelled as to the range(in both time and space) of their intended consequences. This will eliminate orreduce unrealistic expectations ofwhatthe process can result in both temporallyandspatially.Such initiatives should take the form of the following hierarchy:1) 30 years - a strategic (advisory) plan that would concentrate on long rangeplanningpolicies regardingthe provision of infrastructureopen space, and thecharacter of the community.2) 10 years - a land use plan regarding zoning and spatial layouts of areas.883) Executingor implementation orders 1-5 years to ensurethatthe policies ofthelong term plan are integrated with the day to day demands for servicesfacilities and programmes.These will give flexibilityin terms oftiming, and certaintyin what is wanted spatially. Thus,if the economy is overheated implementationcan occur more rapidly and if sluggish moreslowly. As the cliche goes, changeis constant. Its direction can only be constructivelyguided if a communityarticulates its aspirations. The community should beable to answerthe following regardingthe process, timing and productof its planning initiatives: If not us,who? Who should be engaged in the process?If not now, when? When should theplanning initiatives and the process of planning occur?If not this, what? What are thecharacteristics of what can be agreed upon as a good community?The concept ofhabitability and what that engenders are providedin the following discussion.6.2 Creating a Vision - Planning As ProductsNo one individual has a right, it can be said, toimpose his/her will on an entirecommunity about how it should look or function. But,without some idea of what a placeshould look and “feel” like, it is unlikely tolook or “feel” like anything in particular.Through the collaborative process (or another variant), ideas can emergeon how an areawill be constituted to achieve certain ends. Such endscould be increased recreationalopportunities, increased sea views, or the maintenance ofcultural activities, As a point ofdeparture, the following are put forward toindicate how the island community may wishto evolve.(1) Increased or expandedviews to the waterfrontshould be provided for alongwith access to the sea. Lineal Parks and pedestrian ways should be providedfor especially in the George Town waterfrontarea.89(2) Lands and the marine areas that support traditional activitiessuch as fruitgathering, crab hunting, shore based fishingetc. should be identified with theaffected communities. Subsequently,these lands should beacquiredand heldin perpetuity for the use and enjoyment by the general public.3)When roads are being proposed either by the community, by the civicadministration or the private developer, their impacts on the area should besubject to vigorous analyses. For example traditional footpaths impart acertain ambienceand peacefulness to areas that is lostwhen theyare replacedby roadways.4) Incentives should be providedto encouragethe preservationandperpetuationof the Cayman Image. Again it must be realized that aesthetics may bedynamic. However, the traditional scale, detail colouring and placementofstructures suggest compelling and enduring qualities. Such incentivescouldincludecommunityawards forvarioustypesand styles ofbuildings, landscapetreatments, ancillary structures such as gazebos and docks, and ecologicalpreservation areas, public beaches and recreational areas.5) Provision shouldbe made to increase the incidence of travel by nonmotorised means includingwalkingand bicycling. This can includenetworksof pedestrian and cycling paths, the widening of road shoulders and ortheprovision of dendritic open spaces throughout urbanizing areas.6) Currentvacant waterfront properties should generally remain undeveloped.The coastal dynamics can be accommodated and scenic roadways can beprovided for. Additionally, development projects located adjacent tosuchroadways can be tiered with increased heights away from the road towardsthe center of the island. This has the advantage ofaffordingviews to a largersegment of the community and decreasingthe risk of storm surge damage tobuilding projects. It is also likely to positively affect the cost of propertyinsurance.7) The use of endemictrees, plants and shrubs in landscaping projects shouldbecome more prevalent. Animal species associated with the endemicflorawill retain a habitat and the use of biocides and expensive irrigation will beprevented or avoided.8) Compact, mixeduse arrangements of housing, businesses andinstitutional/civic centers should be planned and constructed. Face tofaceinteraction can be enhanced and most everyday trips may bewithin walkingdistance for residents of these areas. This will save on fuel consumption, carmaintenance, etc. and will reduce automobile emissions.9)Within 8 above, touristaccommodations should be integrated with the mixeduse cluster developments to provide for more cross cultural exchanges.Thestandard of facilities and infrastructure can therefore become more uniform.90This mixing will likely lead to expanded economic opportunitiesto localcornmunities.10) Additional considerationshould be given to the site planning and theaesthetics treatment of supermarkets, office buildingsand mini-malls. Thehard, stark areas ofasphalt parking lots should beprovided with grassed areas,areas with brick payers, areas with pea-gravelor packed white sand finishes,and landscaped islands and buffers to provide forvisual relief.11) Signs should be appropriatelyscaled, coloured and tastefully placed andappear as integral parts of the project presentation.They should be erectedwith the concepts of safety and their cumulative aesthetics effectsin mind.12) Civic squares and public recreational areasshould be laid out to provide forthecomfortand convenienceof users. This should includeshadetrees, sittingareas and design solutions thatencouragesocial interaction, such asattentionto the heights, widths placementetcofstreetfurniture. Additionally,drinkingfountains, restroom facilities and information centres should beseen asintegral components of such facilities.1 3) Commercial user docks for fishing boats,dive boats and other recreationalboats to use should be provided.This will eliminate land use conflictsbetween commercial boating activities and residential properties.It will alsoprovide for the proper treatment and collectionof waste from such boats.Additionally, the amount of refuelling areas can be lessenedwhich leads tomore comprehensive monitoring and thereby decreases theincidence ofpollution via spills, leakages, etc.Thereare many other initiativeswhich could andshould be undertakento provideimprovedquality, promote cohesiveness, and improve thehabitability of the built environment.Obviously, these initiativeswill have cost implicationsandwill require properplanningandprogramming to guide their success. Thepoint is that they demonstrate the kinds ofinitiatives that will be requiredif the planning function is to advance, beyond that ofincremental development control.916.3 ConclusionsPlanning in the Cayman Islands has existed as a legalentity since 1935. The earlyplanning initiatives took the form of Government capitalworks programmes involving theprovision (development) of civic buildings and physical infrastructure. In thisform, theywere considered to be development plans (i.e.plans for development). Because it waswholly dependent on the Government budgeting processfor implementation and providedtangible evidence of development (or gain) through works completion,capital worksprogramming came to be viewed as development planning. Coupled with a generallylowlevel of land based economicactivity, dueto the size, insularityand, marine orientednatureof the community precluded the need for land use planningwas precluded.By the late 1 960s and early 1 970s, an increase in tourism, banking and aconcomitant increase in population and the extent and pace of private developmentnecessitated the creation of Planning Laws and Regulations that enabled the civicadministration to influence the location, scale and nature of development projects.Additionally, the civic administration and some political actors supported the generalexpansion ofGovernmentintervention in land useactivities. Other political actors however,though supportive of an expanded government function in the control of useof land,disagreed on the natureand degree ofsuch intervention. As a result, community dissensionand divisiveness was prevalent in the 1 970s regarding appropriate land use policy.Rational comprehensive planning, previously the dominant planning paradigm wasput forward as a means ofaddressingthe concernsofa rapidlyevolving island society. Theassumptions of this initiative proved to be culturally unacceptable. This was due in parttothe previous dearth of both land use activity and land use regulation. Anothercontributoryfactor was the timing of the initiative relative to the economic opportunityof the day. The92economic expansion that suggested the needfor land use control and planning hadtemporarily slowed. The pressingneed therefore was economic activity.Incrementalism, though notformally identified as such byname bythe island societyhas offered a more flexible, pragmatic,culturally acceptable and, therefore, enduringapproach to land use. It haspersisted as the main form of planning action in the CaymanIslands. Included in this approach has been thegradual advance of developmentstandards.The primary form of planningaction that has takenplace has been developmentcontrol, inthe form of reviews of applicationsfor planning permission. Land use planning has, on acommunity wide scale, remainedlargely under-developed.6.4 ImplicationsPlanning involves contradictions (Lucy, 1988,p.219). Such contradictions maymanifestthemselves as problem specific(myopic) vscomprehensive (overgeneralized).Theyarise because of limitations on for example timeand certainty. Other limitations includesensitivity to the decision context, attentionto implementation, monitoring and theevaluation of results (Lucy, 1988,p.221). However, one of the important functions ofplanning is to adapt to such limitations in specificcases (Patton and Sawicki, 1986,pp.1-38).As population and development pressuresincrease in the Cayman Islands, thebenefits that can be achievedthrough land use planning will come to be recognized bymore people. In the interim, the opportunitiesfor optimum spatial planning will decreaseas virgin land becomes “developed.11Institutional inertia and cultural resistance maycombine to produce constraints toan expanded planning function if the methods andpoliciesdo notappearto beappropriate.In determiningappropriateness,correcttimingand93clear problem identification must occur. This can best beachieved through a form ofcollaborative planningaction thatprovidesforthearticulation ofaspirationsofa communityas was previously described.A collective of these aspirations can be viewed as acommunity vision, regarding both the processof planning and the product to be achievedas a result of plans. Such a process willdemand commitment in terms of capital, and effortand other resourceallocation. The benefits oftheprocess may be contained in various timeframes and therefore may not lend themselves to easyevaluation or political acceptance.As an initial advance towards the establishmentof a collaborative planning system,Section 8 of the Development andPlanning Law (R.) it is recommended, should beamended. Such an amendment should includethe creation of district planningcommitteesand, a co-ordinating committee.These committees should generally be non-partisan and,should included approximatelyseven to eleven members.Membership, initially, should bea two year appointment toallow for some continuity in the process of planning. Themandate ofthe co-ordinatingcommittee should providedfor strongpublic/privatecoalitionsto be formed by allowing for a broad based membership.Organizations that should beincluded are the Chamber of Commerce, theReal Estate Brokers Association, the NationalTrust, etc. Each electoral districtcommittee however,should concentrate on a membershipof individuals from within the district.In keeping with the concept of incremental advance, thesecond stage should be toentrench in Law the formation of neighbourhoodadvisory councils. Entrenchmentshouldinclude procedures for their relationshipswith the CPA and the district committees. Thesegroups would then be able, throughlegal forums, to advance their fears, concerns andaspirations for the future of their neighbourhoods.Additionally, in keeping with acollaborative approach, staff fromthe various technical agencies should beassigned to94facilitate, mediate, negotiate and advocate for and against proposed initiatives. Such staffwould, thereby, directlycontributeto the realization of a more dynamic and open planningsystem, wherein mutual learning and goal clarification can occur.Another beneficial incremental advance, that compliments the collaborativeapproach, is that socio-economic, demographic, and, ecological considerations should beexplicitly accommodated in the application review process. This will result in moreappropriatedevelopment projects from both a bio-physicaland socio-economicperspective.Long range planning, however, should not be overlooked duringthe process of incrementalreform. A fundamental goal of any such system, should be that of a healthy communityforhealthy people. This goal, that could be called heightened habitability, should form thebasis for any planning initiative in the future.Despite such a noble goal, there will be constraints to this process that should beborne in mind, that may include:1) Political inertia, and or resistance, that can be brought about throughpressures from Landownership and business interests.2) Particularism and the intense face to face rivalriesamongadvocates ofvariousaspects of the development process that may come about as a result ofthesize of the islands and their limited resource bases, for e.g. the traditionalenvironmentalist vs. developer dispute.3) A history of political conflictand divisiveness because of, and resistance to,planning initiatives.4) The inabilityofthe island community to recognizethe urgencyofappropriateplanning methods to address the threats and negative effects of thedevelopment process.5) The identification ofplanning initiatives as impediments to progress, ratherthan as necessary and inherent parts of the development process.95Simultaneously, a number of opportunities torealize advances in the planningfunction exist, that include:1) The relative ease that fact to face communication betweenelectedrepresentativesand other stakeholders in the development process canoccur.2) The potential fortheclearlyarticulatedconcernsand visions oftheconstituentcommittees to garner a high degree of political concern and support.3)The growing awareness that prudent planning is not just desirable, but alsoessential, if the achievement of a more healthy community is to be realized.With an increase in both population and land-use intensity, it willbecomeincreasingly apparentthat there should be greater attention paid to the processof planningand the context of plans. The demonstration effect of various successfulprojects,programmes and, other initiatives overseas will help to further the acceptanceof planningas an essential guiding element inthe development process.A long (59 years) association with planning in the Cayman Islands has witnessedtheemergence ofa sceptical view ofits valueas a longterm, guidingand enablingmechanism.Incrementalism, in the form of a gradual expansion of the development control aspectsofphysical planning, has emerged as the culturally acceptableform of planning. Such anapproach is pragmatic because of its ability torespond to changing circumstances.However, because it does not contain a long-termperspective, its utility as a proactiveplanning tool is severely limited.Inherent in any form of planning is the concept of predictably influencing theoutcome of an action or strategy. Land use problems will likely expandin the absence ofland use planning. Thereare, however, several indicationsto suggestthatthere is cause foroptimism.96First, there is a growing awareness in thecivic administration of the Islands on theneed for planning ofvarious forms that manifest themselves as, sectoral planningfrom botha programme budget and a strategic perspective. Secondly, there is an increasing cadreofuniversityeducated Caymanians that have been exposed to various methods ofdealingwithcomplex problems, who continueto haveaccess to global information networks. Third, theconcept of “clean living” both from a personal health and a broader ecological perspectiveappears to have taken root among many of the youth. Fourth, the concepts of people asstewards of the community, the benefits of eco-tourism and blo-diversityappear to havebecome accepted by many in the business community. Fifth, Government has seen it fitrecently to recruita number of planners and establish a long range planning section withinthe Planning Department.Future research will determinehoweffective land use planningbecomesandwhetherit realises its potential to positively influence the direction of change in a timely fashion.Meanwhile, it is hoped that the presentations of this thesis have shed some light onthehistorical development of physical planning initiatives in the Cayman Islands. Additionally,it is hoped that it will aid, in the acceptance of its value, and its perpetuation.97B IBitOGRAPHYA. Government DocumentsCayman Islands Government: Annual Report=1988. George Town: 1 989.• Cayman Islands Development1 947. Kingston: The Govt. Printer.DevelopmentElan1977.Development and Planning Regulations (1 972).Development and Planning Regulations (1 977).• EconomicalaiiFinancial Review, 1982.• Hansard parliamentary debates (especially between 1968 and 1977).• Hurricane Preparedness.EianfjthCavman Islands. George Town: Office of theFinancial Secretary, (Typewritten), 1 990.• Statistical Abstractfth.Cayman Islands - 1 988. 1 989.• Statistical Abstract.fth.Cavman Islands 1 987. George Town: 1 988.• flDevelopment Planningj(1971).• flDevelopmentjjPlanningjy(Revised) (1978).flj Land Development (Interim Control) (No 2) Regulations 1970.flLand Development (Interim Control) (No 2) Regulations 1 969.Master Ground Transportation.j.an1 988.• The Proposed Development Plan 1975.•IiiRegional Planning 1935.•IhRegional Planning (Amendment)j.y,1965.B. Primary Sources(1) Newspapers98Cavman,August 29th, 1 972.iJaCaymanian Weekly - The issues from 1 969 to 1 976.IiCayman Compass - The issues throughoutthe 1 970s.(ii) PeriodicalsIhNor’wester - All of the issues from 1972 to 1 977.(iii) Personal ConversationsEbanks, Kenneth S., Deputy Director of Planning, May 1993.McTaggart, Rick. Director of the Water Authority, March 1 994.C. Secondary SourcesArnstein, S.R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, lournalfAmerican InstitutefPlanners Vol.35, No.4 (1969)pp.216-224.Alexander, Ernest R. Approaches Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories.Concepts,ansiIssues. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1 986.Alexander, Ernest R. “If Planning Isnt Everything, Maybe it’s Something.” Town PlanningReview. Vol.52, No.2 (April 1981).Beatley, Timothy and Brower, David. j. “Public Perception of Hurricane Hazards:Examining the differential Effects of Hurricane Diana.” Coastal Zone Managementlournal, Vol.14, No.3 (1986)pp.241-269.Boyle, Robin and Rich, Daniel. “In Pursuit of the Private City: A comparative Assessmentof Urban Policy Orientations in Britain and the United States” Strathclyde Papers]11Planning, No.3. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 1984.Branch, Melville C. Comprehensive Planning, General TheoryacjPrinciples, California:Palisades Publishers, 1983.Burchell, Robert W., and Sternlieb, George (eds) Planning TheoryjjjJb.Nineteen Eighties:SearchfFuture Directions. NewJersey: Center for Urban Policy Research NewBrunswick, 1978.Carter, W. Air Vice Marshal. ProceduresjjGuidelinesfDisaster PreparednessResponse. Honolulu: East West Center, 1984.99Clavel, Pierre.Ih.Progressive City: Planning Participation,1 969-1 984. NewJersey:Rutgers, University Press, 1 986.Coastal Management: “Planning on the Edge”,lournalf jb.American PlanningAssociation. Vol. 51, No. 3 (Summer, 1985).Coccossis, Harry N. “Planning forIslands”, Ekistics, Vol. 323/324 (March/April - May/June,1987):pp.84-87.Connor, Desmond M. ConstructiveCitizen Participation: Resource Book. Victoria B.C.:Development Press, 1981.Cruz, M, D’Ayala P.C., Marcus E.,McElroyJ. L. and Rossi 0. “The demographic Dynamicsof Small Island Societies”, Ekistics, Vol. 323/324 (March/April - May/June,1987):pp.110-115.Daniels, Thomas L., Keller, John W. andLapping, Mark B.flSmall Town PlanningHandbook. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1 988.Davies, Elizabeth W.]jjLegal SystemfCayman Islands. Oxford: Law ReportsInternational, 1 989.Diamond, Derek, “The Uses of Strategic Planning: The example ofthe National PlanningGuidelines in Scotland”, Town Planning Review. Vol. 50, (1979):pp.18-35.Dinell, Tom, “Hawaii: Planning for Paradise”, Ekistics Vol. 323/324 (May/June 1987):pp.153-157.Dommen, E. and P. Hem (eds.) States, MicrostatesIslands. London: Croom Helm,1985.Dorney, Robert and Rich, George. “Urban Designin the Context of AchievingEnvironmental QualityThrough Ecosystems Analysis” ContactMay 8th 1 976,pp.28-48.Drabek, Thomas E. Human System Responses Disaster: InventoryjSociologicalFindings. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1 986.Ebanks, Carson. “Integrating Resource Protection and Development in aMangrove System:The Case of Grand Cayman.” Senior Honours Essay,The University of Waterloo,1988.Eddison, P.A. “Comprehensive Planning for Local Government”, in Stewart M. (ed.) IhCity: Problems2fPlanning, Penguin Education, 1 971 pp. 409-424.Equinox Travels,IbCayman Islands. January, 1 987.100Fagence, Michael. Citizen ParticipationIjiPlanning. Oxford: Pergamon Press 1 977Forester, John. PlanninginFacefPower. Berkeley: University of California Press,1989.Franklin, George H. “Physical Planning and the Third World.” Third World PlanningReview. Vol. 1(1) (Spring, 1979),pp.7-22.Friedmann, John. Planninginth.Public Domain: From Knowledge Action. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1 987.Hache, Jean Didier. “The Island Question: Problems and Prospects,” Ekistics, Vol. 323/324(May/June, 1987),pp.88-92.Hannerz, Ulf. Caymanian Politics: Structure Style in Changing Island Society.University of Stockholm, 1 974.Heap, Sir Desmond.AnOutlinefPlanning Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell, (Ninthedition.), 1 987.Hoch, Charles. “Doing Good and Being Right: The Pragmatic Connection in PlanningTheory”, APA lournal Vol.50, No.3 (Summer, 1984),pp.335-345.Hope, Kempe R. “Development Planning in Guyana: Promise and Performance.” ThirdWorld Planning Review. Vol.4, No.1 (February, 1982)pp.61-73.Jalan, B. (ed). Problemsj2.çj.PoliciesjSmall Island Economies. London: Croom Helm,1982.Klosterman, Richard E. “Arguments For and Against Planning.” Town Planning Review.Vol.56, No.1, (1985),pp.5-20.Leung, Hok Lin. Land Planning Made Plain. Ronald P. Frye & Co., Kingston,(Ontario), 1 989.Lichfield, Nathaniel. “Towards an Acceptable Planning System.” Town Planning Review.Vol.50, No.1(1 979)pp.5-17.Lichfied, N., Kettle, P. and Whitbread M. Evaluationin th.Planning Process. Oxford:Pergamon, 1975.Lucy, William. Close Power, Setting Prioritiesyj.thElected Officials. Washington:APA, Planners Press, 1988.Masser, lan (ed). Evaluating Urban Planning Efforts: Approaches PolicyAnalysis.Hampshire England: Gower Publishing Co. Ltd., 1 982101Meadows, Donella H. “Lessons from Global Modelling and Modellers,” Futures. April1982.McElroy, Jerome; de Albuquerque and Towle, Edward L. “Old Problems and NewDirections for Planning Sustainable Development in Small Islands,” Ekistics. Vol.323/324 (May/June,1987),pp.93-100.Pace, David and Hunter, John. Direct Participationin.Action:IiNew Bureaucracy.Hants, England: Gower Press, 1 978.Patton, Carl V. and Sawicki, David S. Basic Methodsç.f PolicyAnalysisaiPlanning. NewJersey: Prentice Hall, 1986.Pollard, Duke E.E. etj.Environmental lawsQftb.Commonwealth Caribbean,AnalysisnciNeeds Assessment. Caribbean Law Institute, 1991.Potter, Robert B. Urbanisation and PlanninginthThird World: Spatial PerceptionsaniPublic participation. London: Croom Helm Ltd. 1985.Reade, Eric. “If Planning Isn’t Everything ...“ Town Planning Review. Vol. 53 No.1(january 1 982),pp.65-78.Rhoda, Richard. Urban jjçj Regional AnalysisfDevelopment Planning. Colorado:Westview Press, Boulder, 1982.Roakes, Susan L. “Attitudes and Viewpoints of the Real Estate Development CommunityToward Development Control: Grand Cayman as a Case Study.” Masters Thesis.Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, 1987.Sandercock, Leonie. “Citizen Participation: The New Conservatism,” in Sarkissian, Wendyand Perlgut, Donald (eds.)[b.Community Participation Handbook: Resources.iQEPublic Involvement in the Planning Process. Roseville, Australia: Impact Press,1986.Sarkissian, Wendy and Perlgut, Donald (eds).Th.Community Participation Handbook:Resources for Public InvolvementjthPlanning Process. Roseville Australia:Impact Press, 1 986.Sauer, Jonathan D. Cayman Islands Seashore Vegetation:AStudyInComparativeBiogrography: Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 982.Schellenberg, James A.flSciencejConflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.Slater, David C. ManagementjLocal Planning. (Municipal Management Series),Washington DC: International City Management Association, 1 984.102Straub, Conrad P. PracticalHandbookfEnvironmental Control. Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press, Inc., 1989.Susskind, Lawrence, and Ozawa, Connie.“Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector:Mediator Accountabilityand the Public Interest Problem.” American BehaviouralScientist. Vol. 27, No. 2 (November/December1983) pp. 255-279.Swaby, Christopherand Lewis C. Bernard. Report.nForestryi12thCayman Islands. GreatBritain Comptroller for Developmentand Welfare in the West Indies, 1946.Tannehill, Ivan Ray. Hurricanes, TheirNature History. Princeton University Press,1942.The Conservation Foundation. Coastal EnvironmentalManagement: Guidelines fçConservationfResourcesanProtection Against Storm Hazards. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 980.Thomas, John Clayton. Between Citizen City.Neighbourhood organizationsniUrban PoliticsinCincinnati. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas,1 986.Travis, Anthony. “Ends and Means:Planning for a Changing Society.” Town PlanningReview. Vol. 40 #1 (April 1969)pp.91-101.Walker,J.Social Planning: StrategyfQjSocialist Welfare. Basil Blackwell, Publisher, Ltd1984.Williams, Neville.IHistoryfthCayman Islands. The Government of the CaymanIslands Grand Cayman, 1970.


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Hong Kong 5 0
United States 5 0
Cayman Islands 4 0
China 1 0
Sweden 1 0
Malaysia 1 0
France 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Central District 5 0
Unknown 3 2
Ashburn 2 0
George Town 2 0
Boardman 2 0
Stockholm 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Jitra 1 0
Latham 1 0
Tokyo 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items