@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix dc: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Applied Science, Faculty of"@en, "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Ebanks, Carson K."@en ; dcterms:issued "2009-02-26T23:16:28Z"@en, "1994"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """The Cayman Islands, since 1935 have, in one form or another, had planning laws on its legislative roster. Over time there have been modifications to these planning initiatives. During the course of modification varying degrees of conflict have occurred. Usually it has been expressed as political dissatisfaction. Despite this there has been an implicit recognition that planning is a necessary and therefore enduring activity. The degree and kind of planning that is both culturally acceptable and contextually appropriate has yet to be fully articulated. Impediments to this articulation are multifaceted and include: legislated procedures for public debate on the planning function, the cultural context where land ownership (and therefore use) is perceived as a basic right, previous attempts at rational comprehensive planning that were both substantively and procedurally inappropriate, a general confusion between development control and land use planning, an historical confusion between capital works programmes and development planning. As a result, a national vision of what the islands should aspire to in a spatial or land use context has failed to emerge. Additionally, an appropriate method of planning as a process remains largely undeveloped. Incrementalism has come to be accepted as the preferred form of planning. Its flexibility is its most admirable quality, but one which also prevents it from articulating a long term strategy. Incrementalism and a subjective method of proposing planning initiatives have led to instances where either the results of the plans are at odds with their intentions, or the initiatives have failed to be accepted. Public participation in the planning process is a means through which consensus on an appropriate spatial form can be expressed. In keeping with an incremental approach electoral districts should, through political means, determine the most appropriate methods of public input. A growing awareness of planning and expanded functions of the planning department, an increasing sophistication of the island society and an increased awareness of ecological processes in business circles offer reasons for optimism on the future of planning in the Cayman Islands context. A collaborative planning approach is best suited to determine an appropriate planning function, through correct timing, clear problem identification, and an articulation of the community’s collective aspirations."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/5180?expand=metadata"@en ; dcterms:extent "1858598 bytes"@en ; dc:format "application/pdf"@en ; skos:note "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’7 rtL j,oJ I iThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate LAJ (D(DE-6 (2188)ABSTRACTThe Cayman Islands, since 1 935 have, in one form or another, had planning laws onits legislative roster. Over time there have been modifications to these planning initiatives.During the course of modification varying degrees of conflict have occurred. Usually it hasbeen expressed as political dissatisfaction. Despite this there has been an implicitrecognition that planning is a necessary and therefore enduring activity.The degree and kind of planning that is both culturally acceptable and contextuallyappropriate has yet to be fully articulated. Impediments to this articulation are multifacetedand include:legislated procedures for public debate on the planning function, the cultural contextwhere land ownership (and therefore use) is perceived as a basic right, previousattempts at rational comprehensive planning that were both substantively andprocedurally inappropriate, a general confusion between development control andland use planning, an historical confusion between capital works programmes anddevelopment planning.As a result, a national vision of what the islands should aspire to in a spatial or land usecontext has failed to emerge. Additionally, an appropriate method of planning as a processremains largely undeveloped. Incrementalism has come to be accepted as the preferredform of planning. Its flexibility is its most admirable quality, but one which also preventsit from articulating a long term strategy. Incrementalism and a subjective method ofproposing planning initiatives have led to instances where either the results of the plans areat odds with their intentions, or the initiatives have failed to be accepted.Public participation in the planning process is a means through which consensus onan appropriate spatial form can be expressed. In keeping with an incremental approachelectoral districts should, through political means, determine the most appropriate methodsof public input. A growing awareness of planning and expanded functions of the planningdepartment, an increasing sophistication of the island society and an increased awarenessof ecological processes in business circles offer reasons for optimism on the future ofplanning in the Cayman Islands context. A collaborative planning approach is best suitedto determine an appropriate planning function, through correct timing, clear problemidentification, and an articulation of the community’s collective aspirations.TABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTS IIILIST OF FIGURES vLIST OF TABLES ViACKNOWLEDGEMENTSVIIA 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 Considerations in Planning For Islands .2.3 Normative Criteria For Land use Planning3.13.23.33.43.53.63.725252733353941454560606468CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 11.0 Introduction 11 .1 Purpose of the Thesis 11.2 Context1.3 Methodology1 .4 Organization/Structure of the ThesisCHAPTER 2:2.02.1CHAPTER 3:2681111121214141821AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PLANNING AND 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) Regulations 1 970The Development and Planning Law, 1971 and Regulations, 1972The Proposed Development Plan, 19753.7.1 DescriptionPLANNINGINITIATIVES1977TO 1989Physical PlanningRoad PlanningHurricane Preparedness PlanningCHAPTER 4:4.14.24.3IIITABLE 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 (Sandercocks Typologies on Arnstein’sLadder of Citizen Participation) 1 7Figure 2 Public Opposition to the 1 975 Development Plan 56Figure 3 Public Acceptance of the 1 977 Development Plan 61Figure 4 Hurricane Evacuation Zones and Shelters, Grand Cayman 70VLIST OF TABLESPageTable 1 Characteristics of Shelters 72viACKNOWIEDGEMENTSMany people have, through various means, helped to make this work possible. Iwish to express my gratitude to them and offer my sincere apologies to anyone inadvertentlyoverlooked. To Linda, Kay, Joy, Jonathan J., 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 Community and Regional Planning for intellectual stimulation and friendship. To Donaldfor discussions and solitude. To my mother, Ruby for continuous encouragement. Andfinally to my wife Sue and children Jonathan, Leah, Erin and Jessica, for unwavering support,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 conceptual and pragmatic terms, the mostappropriate and acceptable processes and organizations for planning for a group of smallislands that are largely economically dependent on international/offshore finance andtourism. In this regard this thesis attempts to respond to the following questions:a) What are the most contextually appropriate and culturally acceptable organizationsand processes through which physical planning goals can be accommodated (i.e.articulated, debated, decided upon, implemented, monitored and revised iteratively)?b) Can a set of criteria be identified which should be used in developing these goals?c) Given (b), are there physical goals which decision makers should seek to achieve forthe Islands?In order to determine the above it is necessary to evaluate the existing planninginstitutions and initiatives in light of the question “Have they (the existing institutions andinitiatives) evolved sufficiently in nature, and scope and in a timely manner, to satisfactorilyaddress the planning concerns perceived and experienced by the rapidly evolving islandsociety? To this end evaluative criteria are 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 influence planningprocedurally or substantively. Such agencies include the Central Planning Authority, theDevelopment Control Board, the National Trust of the Cayman Islands, the Chamber ofCommerce, and the National Planning Committee. Initiatives are defined as actions thathave attempted to inject meaningful change in the 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 about through policy or legislativeprocesses. However, the impetus for change may or may not have originated from thegovernment administration. Indeed, one aspect of this study is an attempt to determine howchanges in the planning function have occurred and against normative criteria, to evaluatethe appropriateness and acceptability of the manner in which change has taken place (aswell as the changes themselves).1.2 ContextThe Cayman Islands are a British Dependent Territory located in the northwestCaribbean. These Islands are Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. In total theyencompass 102 square miles (263 square km.) and in 1989 supported an estimatedpopulation of 26,500.Unlike many other Caribbean Islands, the Caymans are not 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 descriptivecharacterization does not do justice to the sheer variety, the integrity of physical land forms,or their intricate aesthetic qualities. However, the publication does go on to say that theislands have been blessed with underwater natural wonders that rank with the best in theCaribbean. In addition the primary hotel zone is described as “... nearly six miles ofunbroken, uncrowded sand, the colour and texture of fine baker’s sugar (which) form(s) asweeping crescent that embraces some of the calmest clearest waters in the Caribbean” (ibid,p.34).3Poetic licence aside, it is these natural resources, (including those not acknowledgedin this particular publication), a stable political system, aggressive marketing, and theprovision of high quality services and facilities that have enabled the Caymans to realize andsustain an enviable economic reality. For example per capita gross domestic product(G.D.P.) estimated at US$2851.00 in 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 inappropriate indicator of economic well being withina society, one must acknowledge that to have made such gains in 18 years suggests ahealthy economy. Historic data suggest that demographic change in the Cayman Islands isdirectly related to the level of economic opportunity. This may be indicated here byresident population and tourist arrivals statistics. Both of these sets of figures have risenrapidly over the years as well; in 1960 the resident population being 8,511 with a 1963tourist arrivals figure of 3,440. By 1989 and 1988 these numbers had jumped to 26,500residents and 219,000 tourists. Against this backdrop of escalating numbers recent localpublications, (both of the government and some elements in the private sector) have echoedwide-spread misgivings and uncertainties about the consequences of continuous 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 preparation of 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 and historical literature for the islandsboth in the 1 970s and 1 980s. W.M. Hamilton, the first Director of Planning stated in 1970“We don’t want to swamp the Islands with people and destroy their character, the key tomaintaining good development is controlled growth” (quoted in Williams, 1970, p.90).4Despite a long standing recognition by technical experts of the need for a rigorous physicalplanning function it seems that limited planning action has taken place. The 1 988 annualreport puts it succinctly “While public debate continued as to the desirability, practicality,and wisdom of imposing restraint on development, the economy continued to set its ownpace. keeping the construction industry at full stretch” (Cayman Islands Government, 1988,p.3 7; emphasis added).Although the Cayman Islands had accepted the need 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 received minimal attention until1969. The government of the day seemingly were concerned with a surge of economicactivity such as the islands had not previously experienced. Interim regulations proposedat that time had the effect of stimulating a protest march, emergency meetings of theLegislative Assembly, armed policemen being posted at the George Town town hall, andeven the arrival of a British Navy ship in George Town harbour (Hannerz, 1974, p.165).Despite these tensions, there were no violent incidents, the protest ended peacefully, andthe regulations were modified, then withdrawn in 1970, despite having been preceded bythe Land Development (Interim Control) Law in 1969 (Hannerz, 1974, p.l66).These were replaced by the Development and Planning Law (1971) andaccompanying regulations in 1 972. These initiatives called for the preparation of aDevelopment Plan, and after extensive and prolonged preparation the proposeddevelopment plan of 1975 was presented publicly. It proved to be too controversial innature and process and prompted two public protest marches, one in 1975 and another in1 976, following a number of highly charged public meetings. In accordance with the5provisions of the law, an intensive objection and representation period, and appeals processensued and the plan was withdrawn.New Development and Planning Regulations were approved in 1977 in conjunctionwith a vastly modified development Plan, this being deemed “the first development plan forthe Cayman Islands.” During 1978 the Development and Planning Law (Revised) replacedthe 1 971 Law. Except for primarily minor amendments, this Law, the attendant Regulationsand the Development Plan (1 977) are currently applicable.Administratively, the planning function, comprehensively defined, is split betweena number of government agencies. The Ministry of Community Development, Sports, YouthAffairs and Culture is responsible for community development, low cost housing, sports andplaying fields, sewage and water. The Portfolio of Finance and Development is empoweredto undertake national development planning, and is also responsible for compilation andproduction of statistics. Immigration falls under the jurisdiction of the Portfolio of Internaland External Affairs. Construction, dredging, fisheries, forestry, game and bird sanctuaries,parks and gardens, environment and natural resources, town and country planning (the heartof physical planning) and tourism are administered under the Ministry of Tourism,Environment and Planning. While lands, agriculture, public utilities, and roads are theresponsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Communication and Works. Clearly theplanning function, which is by nature extensive and multi-faceted, is relatively fragmentedwithin the administration. In this context, inter-governmental relations regarding the coordination of the various planning activities likely increases the complexity of andconstraints on both sectoral and land use planning. Because of its historically highpropensity for generating political controversy and divisiveness (via perceived land use6conflicts) regarding the development and control of land use, physical planning is likely tobe further constrained in its application, evolution and effectiveness.It is within this context, and in light of expressed uncertainties concerning the valueof “uncontrolled growth/development” that this thesis is written. It is hoped that this workwill prove helpful in understanding present and future planning concerns by providing bothan historical analysis of, and a normative yet pragmatic prescription for the development ofPlanning initiatives for the Cayman Islands.1.3 MethodologyThis thesis seeks to determine - in both theoretical and pragmatic terms - the mostappropriate tools and processes through which an acceptable and effective planning functioncan best be accommodated in the Cayman Islands.Planning has existed as a legitimate government sanctioned activity for fifty-nineyears. Given that planning laws, regulations, studies, planning institutions and otherassociated agencies and laws have been revised and progressively become more prolific andextensive throughout the years, it appears that Caymanians have accepted in principle, thatthere is a role for planning. Administrative mechanisms have also been progressivelyexpanded and reorganized to provide for its legal application.Thus it can be argued that planning has been, is, and will continue to 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 contextually appropriate has yet to be fullyarticulated. It is being suggested, therefore, that as a direct result, the emergence of a7national vision of what the Cayman Islands should aspire towards in a spatial or land usecontext has not yet emerged.To determine why and to what extent these failures have occurred and persisted, thevarious Planning initiatives and institutions are analysed within the framework of six basicnormative criteria, namely:1) The institutional organizations should have the ability to clearly identifyproblems.2) Planning institutions that protect the islands against negative externalities andpromote a healthy society should exist.3) A planning process which generates useful information and respects a pluralityof views should exist.4) Mechanisms and organizations that provide for conflict resolution regardingphysical planning actions in light of social, political, environmental andeconomic objectives should exist.5) A planning process that is both culturally and otherwise contextuallyappropriate should exist.6) Effective implementation, including sequencing and monitoring, should exist.Notwithstanding the above, it is realized that the process and products of planninghave historically been political in nature. Therefore a prerequisite of the planning functionis 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 ensuring consideration 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 implement landuse planning (i.e. process and practice) 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 the CentralPlanning Authority (CPA), the appointed statutory body responsible for applying theseinstruments, is also analysed.The day to day administration of the Laws, Regulations, and the Development Planare carried out by the Planning Dept. whose primary purpose is to enable the CPA toeffectively fulfill its statutory obligations. Therefore, the activities of this Land Use Planningoffice are also reviewed. Data and information sources include Cayman Islands GovernmentPublications, local journals and newspapers, literature on planning theory, on tourismplanning, on planning for islands and the planning initiatives of other tourist destinationssuch as Bermuda and Hawaii.The broad multi-disciplinary thrust of the thesis represents a pragmatic approach toreconciling the complexities of simultaneously addressing land use policy making, land useplanning, and development control under the rubric of physical (spatial) planning in a smallisland setting.1.4 Organization/Structure of the ThesisThis thesis is divided into six chapters with each chapter further subdivided intosections. The organization of the thesis represents a logical sequence of discussion thatbegins with:1) Introduction.2) A Normative Planning Framework.3) An Historical Overview of Development and Planning Initiatives 1 935 to1 975.94) Planning Initiatives 1 977 to 19895) The Adequacy of the Current Planning Function.6) Conclusions, Recommendations and Implications.Chapter 1 introduces the thesis and outlines its purpose, the context in which theanalyses take place, the methodology of study including suggested normative criteria forplanning action to respect and, the basic structure and organization of the paper.In Chapter 2, a Normative Framework is developed through which planninginitiatives can be analysed. Theoretical and pragmatic normative considerations of publicparticipation in planning are examined as are theoretical and pragmatic aspects of planningfor small islands.An historical overview of development and planning initiatives is presented inchapter 3 from 1 935 to 1 975. It was also necessary to reexamine early historical legalframeworks to properly understand the context in which these initiatives developed. 1969to 1976 are the pivotal years in Land Use planning history when contentious public debateoccurred, 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 Chapter 4, examples of Sectoral Planning are described. The sectorexamined in detail is Physical Planning (Development Control and Land Use Planning).Emergency Preparedness Planning and Road Planning are also profiled, but extensive criticalanalysis was not feasible within the confines of this thesis.In keeping with the main thrust of this thesis, an elaboration of the discussion inChapter 4 that has concentrated on determining the adequacy of the current land use10initiatives and functions, is undertaken in Chapter 5. Criteria developed in Chapter 2 havebeen augmented by supplementary inquiries. Previous evaluative work is also discussed.Relative to the findings of Chapter 5 and in light of the theoretical/philosophical andpragmatic considerations of Chapter 2, conclusions are drawn in chapter 6. Alternatives areoffered regarding the articulation of desired futures, avoiding the pitfalls of inadequacies inthe planning function and development of a consensual national vision of both anappropriate planning function and a physical/spatial setting. This includes recommendationsfor re-conceptualization of the planning function and initiatives in both conceptual/theoretical and pragmatic terms. The thesis concludes with a discussion on the implicationsof implementing such changes.11CHAPTER 2: A NORMATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK2.0 IntroductionA normative theory, or framework of planning is, at its most basic level, a statementof values and goals. It seeks to prescribe how things OUGHT to be and to identify whatmethods of planning society should devise to realize a desired state. To be pragmatic, anormative framework for planning must address implementation strategies and programmesand recognize that each state, or stage of development is transitory (i.e., “a condition ofbecoming”) (Bolan 1 983, p.4). This being the case, the immediate questions that arise are:- Who ought to/should plan?- Who decides who ought to/should plan?, and- How should/ought the process of deciding the above be planned and implementedby whom and to satisfy what goals?These basic questions suggest the need for a critical analysis of methods andprocesses of planning desirable goals or futures and the routes or courses of action throughwhich they will be pursued. Such goals are at the root of a normative planning frameworkand are aimed at addressing the juncture between the appropriateness, the effectiveness, theefficiency, and the acceptability of 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 and pragmatic considerations in planning forthe Islands. The development of normative criteria for land use (physical) planning can thenbe put forward.Public participation must be addressed because it can provide for a multiplicity, orplurality, of views to emerge and to become articulated in a way that is culturally12appropriate. During the course of this study it may be determined that, procedurally, themechanisms for public participation extant in the Cayman Islands have become dated.Indeed, these mechanisms may be identified as both a cause (i.e. a contributory factor) fordisputes and, a legal method through which conflict within the planning process may beresolved.The theoretical and pragmatic aspects of planning for Islands must be considered asit would not suffice merely to superimpose or propose planning strategies normallyencountered in mainland areas. This is because islands demonstrate characteristics that arepeculiar to them such as insularity, or a scarcity of resources, or reduced diversity to namea few.Tourism in the Cayman Islands is what the locals agree on as “a pillar of theeconomy.” This suggests that without such a pillar the economy would collapse, or at leastbecome uncomfortably imbalanced. Because of tourism’s importance, any proposedplanning initiative, which ignores its would have no chance of success. Thus, substantialconsideration of tourism is essential. Analyses of the above issues it is argued candemonstrate what the necessary normative criteria are to guide 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 by its outcome (Alexander,1986, p.105.)13The Skeffington Report (1969, p.1) echoes similar sentiments on what participationis and who “the public” is while stressing that it 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)Skeffington a! (1969, p.1) contend that two limitations should be made:one is that responsibility for preparing a plan is, and must remain, that of the localPlanning Authority. Another is that the completion of plans - the setting intostatutory form of proposals and decisions - is a task demanding the highest standardsof professional skill and must be undertaken by the professional staff of the localPlanning Authority.An equally broad based definition which also acknowledges the existence of statutoryorganizational divisions of responsibility is:Participation in planning is a systematic process of 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 exercise incollaboration” (Fagence, 1 977, p.4). These definitions do not suggest whether or not thepartnership is one of equality, between participants, nor whether it is designed to reach onlythose who actively participate in community/civic affairs. Neither do they suggest whetherparticipation should take the form of rigidly mandated forums or informal contacts. It musthowever, to be effective, be able to resolve conflict given the inherently political nature ofplan making. The political volatility of planning initiatives that are characteristic of theCayman Islands (which will be elaborated on in Chapters 3 and 4) indicate that furtherdevelopment of mechanisms for conflict resolution are appropriate.Therefore, for the Cayman Islands, a normative and pragmatic definition of publicparticipation it is reasoned can be stated as: “An exercise in collaborative effort, education,14technical analyses and conflict resolution undertaken by representatives, technicalspecialists, interested groups and communities to create and implement plans, and planningstrategies.” The above definition address: (1) the concept of knowledge as a transitorystate/process, (2) underscores the need for the development of consensus to be sought asboth process and product, evident in planning initiatives, and (3) recognizes a multiplicityof actors in the process and their distinct roles.2.1.2 Conditions under which participation can occurIssues 1-3 above assume that there are certain conditions existing in society underwhich public participation in physical planning can occur. The first of these is that theconcept of a plurality of views is embraced in socio-political relations. Government, in thisregard, can be viewed either as a balancer of power or as a neutral referee of sorts,regulating the competition of interests vying for a voice in the process of planning.Additionally, government also may be seen to be benefitting from the product of planning.Secondly, public participation to some degree is assumed to be mandated inlegislation to endeavour to allow for fair and equitable treatment to all of those seeking toparticipate. Thirdly, there is assumed to be adequate financial and organizational resourcesavailable for the administering of public participation as an integral part of the planningfunction. Another assumption, is that there is the political will to accommodate publicparticipation. The fifth assumption is that there is an availability of technical expertise thatis cognizant of various models and processes of 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 to the power andresponsibility of the civil/administrative bureaucracy (Sandercock, 1 986, p.1 0). Bureaucraticefficiency is the rationale for this approach, wherein members of the public are viewed asclients offering advice and suggestions on planning details but not on policy (Sandercock,1986, p.10).Direct participation or participation as decision making is based on a view of thepublic as rational policy makers. (Sandercock, 1986, p.10) states that underlying this view“are certain fundamental conceptions about men and societies - the reasonableness of menand the natural harmony of their interests, an optimistic view 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 “desirable practical 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, depending on the nature of the opposition, thisin itself should not be viewed negatively. Insofar that it thwarts attempts at meaningfulchange and/or is designed to present planning decisions as ‘technical’, rather than bothtechnical and political, issues, its desirability is questionable. From a teleologicalperspective, it may be welcomed if it achieves the end of consensus. But consensus throughthis 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 relationship akin to welfare programmes (Sandercock,161986 p.11). The Skeffington Report (1969, pp.34-36) outlines a number of means throughwhich public participation in various types of surveys ranging from estimating tree plantingneeds to determining urban design guidelines could occur. Sandercock (1986, p.11) notesthat this type of involvement is “on the boundary of participation as decision making.” Itis also noted that such an approach is “pragmatically experimental and adaptable ... 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 placed on the ladder isintuitively determined. Also, the broadening at the lower end of the ladder is intuitivelydetermined to reflect the relative numbers in society (akin to a population pyramid) that arelikely to be engaged in the various types or methods of participation. The main pointhowever, is to indicate that in a real-life setting these models will likely overlap.From the preceding discussion one can see that these models do not negate eachother in a functional sense. In a given situation all may operate 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 kinds of trees, 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 a groupopposed 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 type ofparticipation that will be acceptable to a community at all times, or on all issues. Therefore,it must be recognized that the extent of participation to be 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 conflict andcater 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, difficulty inobtaining adequate capital or data, insularity, (isolation), identity, to name but a few. It isperhaps more useful in this discussion if they are categorized by labelling themtechnical/institutional, bio-physical, and socio-economic constraints on the development ofland use planning. In a small island setting technical/institutional constraints can manifestthemselves in:a) A lack or shortage of technically trained and competent personnel.b) A lack of acceptable standards that specify for e.g. how much, how big, etc.c) Difficulty in accessing data sources.d) The inability to generate and/or retain information.Bio-physical constraints manifest themselves as:a) A scarcity of 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 institutions for conflict resolution.c) Susceptibility to external forces.d) A high potential for conflict of interest inherent when a multiplicity of rolesfor individuals exist.19Although most people would agree on the necessity for planning for islands there seems tobe no general consensus on how to proceed (Coccossis 1987, p.86). McElroy I (1987,p.94) identified a number of structural constraints to planning for islands and noted that theywere exacerbated by what was termed a “pervasive web of inertia and policy caution.”These included: “particularism i.e. intense face to face personalism and kinship that reduceobjective decision-making, inhibit confronting serious issues and reinforce the status quo.”Further, the combination of strong partisan politics and, restricted job opportunity amongcivil servant planners and technicians fosters insecurity and caution on the one hand andhigh turnover and weak institutional memory on the other (Sigham, 1 967 in McElroy et al,1987, p.95). Dinell, in a compelling discussion entitled “Hawaii: Planningfor Paradise” hasidentified what is perhaps fl planning issue for Island planning in general:that is ... securing agreement on what constitutes the major planning dilemmas forthe state. One person’s dream is another person’s nightmare. What the developerperceives as a gift, the environmentalist views as one more nail in the coffin. Whatthe entrepreneur views as necessary progress, the native rights advocate perceives asa continuation of the rape of the land (1 987, p.1 53).In other words, what is needed is a consensus on what planning ought to accomplish.To rationally arrive at this decision, however, a community will need to become aware ofthe opportunities and constraints that will result from a given action. For example,beachfront visitor accommodations will bring employment and expanded economicopportunity, but will also result in pressures on infrastructure and will limit recreationalopportunities for residents. The clearing and filling of mangrove swamps will create newwaterfront properties for future projects but will also result in the loss of ecologicalproductivity, the disruption of food webs and, the alteration of micro-climates includingrainfall patterns. All components or subsystems of an island contribute to its environmental20quality and are interrelated. Therefore, development of economic and social systems shouldnot be considered in isolation of environmental management. For example, it has beenpointed out that 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 zoning while ignoring environmental impact. On the other hand, they often aredistanced from policy input and legislative initiatives (McElroy a[ p.94). Thus, they areplaced in a quandary. Such quandaries intensify confusion and are reflective of theconstraints previously identified. These internal planning deficiencies are furthercompounded when false dichotomies such as “what will it be - environment ordevelopment?” are bandied about in elite circles and come to be generally accepted as fact.The most glaring planning deficiency however, has been identified as “the failure todevelop an appropriate analytical framework for understanding island structure and thebroad process of change, and for predicting accurately the effects of policy” (McElroyj 1987, 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 of awareness of ecosystems functions and, the impacts of land use decisions can beginto 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 where and under what circumstances the world does notlook 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 the world 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 ourselves inour models, we can learn more about why people, including ourselves, do what theydo, 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 status andresources ...“ (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 deeply into 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 normative planning approach being proposed.Rather, based on a largely pragmatic world view as an observer, student and practitioner ofplanning, six normative criteria are put forward within which the current planning functioncan be evaluated:1. The institutional organizations should have the ability to clearly identify problems.2. Planning institutions that protect the islands against negative externalities andpromote a healthy society should exist.3. A planning process which generates useful information 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 acceptable and otherwise contextuallyappropriate should exist.6. Methods for the effective implementation of planning decisions that includesequencing and monitoring should exist.The clear identification of problems implies that the problems may be able to besolved. Problems once clearly identified, may be given finite dimensions. Negativeexternalities must be protected against as they may result in the concept popularized byGarret Hardin “the tragedy of the commons” with which we are familiar. In the Caymancontext, the tragedy of the commons and externalities may be experienced in increasedenvironmental degradation as a result of excessive mangrove swamp removal forconstructing projects. The cost of operating an hotel or a golf course constructed on the23former swamp land will not reflect the loss of habit or water quality that results. Such coststhen can be viewed as externalities.Definitions of problems in a pluralist environment are multiple. Different interestgroups have different senses 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 of a rare or endangered bird. These diverse views will generate conflict 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 unlikelythat the less tangible aspects of the above i.e. the type of information, the role of the planneretc. can be clearly stipulated in law to account for the vast variety of potential conflicts.Therefore, other mechanisms and organizations will be necessary through which conflict canbe resolved. If they are to be effective they must be culturally and contextual ly appropriate.Mechanisms and organizations which by their nature are inappropriate, for example politicalparty based neighbourhood groups, or negotiations within which very little differentiationbetween facts and fears occurs, will not suffice.Additionally, the mere resolution of conflict will not ensure that appropriate planningaction occurs. Obviously legal mechanisms are required to implement plans. The quality24and effectiveness of these plans, however, must be assessed if the plans are to 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 Is lands “legislature” and the Jamaican legislature hadbeen “without any express authority” (Davies, 1 989, p.31).Therefore, retroactive legislation was deemed necessary to ratify and validate the lawspreviously passed by the (Cayman Islands) Legislative Assembly. The effect of the 1863Cayman Islands Act was that the Cayman Islands formally became a dependency of Jamaica(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 the Jamaican Governor’s representative. The CaymanIslands Commissioner’s Law of 1898 empowered the Governor of Jamaica to appoint (afterselection by the Secretary of State for the 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 Justices and 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), it would become obvious that the administrative - and legislative - advancesas well as the level of public expenditure on infrastructural development depended largelyon the vigor, vision and commitment of the Commissioner (Administrator).One example is during the tenure of the first commissioner Frederick SheddenSanguinnetti (1898-1906). Williams (1970, p.65) notes that “the pace of change 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 George Town to the North Sound was constructed. Another example is thatof George Stephenson Shirt Hirst Commissioner from 1 907 to 1 911. During this 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 George Town and Bodden Town) were constructed, (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, roads that linked Bodden Town to East End, and Frank Sound to North Side, as wellas Town Halls (that were to be used as educational 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 tenure began 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 Assemblyof Justices and Vestry, It was under this backdrop and legislative arrangement, that the 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 important to note that the 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 was not to legally commence until 1956-1 957 with the appointmentof a Stipendiary Magistrate and 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 “... to control and to secure the properdevelopment of certain areas in 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 a Regional Planning Area be declared. Suchdeclaration was the responsibility of the Commissioner, acting with the advice of the Justicesand Vestry. As with the Town and Country Planning Act 1932 of the United Kingdom, theRegional Planning Law could apply to both built 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, or likely 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 powers of local Authorities. Unlike the United Kingdom,however, there was no tiered Government system in the Cayman Islands. Thus, the highestranking proponent of the planning proposal (the Commissioner) to establish a regionalplanning area (RPA) was also the President of the Assembly that would declare it and legallycause it to come into being. The Regional Planning Board would then cause a regionalplanning scheme (again drawing heavily from the United Kingdom nomenclature) to beframed for the RPA. Even though the Governor of Jamaica was required to consent to theframing of laws for the Cayman Islands, he was not required to consent to the framing ofthe planning scheme. The scheme was required to be approved by the Commissioner and29Justices and Vestry, but the Regional Planning Board, with the approval of the Commissionerand the Justices and Vestry could vary or revoke the scheme.Under the scheme, and in accordance with the 1935 law, discretionary powerswould be given to the Regional Planning Board which included:(1) (S.6) power to make arrangements with owners and occupiers of land regardingdevelopment proposals.(2) provision and procedure for appealing against decisions of the Regional PlanningBoard.(3) to determine subject to arbitration, the limits of plots or estates including power toadjust them and to effect property exchanges, either voluntarily or compulsorily withor without payment by way of equality of exchange.(4) power to demolish etc. buildings or structures.(5) the imposition of restrictions with regard to the user of lands and to building lines,space about buildings, the height character and user of buildings etc.In all, these powers were extensive and numbered 14 in total. Number 7 wasparticularly interesting since it enabled a fine not exceeding ten pounds to be levied on anoffender, convicted by any two Justices of the Peace for contravention of any provision ofthe scheme, and a further fine of one pound per day for each day of the continuing offence.Recall that the Regional Planning Board’s membership included two Justices of the Peace!Therefore, it was possible for the same two Justices (members of the Regional PlanningBoard) to contribute to the declaration of a scheme, contribute to the determination ofwhether or not it was being complied with, and subsequently convict and levy a substantialfine on an offender.The fine was relatively high as the annual revenue of the Islands was still, accordingto Williams (1970, p.77), under 10,000 pounds. Number 13 of these powers (S.6, ss.13)enabled the delimitation of zones which could either prohibit buildings or specify uses of30buildings. Despite this power, zoning was not to be established until the LandDevelopment (Interim Control) (No. 2) Regulations 1970 were enacted under Section 18 ofthe Land Development (Interim Control) Law, 1 969.Section 13 of the Regional Planning Law conferred upon the Regional Planning Boardthe power, subject to the approval of the Governor of Jamaica, to make substantialregulations to realize the aims of the planning scheme. This is noteworthy in that themaking of regulations would in the future generate great controversy and, thereafter, wouldlead to a requirement that planning regulations would have to be approved by the entireLegislative Assembly. With its 1 3 sections, the Regional Planning Law focused on theprovisions of various aspects of planning for areas, but neglected that aspect of planningknown as development control. Rather than being prescriptive by specifying actions andtime frames within which they should occur, the Section 6 powers conferred upon theRegional Planning Board were enabling and discretionary. Their application was contingentupon the declaration of a Regional Planning Area and, even in this event, it was notmandatory to apply all of the provisions. However at least one would have to be exercisedto cause a scheme to come into being.Nevertheless (or perhaps because of this), the Regional Planning Law remainedbasically intact until it was replaced by the Land Development (interim Control) Law, 1969.Even though the Regional Planning Law was relatively comprehensive, and introduced“novel” concepts such as planning schemes, densities, zoning, building heights, their useand character and, setbacks from property lines, it appears to have enjoyed little, if any useat all as a planning tool.When the Cayman Islands constitution orders of 1 959 and 1 962 were enactedbecause of the dissolution of the West Indies Federation and the independence of Jamaica,31profound changes occurred in the Caymanian legislative and administrative structures. Athree year cycle was established for elections to be held and the Legislative Assembly wouldbe constituted of 12 elected members, 2-3 official members, 2-3 nominated members, andan Administrator (Colonial Reports). Thereafter, the Cayman Islands functioned as a BritishColony, independent of Jamaica (Davies, 1989, p.38). Powers that were formerly exercisedby the Governor of Jamaica, were conferred on the Administrator (Davies, 1989, p.38).Because the 1 962 constitution order was not laid before Parliament, a 1 965 order wasissued to revoke the 1962 order and be applied retroactively from 1962 (Davies, 1989,p.38).On July 1st 1965, amendments were made to the Regional Planning Law to, amongother changes, alter the composition of the Regional Planning Board [The Regional Planning(Amendment) Law 1 965]. These amendments included a definition of “an area” as “thewhole or any geographical part thereof of any Island forming part of the Cayman Islands”(Regional Planning Law, S.2). Under Section 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 one Justice of the Peace for each (electoral) district.Rather than retaining members of the Legislative Assembly as RPB members, Section3 (e) was amended to establish for the first time a RPB for the lesser islands (now SisterIslands) consisting of the District Commissioner, two Justices of the Peace and, the MedicalOfficer. This was the forerunner of a separate Development Control Board that wouldemerge in later years. Such initiatives would further consolidate the general confusion inthe island communities that equated “planning” and “development control.”32Additionally, during the period that the constitution orders were made, vesting thepower of the Governor of Jamaica in the Administrator, a curious change occurred inSection 12 of the 1 935 law.Any question or matter which under this law or under any scheme is to bereferred to arbitration shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to beagreed upon between the Board and the person aggrieved or, in default of suchagreement to be nominated by the Administrator.The Administrator thus was able to simultaneously carry out the above while he was:a) A member of the Regional Planning Board that would recommend a planningscheme.b) Presiding over the Executive Council that would declare an area to be subjectto a scheme, andc) able to approve or modify the scheme.Despite the multiplicity of potentially conflicting roles, and wide spread powers ableto be exercised by the Administrator, there appears to have been no conflict of interest thatrequired the Administrator to disqualify himself from performing any of the roles. Moresurprisingly, the consolidation of these roles appears not to have generated any controversy,or socio-political conflict. Ironically, this would occur later on as the Island Administrationexpanded the planning function and diluted the concentration of administrative, legislativeand, judicial powers.In summary, while the Regional Planning Law 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 individuals created the opportunity forserious conflict of interest to occur. This appears not to have happened either. Substantialcapital works projects were completed despite a scarcity of resources such as capital.33Capital works projects were evidently seen as more urgently needed than land useplanning, rather than one aspect of an integrated development strategy that embraced bothland use planning and capital works projects simultaneously. Nevertheless, while theRegional Planning Law was in effect a Development Plan was drafted in 1946. A discussionon the form, content and implication of the plan follows.3.3 The 1947 Development PlanIn order to address what was described as the need to ensure that “development mayproceed on a planned basis” (section 11, Dev. Plan 1 947) the Commissioner sought adviceand assistance from Jamaica for “a draft sketch plan of development and welfare.”Subsequently, a multi-disciplinary team from Jamaica visited the Cayman Islands in May of1 945 to “investigate conditions and to consult with the Commissioner concerning thepreparation 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” (Section 12,Development Plan 1947). The stated method was “a programme of works which it isconsidered can be undertaken in the next ten years” (Section 13, Development Plan 1947).Eight broad sectors were addressed namely: Agriculture, Education, Medical and PublicHealth, Social Welfare, Forestry, Fisheries, Communications and Miscellaneous. The latterincluded capital works such as construction of civic buildings, improvement of a ships basin,construction of a sea wall, and the employment of a superintendent of works to supervisethe works envisaged.34Additionally, the salaries for accounting and store keeping staff were also providedfor. The Plan’s major thrust was the costing and provision for capital works projects and,the recurrent expenditure necessary for their maintenance and operation. Training needswere also estimated and, costs for their completion projected. Throughoutthe plan the terms“scheme” and “schemes” were referenced liberally. 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, “provide for proper topographical andcadastral surveys” (Section 1 5) thereby ignoring the link between its ten year capital worksand training programmes and, the broader land use provisions of the regional planningschemes provided for in the Regional Planning Law. It is very unfortunate that a bifurcationof these development strategies occurred during these nascent stages of both capital worksprogramming and land use planning. This would prove to be a decisive factor in setting thestage, for the manner in which both of these activities would be perceived in the future.Capital works programming was to advance in concert, and become integrated with theGovernment budgeting process. Its easily visible benefits, in the form of completed workswould be perceived as a more legitimate form of “development planning,” than that of“regional,” “town,” “land use,” “physical,” or community planning. Rather than an equaladvance the role of land use planning was subordinated to, and somewhat usurped by,capital works programming.The adoption of the title “ Development Plan” for these capital works programmes,that sometimes included training and staffing needs in their budgets, would constrain the35progress of a more broad based and longer term land use planning function. What is likelyto have unwittingly contributed to this impediment is that these plans actively touted theefficacy of, and societal gains that could be realized through, long term planning. Ironically,with the exception of the 1947 plan that indicated a ten year time frame, the programmesoutlined in these plans were to be of three to five years duration.This is not to suggest that such programmes were without value. On the contrary,without them many of the building projects and infrastructural improvements thatcontributed to the Islands development could not have been realized. Nevertheless, whilecapital works programmes grew by leaps and bounds, land use planning was left submergedin a quiet backwater. Rather than being used to anticipate and guide change, land useplanning would become dormant only to re-emerge and create a storm of intense politicalconflict, Ironically, it would come to be viewed as reactionary in nature and anti-development. Meanwhile the 1947 plan, in its first draft form, was accepted by the Justicesand Vestry. Implementation, it was 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 office in 1952. Gerrard was often at odds withthe Executive Council and Legislative Assembly on various issues. One of the moreimportant of which was the need for additional taxes to fund the modernization ofGovernment itself and Government capital spending (Williams, 1970, p.81). Anotherobvious area of contention was his insistence on the need for Development Planning.Han nerz (1 974, p.63) notes that36There would be a need for development planning, Gerrard argued, and everybodywould not be able to do as he pleased with his property. To handle this planning,also, the Administration would need to be strengthened with new specializedpersonnel.Despite these utterances, no changes were made to the Regional Planning Law duringhis tenure from 1952-1956. However, a number of capital projects proposed in the 1947Hplanfl were completed during this period including; the twenty eight bed George TownHospital, and the nurses quarters. Various other projects not mentioned in the 1 947 plan,including airfields in Grand Cayman and Cayman Brac, and an adequate supply of electricityin George Town and West Bay were completed (Williams 1970, p.81).With the increasing complexity of life and the influx of foreign nationals, discord inthe political arena emerged in the 1960’s (see for example D. Martins biography of O.L.Panton). One area of debate, rife with conflict, was the Government Administration’s desireto take steps to regulate land use and “development.” Hannerz (1974, p.115) has stated thatthis was “the greatest irritation among influential Caymanians.” For planning as anorganized and acceptable government activity, the expression of such irritation could nothave had worse timing.The local weekly newspaper, The Caymanian and the Hansard (the official record ofthe Legislative Assembly meetings) are replete with the details of a number of largelypolitically contentious issues that arose in the Islands at that time. They are also graphicallydetailed from a social anthropological perspective by Hannerz (1974) in his workCaymanian Politics - Structure and Style in a Changing Island Society. These apparentlyunrelated incidents had a common thread; they were all in opposition to the GovernmentAdministration of the day. They ranged from dissatisfaction with the way the electoralregisters were compiled, to the importation of prefabricated buildings, and included the37boycotting of a session of the Assembly, a protest march against proposed regulations forDevelopment Control and a law for the registration and ownership of land, and a statisticslaw. Hannerz (1974, p.113) notes that at this time various social changes were alsooccurring which included economic expansion, the perception of racial and class conflict,and as previously mentioned an influx of foreign nationals. The latter were generallyviewed with resentment and suspicion, especially if they were “experts” in a particular field.Chronologically, the second incident among these conflicts was the aborted electionin November of 1 968. Ostensibly this arose as a result of how the electoral registers wereprepared. The first, and more important from a Planning perspective, was the rejection bythe entire elected Legislative Assembly. save one member, of an interim Land DevelopmentControl Law in the March session of 1 968. Because this meeting was held in Cayman Brac,it is suggested that this conflict had a profound and lasting effect on how planning come tobe perceived in the Brac in the future.Despite this, by February of 1969, during the first Budget meeting of the sixth sessionof the Legislative Assembly (p.7) the Administrator, Mr. A.C.E. Long indicated that legal andadministrative arrangements to effectively deal with land development issues and landregistration would require early attention. On April 1 7th 1969, the Land Development(Interim Control) Law came into operation having been passed on the 25th of March 1 969.The stated objects of the Law were: “... to produce ordered and sensible development ofthe Islands and not allow indiscriminate buildings and development which may be againstthe public interest.”Jt was also noted, that the 1935 Law was antiquated and permitted uncontrolledbuildings and development. The focus of this new interimistic legislation clearly wasdevelopment control, rather than planning pj It included definitions of development,38building, and building operations. Another novel aspect of the Law was the established oftwo Development Control Boards. Whereas the 1935 Law vested the powers of RegionalPlanning primarily in Legislative Assembly members, this law specifically excluded membersof Executive Council from membership to the Development Control Board. Section 3subsection (3) reads as follows: “no member of Executive Council shall be eligible forappointment to the Authority.” The Executive Council was instead set up as an appealsbody, through which refusals of the Authority could be heard.The powers to amend the plans for development for which permission was grantedwere also vested in the Authority. This being contingent on receipt of a request from thosewho submitted the plans. Permission to effect development would lapse within a one yeartime frame, if in the opinion of the Authority, no development was substantiallycommenced. A schedule of exempted works was also included, as was the form ofapplication required to be submitted to the Authority.Registers of all development applications were to be kept by two ExecutiveSecretaries, one for each board. This law also covered the erection or placement ofadvertisements, subdivision of land and, changes of use to buildings or land. An apparently(initially) innocuous (that was to later prove highly controversial) provision was Section 18,that empowered the Executive Council with the discretion to make Regulations. Despitethe passage of this law, with little objection or fanfare, the introduction of the Regulationsproved to be disastrous and can be offered up as an example of how not to introduceplanning legislation.The Administrator in his address during the Legislative Assembly meeting (minutesof a special meeting 25th March 1 969, p. 26) stated:39I am sorry that this law did come quickly. It came quickly because I was horrifiedat the time that you haven’t got an adequate law. You must have something. If youhave a fire and you haven’t got a poker you have to use a stick until you can get apoker. The point Honorable Members, is it not better than what you have got, verymuch better. It enables you to accept the driver’s seat which is where theGovernment should be in these matters. We do not wish to be controlled bycommercial enterprises, big developers or other people interested in developing theIsland. Naturally, and quite correctly, they do it largely for the purpose of the moneythey get out of it, this is the capitalist system. Our duty, Honorable Members is notto make money, our duty is to be responsible and protect the 10,000 people wholive in these Islands who will not be aware in detail of what is happening, who relyon us here to see that they are not exploited and that their land is not used wrongly,and that we do not turn what looks like a beautiful swan into an ugly duckling.this law was originally drafted by a man with many, many years experiencethroughout the world . . . It is of great importance and you have a responsibility -a deep one - as awareness for the need for planning grows in this Island and to seein future years what you did to create what 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 to waste.This expressed deep seated appreciation for planning, and recognition of the urgencyto effect planning action, was sufficient to convince legislators to see the bill through theLegislative Assembly. During the last part of the December 1969 session of the LegislativeAssembly, however, three of its members representing the 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 identified among these werean Economist and a Town Planning Officer. This was a harbinger of the reception thatfuture initiatives to expand the planning function would face.3.5 The [and Development (Interim Control) Regulations 1970The apparently innocuous Section 18 of the 1969 law was exercised in March of1 970 with the creation of the Land Development (Interim Control) Regulations (TheRegulations). Upon publication they created a crisis. A protest march was planned and it40got underway on April 20th 1 970, attracting about 500 people (The Caymanian, April 23rd.1970). Subsequently, district meetings were held by opponents of the Regulations andattended by the Administrator. During the march, the protest marchers hand delivered apetition to the Administrator that requested him tocall the present legislature into emergency session and repeal immediately theStatistics Law 1 969, and Regulations and Zoning of 1 970, (sic) and the Land InterimDevelopment Law 1969 (sic) and, renounce all Government claims to so-calledswamp lands. After the above is done dissolve the present House of Assembly andcall for new election within two months (The Caymanian, April 23rd, 1970).The Administrator was requested to assent to this within seven days. A furtherpetition was presented to the Administrator for Her Majesty the Queen that beseeched HerMajesty in part:[Due] to the recent actions of the Legislative Assembly in passing very detrimentallaws, ... intervene on our behalf and have our present Legislative Assembly dissolvedand that our Administrator, Mr. Long be recalled and a new person appointed inhis stead (ibid).No signatures were attached thereto.An emergency session of the Legislative Assembly was called on May 1, 1970. Inthe meantime, a Royal Navy ship had arrived on 27th April at the invitation of theAdministrator (Hannerz, 1974, p.149). Armed guards were posted inside the Town Hallwhere the meeting was being held, and a large crowd both within and outside of thebuilding had gathered. The outcome of the meeting was that, despite amendments beingmade on April 22, 1970, the Regulations were to be repealed. It was resolved that allelected members of the Legislative Assembly would be appointed to a committee toreexamine the regulations and to make recommendations for a new planning law andregulations (Hannerz 1974, p.1 65). The person appointed to head the committee was noneother than the Member who had opposed the appointment of a town planning officer. By41the 5th of May 1 970, the interim regulations had been suspended, despite the fact that anew Department of Planning had been set up. In the face of widespread public opposition,the interim regulations had lasted a mere 44 days.The provisions of the Regulations though fairly comprehensive were not onerous.In fact, the Development and Planning Regulations (1972) that were to follow would bemore demanding in terms of submission requirements. Parking requirements did not changefrom 1970 to 1 972. Buildings heights were limited to 45 ft., and provision was made forzones. Permission was required for the removal of beach sand; and for occupancy ofbuildings, with special consideration being granted to Caymanians who traditionally builthouses in a piece meal fashion, depending on the supply of materials and capital. Setbacksfor buildings were specified, as were the requirements for subdivisions, including adiscretionary requirement for lands for public purposes. Site coverages for various types orcategories of buildings were addressed and these were to be in accordance with a draft planthat had been “currently adopted for guidance of the board during the Interim ControlPeriod.”This was the first genuine attempt at the establishment of zoning. For the first timealso, a commercial centre was designated, as was an area in the capital, denoted by gridreferences on the waterfront, where no new buildings were to be permitted. This apparentlywas done in an effort to protect the open character of the waterfront, although it was notexplicitly stated.3.6 The Development and Planning Law, 1971 and Regulations, 1972The Development and Planning Law 1971, (The Law) came into operation on January17, 1972 having been passed on December 20, 1971. Regulations followed in March of421 972. Substantial gain was now being made regarding integration of the land use planningfunction with the development control function. Both were afforded legal status. The lawwas indeed comprehensive for the period as was promised by the Legislative Assembly. Itwas divided into six parts and two schedules.Part I dealt with central administration. Thereunder, a nine member Central PlanningAuthority was established, as was a four member Development Control Board for the LesserIslands. Staff, including a Director of Planning and other officers as appeared necessary,were also provided for, to ensure that the Authority could properly carry out its statutoryfunction. Such function was described as “consistency and continuity in the framing andexecution of a comprehensive policy approved by Executive Council with respect to the useand development of land, in accordance with the development plan for the Islands preparedin accordance with the provisions of Part II or otherwise in operation by reason 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 fulfilled for acquisition ofproperty, procedures to amend the plan, specification of which entities were to be consultedduring plan preparation, time frames for notices, methods and time frames of the plan, atime frame within which objections could be made, and an appeals tribunal to hear appealsagainst decisions of the Authority. Planning’s new era appeared to be dawning, but therewere inherent problems with the level and method of consultation required of the Authorityby the Law and the time frames for public display of the Plan. These flaws would beaccentuated when a plan was produced and proposed for adoption in 1975.Part Ill contained a full 13 sections over 15 pages and dealt with the control ofdevelopment of land. It specified a definition of development that was taken from the43United Kingdom Town and County Planning Act (see for e.g. Heap 1987, p.115) andmodified, to exclude certain activities, operations and types of structures. The Authoritycould also delegate certain of its functions to the Board. When the delegated functionsresulted in refusal (by the Board) of planning permission 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 where the Authorityrequired. The enforcement of planning control also figured prominently, and for the firsttime the concept of enforcement notices was introduced. Appeals processes were also speltout, in the event that an enforcement notice was issued. Such appeals would be resolvedin court. A time frame of four years was given within which unauthorized developmentcould be enforced against.The Authority was also granted the power to make tree preservation orders, subjectto Regulations being made that would specify the form and process of the order. For themaintenance of waste land, due to the deposit of waste etc. the Authority was empoweredto serve a notice requiring abatement of 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 land forplanning purposes, the land being required to have first been identified in a developmentplan. Part VI specified the powers of entry by anyone authorized by the Authority relatingto the preparation of a development plan, or the determination of an application or otherfunction. A method or format for the service of notices required under the law was alsospecified.Regulations could be made, by the Governor in Council, for certain activities amongwhich was the production of a building code. However, such regulations had to be first44approved in draft form by the Legislative Assembly. The political folly of having ExecutiveCouncil alone enact regulations was obviously still prominent on the list of things not to do.The law was also specific in that it was legally binding on the Crown. The secondschedule of the law dealt with matters 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 historic artisticsites and objects, preservation of trees woodlands etc.- public services (facilitating the provision of water supply, sewerage etc.) -transport and communication facilitating the provision of air and sea ports, theextension of telegraphic, telephonic etc. communication systems and, thereservation of lands for the above.- miscellaneous (subdivision control, e.g. lot size, roads, services, and effectingland exchanges etc.Clearly, from a legal perspective, the planning and development control functionshad merged and the ground work had been laid through which both could be vigorouslypursued. But, one crucial aspect of planning that appears to have been ignored oroverlooked at this juncture was that of public participation. This oversight would have direconsequences when an attempt would be made to comply with the requirements of the lawto complete a development plan. The Development and Planning Regulations would assistthe Authority in addressing the day to day aspect of development control through the45application process, with the administrative support of the planning department. The taskat hand therefore was the production of a development plan.3.7 The Proposed Development Plan, 1975During the 1 970’s the United Nations were actively assisting Caribbean Countrieswith their Planning and Development needs and, by 1 972, had seconded an Associateexpert (planning) to the Cayman Islands (Ebanks, K., 1 993).Additionally, six young Caymanians had been trained in physical planning andtechnical infrastructure under the United Nations training programme headquartered in St.Lucia, W.l. Participation in the United Nations Development Programme Physical PlanningProject, or UNDP as it was known, indicated that the Cayman Islands administrationappreciated the need for land use planning. Previously, neither an acceptable andappropriate process of planning, nor consensus on the content and form of a plan however,had been articulated. This was to prove to be a very complex and taxing task, It wouldalso proveto bea highlycontentiousactivityand would continueto compound divisivenessin the political area.3.7.1 DescriptionThe 1975 Development Plan consisted of three parts, namely: a survey and report -i.e. the existing situation with objectives and policies; the plan - a map indicating proposedland use zones and a number of roadways along with,the planning statement - basically detailing regulations that were required to implement theplan. A synopsis of its structure and content follows.The overriding theme of the plan was controlled growth over a fifteen year period.At the end of Chapter One, that addressed the background to the plan this theme was46symbolically stated in a manner designed to attract the attention and gain the support of adiverse group of people; “with the turtle as the symbol of the Islands, the slogan for itsfuture development might rightly 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. Chapters one through ten formed thesurvey and report. This survey and report, rather surprisingly, began with the first chapterentitled “Objectives.” Upon examination, however, one will note that only one primaryobjective was put forward, that of a programme of moderate growth. Accompanying thedecision were arguments against rapid growth and the benefits of moderate growth. Manymore subsidiary aims were articulated, and these included: a balance in population ratiosbetween Caymanians and non Caymanians of 3:2; the spatial decentralization of growthoutside of the George Town/West Bay area, the availability of good housing, education andhealth care to alt, academic and vocational training, benefits to the infirm and aged, historicand environmental preservation and a harmonious working of the planning authority andthe developer to maintain and enhance the resources of the Islands. Such “motherhood andapple pie” statements despite their good intentions, did not suffice to assuage the fears ofthe Island community that the process of plan making and its content were severely flawed.Chapter Two, entitled “Background,” provided a physical geographical and historicalsynopsis of the Cayman Islands including geology, relief, climate, discovery, settlementpatterns, migration and a mention of administrative structure.Chapter Three, entitled “Population and Manpower,” chronicled population growthfrom 1891 to 1973 noting that early population growth (1 891-1 960) ranged between 1.1 to1.4%, in the period between 1960-1970 it increased to 2.8°I, and from 1971-1973 a very47high increase of 7.3% growth annually was experienced. Also addressed within this chapterare age, sex and racial distributions of population, household size, labour force andmanpower requirements. The chapter is replete with population projections, both in graphicand written form and a map indicating preferred population distributions in 5 yearincrements to 1990 in each of the electoral districts of Grand Cayman. It would bebeneficial, it noted, to assume population growth for the plan period to range between20,000 and 30,000 with the lower end figure being decreed desirable.Chapter Four, entitled simply “Economy,” consisted of sections on the declining roleof Caymanian seamen as economic contributors to overall development, the role of shippingwhich was also in decline and, substantially more extensive sections on tourism, offshorebanking and finance, agriculture and manufacturing which were considered growthindustries. Projections indicated that the rate of growth would decline between 1976-1 980to 7% (annual average) and to 5% between 1980-1990. Constraints to growth were notedas a shortage of manpower, inadequate infrastructure, potential restrictions on offshorebanking, uncertain world economic trends and the controlling of population growth.Controlled growth, it was assumed, was desirable to the island community and thatthrough this strategy the Caymans would develop in a beneficial manner. The efficacy ofcontrolled growth however would prove to be elusive.Chapter Five, entitled “Land Use and Subdivisions,” featured detailed soil maps anda classification system within which the quality of soils and their suitability for various typesof development were presented. As with other chapters of the plan, planning wasjuxtaposed against laissez-faire development. Normative pronouncements were made onthe desirability of planned vs sprawled communities, the need to retain undeveloped openspaces and the undesirability of uneven development between districts. Attempts were48made to rationalize the amount of property needed for residential development by utilizing;density, area of property already subdivided, household size and projected population. Itwas emphasized that three times the acreage required for housing over the plan period(1 975-1 990) was already subdivided and laid out. Implicit in this statement was that furthersubdivision should at least be discouraged, if not prohibited.Problem areas of subdivision development were also outlined and these included thecost of providing infrastructure to partially built out subdivisions, the ecological impact ofclearing land, the issue of speculative construction by non Caymanians, and the costs ofmaintenance and completion of roads in subdivisions.Procedural guidelines were suggested through which government, in concert withprivate utility companies would determine standards to be adhered to, maintenance ofservices would be addressed at the initial stage and the phasing of development wouldoccur. A number of development control initiatives were also suggested including bothsubdivision and building codes.In Chapter Six, which was entitled “Infrastructure,” a number of pronouncementswere made. One of the most short sighted of which would have to be the removal of roadcorridors such as the east - west spinal road and more importantly, the West Bay motorway.These had been previously identified in the interim plan of 1 972. In the 1 975 plan it wasassumed that the proposed population policy would be adopted in its entirety and from thisall other projections followed. These roads therefore, were dismissed as unnecessary andtoo costly. (Development Plan 1 975, p.42).The Plan also envisaged a tremendous monitoring of road users, which would requirespeeds, weights, numbers and sizes of vehicles to be regulated, relative to the capacity ofthe road. Substantial consideration was given to car parking and pick up points similar to49what we now know as park and ride facilities. Road surfacing and surface drainage receivedmuch more consideration than did the provision of future road corridors.Detailed consideration was given to the revamping of the airport, including therelocation of terminal buildings and the extension of the runway out into the North Sound.A ports plan had been completed during the preparation of the 1975 development plan, andthe 1975 plan repeated the proposals that the port plan had put forward. One considerationthat figured prominently was the need to ensure that traffic volumes did not adversely affectthe functioning of the downtown area, as the main port is centrally located in downtownGeorge Town.Calls for more co-ordination between private utility suppliers and government weremade, 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 to prove extremely inadequate. As anexample, the plan projected water consumption at 1.25 million gallons per day in 1990,while today (1994) estimated consumption is well above 2.2 million gallons per day. (R.Mclaggart, personal conversation, 1 994). The plan also noted that water mains are cheaperthan sewerage systems to install, and implied that the provision of water should takeprecedence.Water ferries were suggested as a means of improving public transportation, but thesehave not come into being. This is likely due in large part to:a) the costs associated with the initial set up;b) the relatively small numbers of potential customers; and,c) the intense competition from the dive operations of the tourist industry, for those ableto own and operate boats.50Chapter Seven, “Tourism,” was surprisingly less prescriptive than other chapters ofthe plan. However, substantial consideration was given to an analysis of the tourist industry.Growth charts, tourist facility mapping and tables of tourist arrivals by national origin forselected years were included. Bed occupancy rates and length of stay were analyzed andprojections made for their increase and decrease respectively during the plan period.General statements were made regarding the need to protect natural resources such asbeaches, coral reefs and mangrove areas. Many of 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 would come to play in the Caymanian economy.Neither did it appear to formulate prescriptive actions necessary to secure the naturalresource protection which was alluded to.Chapter Eight, which was the chapter on “Community Facilities,” includeddiscussions on a broad range of topics such as educational facilities, hospitals and medicalservices, solid waste disposal, social and welfare services, 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 and apart from the educational and hospital facilities noprescriptive proposals or space standards emerged. The need to conserve natural areasappeared liberally throughout this chapter. 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 to suffer from over-generalization.Chapter Nine concentrated on “Housing” and presented some of the more in-depthanalyses of the summary. A brief synopsis of the architectural 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 the planperiod.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. Theemergence of apartment buildings, primarily for overseas resident workers, skilled, unskilledand professional was noted. Future housing demands in each of the electoral districts wereprojected. These projections, it was noted, were tentative and subject to change dependingon 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 was introduced. The housing demand projections previouslymentioned in the discussion on the subdivision of land and their build out rates werereiterated. The concept of infill development that had previously been 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 at 12% after a15 year period for a 1,000 sq. ft. house. With this recognition, 12 housing objectives wereproposed 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 research had been carried out to determine adetailed (housing) programme.Chapter Ten, entitled “Ecology and Environment,” discussed both the natural andbuilt environments. Beginning with coral reefs and the effects of dredging, it described theecological role of mangrove swamps and the need for swampland management. It alsopointed out the need for conservation and protection of beach ridges. Much of this chapterwas replete with brief descriptions of subsystems of the island ecosystem, the effect ofplanning on settlement patterns, the virtues of traditional methods of constructing the builtenvironment, the impact both negative and positive of tourism, the benefits of properlyscaled development, the importance of beaches, mangroves, ironshore, beach ridges,vegetation, road layouts and the effects of architecture on the scale and function of the builtenvironment.It suggested a partnership between the department of planning and the privatearchitectural offices, to give careful consideration to the character of development with aview to realizing a “Cayman Image” similar to that developed in Bermuda and the DutchAntilles. One tentative suggestion also put forward was for the creation of a National Trust.The concluding remarks were that research was underway to provide more definitivepronouncements on ways to positively contribute to long range development.Chapter Eleven, entitled “Present Structure of Development,” described in 12 pagesthe existing spatial layout of areas and an overview of the state of infrastructural services.The electoral district of West Bay was considered to be a quasi-dormitory town for GeorgeTown as were the other districts. George Town was exerting urban primacy and this wasanticipated to continue. Warnings were issued regarding the inadequacy of roads, water,and sewer lines in George Town and the West Bay area. The importance of the latter as the53main tourist resort area was noted. The need for careful planning and monitoring of thisprime tourist area figured prominently in this chapter. Specific concerns were: thereservation of sites for hotel development, public access to the beach, the folly of ribbondevelopment, the need to maintain the architectural/aesthetic quality of the area, theproliferation of shopping centres, the need for conservation areas, the control of dredging,the growth of traffic volumes, the elimination of the motorway and the provision of corridorsfor cycling and walking.George Town’s spatial layout and services were again considered in a broad,generalized manner. The need for a tourist information centre and a foreshore walkwaywere deemed desirable, but no in depth analyses were offered to determine appropriatespace standards, or the adequacy of services. Similarly, the other three electoral districts ofBodden Town, North Side and East End were all superficially analyzed. Specific recognitionwas given to the need for a “rapid communication road” between these outer districts andthe capital, yet no effort was made to retain or replace the east-west arterial that hadpreviously been proposed by the interim development plan of 1972. A loop road wasproposed in Bodden Town and an east-west road linked to Frank Sound road from Collierswith a north-south link to East End were the only other road proposals.Chapter Twelve, entitled “Future Patterns Of Development,” set out 7 primary goalsand 6 secondary goals of the plan. The importance of the tourism industry to the economywas underscored, while the need for limiting the number of tourists was advocated. Theneed for what was termed “concentrated decentralisation” was put forward to prevent sprawland ensure that high amenity development occurred.Laissez-faire development was again denounced and thirteen negativecharacterizations of it stated. Two of these which are evident today are: the choking of54main roads through increased traffic and, ribbon development with its higher costs ofservices and infrastructure.Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen dealt with “Cayman Brac” and “Little Cayman.”These two islands have not experienced the development pressures of Grand Cayman. Asa result the need for planning has not been seen to be as acute as that of Grand Cayman.Thus, the development of 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, it was noted thatdetailed area plans had yet to be produced for all of the electoral 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 the island whererecently, most of the tourist development is taking place. These chapters again concludedwith the almost apologetic disclaimer that broad outlines were all that were possible withinthe context of the report, and again they urged further study.Chapter Fifteen entitled “Planning Statement,” consisted of a number of zoningproposals that were to be read in conjunction with the zoning map. Accompanying thezoning proposals were specifications on site coverage, density setbacks, lot sizes, minimumlot frontages, and carparking requirements. It is surprising that many of these stipulationswere articulated given the stated intent of the housing section to reduce building costs.In most zones, there was a maximum site coverage for houses but in medium densityresidential zones there was a minimum site coverage as well. Additionally, there appeared55to be a confusing number of requirements regarding setbacks, maximum and minimum sitecoverages, the requirements for provision and the sizes of storage units, within and betweenzones. The Authority was given broad discretionary powers and these were to prove to beculturally unacceptable to the Island community.Chapter Sixteen consisted of all of the appendices which included rainfall,temperatures population and demographic data in the Cayman Islands and other Caribbeancountries, work force composition, preferred population distributions and work 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 note that the 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 the fact that automationwas not highly developed at that stage. In fact, it was not until 1979 that governmentpurchased its first computer.What then was the result of the proposed plan? Like previous planning initiatives thisproposal resulted in unanticipated protests. Two marches occurred, one on December 22th1975 and, another on February 27th 1976 (The Nor’wester, April 1976, p.1 3). Slogans suchas “Death Warrant,” Destruction Plan,” “United Nations leftists,” “Communistic Plan” etc.were prominent in the media and on the placards at the marches (see figure 2).Content analysis of the local publications from April of 1975 (when the public 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’DANGEROFRESJRICTIONpIafl unUer 1jre:— CUT THE RUDCET SCRAPTHE DEVELOPMENT PLANRETURN OUR SWAMP LANO,’fVILAs win extra‘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 Plan4The Destruction P1an’Source: Various issues of The Nor’wester magazine published in the Cayman Islandsduring 1975-1 976.The ProcessThe plan, even though prepared under the auspices of the Central Planning Authority(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 arrived inDecember 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 extant at the time (the 1971 Law) mandated that the public was tobe notified of the Proposed Plan and that copies were to be made available for publicreview. A statutory one month period was laid down in the law, during which objectionsand representations could be made. Despite this minimalist public input requirement,several steps were taken to solicit public input.For example an eight page newspaper supplement was published on April 3rd 1975.Exhibitions were undertaken which included photographs and other illustrative material, aquestion and answer column was opened in the local newspaper and, a number of publicmeetings held, as were discussions with civic groups. A local magazine, “The Nor’wester”,devoted practically all of its May 1 975 issue to the Plan.Nevertheless, these actions culminated in the marches in December 1 975 andFebruary 1976. Clearly, the public input aspect of the plan was 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 room foramendment.A time frame of one month for review by the general public was far too short. Whyshould we only have one month to review a document that took the experts years tocomplete? was the indignant question of the day. The adversarial approach for public input,entrenched in law, was not recognized to be a constraining factor. Public presentationsand press releases were thought to compensate for the short time frame embodied in law.Despite the fact that the plan was replete with disclaimers on the need for furtherstudy in order to arrive at more detailed programmes, it stated “the 1972 plan was aninterim measure pending preparation of the definitive plan which is now presented”58(Proposed Development Plan, 1975, p.115). This assertion, and the finished formatpreviously noted, had the effect of convincing the community that the plan was cut anddried, official assurances to the contrary.The ContentSome blame for its failure must also lie with the content and structure of the plan.The sheer volume of its pages and the myriad of issues covered, could easily be construedas an extreme case of information overload, 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 explicit in the plan. Additionally, and perhapsmost damaging was the thrust which the plan took. Explicit in its approach was thephilosophy of moderate growth, conservation and, general restraint. When the plan wasbeing formulated, the island economy was buoyant.However, by the time it was produced, the economic picture had been altereddrastically world wide. For a small group of islands with a fragile economy, primarilydependent on tourism and offshore banking and finance the gist 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 controlled population growth policy. All of itsprojections, based on controlled population growth; with the exception of the populationgrowth for Little Cayman, would prove to be inadequate. At the time more importantly, thecontrolled growth scenario was culturally unacceptable.Moreover, what did not appear to have been given sufficient consideration was thefact that 1 976 was an election year. Planning in the Cayman Islands, as noted previously,has historically been a politically contentious issue. In 1976, the proponents of the plan59were defeated at the polls. The newly elected government were then obliged to take up thegauntlet of planning.60CHAPTER 4: PLANNING INITIATIVES 1977 TO 19894.1 Physical PlanningPhysical Planning in the Cayman Islands is primarily the responsibility of the CentralPlanning Authority (CPA) and the Development Control Board (DCB). The Administrativearm of the CPA is the Planning Department. In undertaking this responsibility the CPA isbound by section five of the Development and Planning Law (Revised). This law waspreviously known as the Development and Planning Law (1971) and was revised andconsolidated in 1 978. Additionally, the Development and Planning Regulations (withamendments) 1 977 are the current Regulations, having replaced the 1 972 Regulations in Julyof 1 977. These legislative measures and the Development Plan 1 977, form the statutory andpolicy umbrella under which the CPA and DCB operate.Unlike its forerunner, the 1975 plan, the 1977 Development Plan is a thin, easilyread publication. From chapter three one will recall the dissension that was rife during thedebates on the 1 975 plan. Content analysis of the island periodicals and newspapers forthe period 1975 to 1978 reveal that dissent on planning issues peaked in 1976 and droppedof sharply in 1977.A number of dynamics explain this phenomenon. First, elections had just beenconcluded late in 1976. The losing team1 was the proponent of the 1975 Plan. They did1Since there are no political parties j , teams are formed. These are grouping ofpotential candidates from each electoral district that hold similar views on various aspectsof economic, physical and social issues. There is no extreme right or left wing, and inpolitical terms most politicians would have to be considered centrists, with perhaps a biasslightly to the right of centre61not retain any seats in the legislative assembly and therefore 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, the new proposals were put before a SelectCommittee of the Whole (of the legislature). By July 28th of 1977, the islands had a newDevelopment Plan and new Planning Regulations. Headlines in island publicationsheralded 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 of i. toorow onew Development Plan W° olofmuob1i!/j;Source: July and August issues of The Nor’wester, 1 977.For the past sixteen years the physical development that has occurred has beenguided by the 1 977 plan, the Law and, Regulations. For the sister Islands, guidelines weredeemed acceptable and desirable, therefore only the Law is applicable to them.The major changes to the plan were:a) Removal of a proposed canal 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 storm belt andreduction 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) house per acreup from one house per five (5) acres.f) The expansion of commercial areas and the dispersal of commercial zones inoutlying districts.g) An expansion in industrial zoning and two categories of industrial zones.h) Deletion of the term heritage coast and replacement by the name sceniccoastline with relocation of some scenic coastline areas.I) Expansion of the hotel/tourism zone and a name change from hotel.j) The provision of public access points along the coast from the road to the sea.k) The provision of substantially more road corridors.Flexibility was the theme of the 1977 plan and this was juxtaposed against“discretion.” The latter it was stated (Ihe Nor’wester, September 1 977) had been misusedby the CPA. In contrast to the 1975 plan, the 1977 plan did not expound on the need forplanning. Neither did it attempt to justify the merits of a conservation ethic. Instead, itpresented a matter of fact “business as usual” approach that specifically identifiedcharacteristics of Caymanian culture (namely: self reliance, sea-faring, free enterprise andland ownership interests) and denounced any planning effort that would frustrate this wayof life, as being doomed to failure. The 1977 plan introduced a concept of flexible zoning,wherein proposed primary land uses were identified and other proposed uses permitted,63provided that they demonstrated that they did not adversely affect the primary use of thezone.There was neither an attempt at determining a population growth policy nor anyinternal distribution of population. Fresh water supplies, it was noted, would requireimprovement and, in this regard, a report was forthcoming from consulting engineers.Similar statements were made for the 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 in the Regulations.The pro-growth stance of the 1977 plan is undeniable. For example, some of thepolicies listed under the heading strategy are:a) to accommodate the present and future population of the Island to the bestadvantage having regard to the quality of life and the economic well beingand prosperity of the people and to their individual requirements.b) to maintain and encourage the further development of the tourist industry andof the banking industry.c) to encourage the development of manufacturing industry, service industry andfood 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 concept of the plan has proven to be apopular and enduring approach to physical planning. Its adequacy will be given furtherconsideration in chapter 5.644.2 Road PlanningThis section examines the general road planning initiatives that were undertakenbetween 1977 and 1989 on Grand Cayman. These initiatives are examined from a land useplanning perspective. Such examination does not purport to be a detailed analysis oftransportation planning needs. Rather, it is intended to describe the methods by which roadcorridors are created and roads provided.Early road construction efforts as described in chapter three were undertaken as ad-hoc capital works projects on an (intuitively determined) as needed basis. Thus it can besaid that the current road system has evolved without the benefit of systematic trafficanalyses.Section 6 of the development and planning law stipulates that proposed roads canbe defined in a development plan. Pursuant to section 6 (4) and the Second Schedule, thereservation of land for roads or rights of way, closing or diversion of roads or rights of way,construction of new roads and alteration of existing roads, the line, width, level constructionetc. of roads can be provided for in a Development Plan. The Authority, however, pursuantto Regulation 6 (2) shall not designate land as subject to acquisition if it appears to theAuthority to be unlikely that the acquisition will take place within 5 years of the date ofoperation of the plan.Further, under Regulation 6 (3), if the Authority has not acquired land subject toacquisition within one year of the date of operation of the plan, a land owner (or someoneowning an interest) may serve the Authority with a notice requiring acquisition. A failureof the Authority to comply within 6 months (or a longer negotiated time) renders thepropertynotsubjectto acquisition. Therefore, longterm planningfor road corridors beyonda five year time frame is severely constrained.65The road provisions of the 1972 interim plan had been removed in the 1975 plandue to its controlled growth philosophy and population control policy. Specifically,proposals for the road then known as the West Bay motorway and the east-west arterialceased to exist. In the 1977 plan these road provisions were not reinstated. Instead,alternative proposals that anticipated - and attempted to encourage - the eastern expansionof development were put forward, as was an extension to the Mount Pleasant road in WestBay.The north east coast road, now known as the Queens Highway, and the MountPleasant road extension were completed. A relatively extensive series of agricultural feederroads were also completed. Over time, junction improvements at the more congested areashave been undertaken, as well as the realignment of dangerous curves and road shoulderimprovements. Extensive road surfacing and repairs have also been mainstays of the roadsprogramme. The upgrading and continuation of roads has taken place incrementallythroughout the districts.New road corridors and road construction takes place 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. Once the general locationof the road has been decided, Public Works Department is instructed to complete the roaddesign. The proposal is then put forward to the Planning Authority which considers therecommendation of the Planning Department and either grants or refuses planningpermission for the road. The Lands and Survey Department is then instructed to completea boundary plan and once this is done, and negotiations concluded for land acquisition, theroad is gazzetted and subsequently constructed by Public Works Department. The decision66to locate a road corridor is, broadly speaking, based on subjective assessments.Additionally, area residents and technical personnel may be consulted. There is noevidence to suggest, however, that the decision to locate a road corridor results fromsystematic or standardized rationalizations such as levels of service, trip generation, averagedaily traffic, peak hour flows, etc. Neither was there evidence to suggest that the roadcorridor proposals formed part of a larger road network plan. Further, the linkage betweenprojected future development and projected future traffic volumes does not appear to begiven sufficient consideration.The second way that roads are constructed is when private interests wish to constructa subdivision or a project for which road access and provision is necessary. Plans, eitherprepared in advance or after consultation with the Planning Department, are submitted tothe Planning Department for evaluation. Public Works is requested to comment on theproposal and after receipt of such comments a recommendation is made to the CPA. TheCPA can either grant planning permission or refuse it. The granting 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 comprehensive written format, specifying widths,curb heights, horizontal alignments and other geometric requirements.Once the roads have been certified by the Public Works 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 building construction has occurred to deriveaccess from the road, the Public Works Department is then requested to organize gazzetting67of the road as a public road. Once a road has been gazzetted, the Public WorksDepartment is obliged to maintain the road. The original developer is not obligated to incurany further road costs.In an attempt to improve the 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 - Wilbur Smith andAssociates - undertook the study and worked with a local steering committee of senior civilservants representing the Planning, Public Works, Lands and Survey, and Legal Departmentsalong with the Financial Secretary’s office, the Portfolio responsible for Roads Planning andthe Royal Cayman Islands Police Force. Substantial technical analyses, such as tripproduction, benefitlcost analysis and reviews of the existing legal and organizationalarrangements for road planning occurred. Comprehensive recommendations for roadstandards, road corridors, policy changes and legislative amendments, and fundingwere alsoproduced.Despite a technically sound report and presentation, the Master GroundTransportation Plan failed to be accepted as government policy. 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 roads andjunctions, restriction of access to affected land owners and onerous design specifications.The Master Ground Transportation Plan also attempted to establish a “longer term” (i.e. aten (10) year) horizon for road projects.In many instances, because of the relatively high level of urbanization, much of theroad junction and corridor proposals entailed considerable encroachment on, or removalof existing development. This would have necessitated either the relocation or modification68of affected businesses and homes. It can be argued therefore, that the cultural characteristicsstated in the 1977 plan played a significant role in the rejection of the Master GroundTransportation Plan.4.3 Hurricane Preparedness PlanningHurricanes are a source of great destruction in the Caribbean. The Hurricane seasonoccurs officially from 1st June through 30th November, but hurricanes have occurredoutside this period (Cayman Island Hurricane Preparedness plan, 1990, p.1). In 1989, justprior to the occurrence of Hurricane Gilbert, a Hurricane Preparedness Plan for the CaymanIslands was produced.This plan has and continues to be subject to revision annually. It is a forty sevenpage document with another sixteen pages of maps. Within its ten chapters and sixappendices, a variety of topics are covered. These include the Hurricane emergencyorganization (although no organization chart is provided), hurricane warnings, internalcommunications, duties of the police, search, rescue and initial clearance, action to be takenby the 1st of June each year and, a series of actions after 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 the threat has passed.The aims of the Hurricane Preparedness Plan are stated as being to ensure that:a. All practical precautions are 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-determined plan exists for providing assistance and relief after ahurricane.c. Damage assessment and recovery measures are in place to deal with a posthurricane disaster situation. (Cayman Island Preparedness Plan, p.2)69The plan also describes the various categories 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 primarily to shrubbery, trees and foliage.No real damage to other structures. Some to poorly constructed Street signs. Stormsurge 5 to 7 feet above normal. Some flooding of low-lying coastal 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 to shrubbery and treefoliage, some trees blown down. Some damage to building 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 torn from trees; large trees blowndown. Damage to roofs, windows and doors of buildings, and some structuraldamage to small buildings. Storm surge 11 to 12 feet above normal. 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 and all signs blown down.Extensive damage to roofs, windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on manysmall residences. Storm surge 13 to 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lowerfloors of structures near coasts due to flooding, inundation of 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. Some complete buildingfailures, with small buildings overturned or blown away. Storm surge greater than18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15feet above sea level within 500 yards of shore. (Cayman Island HurricanePreparedness Plan, 1990, pp.1-2)*H,ioon.Sh.It.r,E.Meá1c41a’iLr.ZONEICATEGORYIHURRiCANEEvouoteoilunprotectedbeocltroZONE2CATEGORY2HURRiCANEEvcucoU000stelzonesIZONESCATEGORY2HURRICANEEvocoateoilc005tai&Iow.IylngzonesZONE4CATEGORY4HURRICANEjereos-I,C . C 0 (D C 0 N 0 -P CuJ n 3atBarkersN1POINTGrandCaymanNorthSoundWestPorntWEST66ORGEJacksonPWnttSouthWest‘QintSIDESOUNDBREARFRSC71It is also noted that:These categories are not to be confused with Evacuation Zones which are shown onthe Maps. A category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane recommends evacuation of Zones 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 7 Hurricane Shelters on Grand Cayman.b) Six of the shelters are also Emergency Medical Centres.C) There are three evacuation zones.d) 12 of the shelters are located within evacuation zones.Additionally, evacuation zone 1 contains the major tourist resort area, where someof the 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 of some property at; the Safe Haven complex, the Cayman Islands Yacht Club andthe Brittania complex, are located within evacuation zones 1 and 2.Within these evacuation zones, one will also find four of the six emergency medicalcentres. 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 property inthese evacuation zones range from 20ft. on canal front lots to between 100 to 190 feet inhotels/tourism zones. Table 1 indicates the characteristic of the hurricane shelters.From Table 1, one can see that five 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<6Jcfit4 AY 41AL.. to .ft f4.t EMENy M.PicA. cf4TG.C4’ MULTPVIe W&L. Z7ft o Ift l4P$MA %4L. 4-ft 4-tWT YW6YAN C-MRTlA4 4’-- ft ‘ +UNtTP Gtt)4 HALL. ‘t ‘f i.5 14±iTV TZWS4 fLAl..L. I CiPoft. Nc’ 84e 5 EMSNcy MEPC,AL. cep4,7wry‘i I t•40 ‘ft 2*OPPN —P1 cwCr’i cft ‘(e6 ft I4.T 1W4 I+M$. 4c’ft Y! ftfAU. Z&DDf &f o± MPIL cNW.VA4AH 1MA’ WL 2’.ft y fe I9± 14ecy N4L.. NTER’(m4Mcrn1Ty Au. 6’fe Y5 -zof ao’±KORTh $W j — —TJH HALL. ‘‘ - •1o+ Mg&y MpLcM- rEI4 F&VNTlS1 OttV)f+ ?ft. ‘( 6 4eMTNP J. - CMC4T c7f4. ‘( flft -- EM.ENC’’ MeP1CAI.. r1MAgy 6C4 ‘e -zxG4Y4AN Mø 1— — —‘TO4 LVTY Cfl DZa’ I4 IL’ BMRNc’,’ MPC6L- C.N1EC* Jl1gyEc Z’f. ‘E5 Wft 1.+WT Ht’ M4’ ‘(E 2f Z9±— — —— — —— — —— — —NAHJRNAY64. 1-h4U. Nt &.f tt* UTO l473plans criteria to sustain major damage from a category 5 Hurricane. Moreover, fully thirteenshelters will have to be evacuated if the directives of the evacuation zones are to followedin the event of a category 3 Hurricane.Furthermore, if a category 2 Hurricane hits Grand Cayman, compliance with 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 utilized if compliance withthe requirements of the evacuation zones is maintained.74CHAPTER 5: THE ADEQUACY OF PHYSICAL PLANNING5.1 The Institutional Ability to Identify ProblemsAs outlined in Chapter 1, one of the six basic normative criteria was that theinstitutional organizations should have the ability to clearly identify problems. Theidentification of problems was what was attempted in the preparation of the 1975development plan. This planning initiative was also an attempt at the legitimation of a formof rational comprehensive planning. This is not surprising, since it was the model ofplanning that was dominant in the 1 950s and 1 960s and was widely supported in the ‘70s,having evolved from the physical planning models of 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 by what were previously perceivedas purely physical or land-use decisions. These factors include social anddemographic characteristics of population; economic variables such as income andlocal or regional economic base; and transportation factors, travel patterns, modalsplit and transportation networks. Comprehensive planning aims to take all of thesefactors into account in a rational analytical planning process (Alexander, 1986, p.75).The contingent of experts that was assembled to create a plan and planning initiativesto replace the interimistic documents of the early 1 970s and late 1 960s drew heavily on thedominant planning paradigm of the day. This was one way that they were able tosimultaneously arrive at a model of reality that explained how the Island society functionedand, reach a prescriptive conclusion about how it should evolve. There have been numerousattempts at successfully reviewing the Development Plan since its adoption in 1977. Thesehave generally taken the form of reviews by outside agencies and, despite being“comprehensively” undertaken and filled with many numerical data and scientific facts, theyhave largely failed to have any impact on reforming the physical planning function.75Many of these technical studies called for restricting sprawl and the prematuresubdivision of property. The standard rationalizations against this form of development suchas inflation of land prices, unproductive use of land, unproductive use of capital to maintainservices to sparsely populated lands, the generally superior economic performance of morecompactly built and better planned areas, etc., have also failed to bring about a consensuson the need for an expanded land use planning function.Meanwhile, co-ordination of the development control function over developmentprojects has progressively increased in scope and complexity. For example, the standardsfor road construction, sidewalk construction, parking lot construction, landscape provisions,electrical, plumbing, fire resistance, building construction and general site planning,favourably compare with requirements for these aspects of development in more developedmetropolitan areas. This may be explained by the fact that much of the development hasoccurred as a result of offshore banking and tourism, the clientele of which are relativelyaffluent and therefore desirous of, and willing to pay for, high amenity development.Nevertheless, some of the consultant produced studies over time have indicated thatthere are land use problems which are growing in intensity such as traffic congestion, solidwaste disposal, inadequate public transport, the deterioration of the island Image and theproliferation of “anywhere” architecture. Additionally, there has been no consensus on theneed for the establishment of standards, for parks, play grounds, sports fields, publicbeaches, launching ramps etc. Neither has there been any consensus arrived at on theextent of preservation of natural areas that is necessary to retain various ecologicalcommunities and cultural activities. More fundamentally, there is no general consensus onwhether or not such preservation is a desirable national objective, much less where and towhat degree it should occur.765.2 The Protective Function of the InstitutionsThe second of the normative criteria put forward was that planning institutions thatprotect the islands against negative externalities and promote a healthy society should exist.Upon examination of the Planning Law and 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 Law have beencriticised as “nothing more than zoning plans whose inadequacy for the purpose (ofdevelopment planning) is common knowledge” (Pollard JL 1991, 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 can bedone, 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 solutions are thereforelikely to be forfeited in the interest of expediency.The dominant planning paradigm which 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 recognise the impact of power in the policymaking process whereby the elite exclude others, and that it assumes that all 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 more fatal, set of criticisms of incrementalism has been put forwardby Walker (1 984) and Eddison (1 972). Incremental or 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 problem solvingbecomes distorted and incapable.Nevertheless, juxtaposed against rational-comprehensive planning, which was in1975 soundly rejected, incrementalism has remained the culturally acceptable form ofplanning in the Cayman Islands. For a group of (previously) insular, small islands whoseheritage and aspirations reflects “self reliance, seafaring, free enterprise and land ownershipinterests” (Cayman Islands Development Plan, 1 977) a cautious approach to policy makingand 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 to define and develop a planningstrategy for the Islands which is however flexible enough in concept and implication to78accommodate individual requirements, special circumstances and changing conditions.”There are no other pronouncements on planning as a process within the Development Plan.It is suggested, however, that implicit in this is the concept of 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 shall consult 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 circulating in theCayman Islands and a two month period for objections and representations is provided for.Subsequently an Appeals Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the objections andrepresentations both of which the CPA is bound to consider prior to submitting both itsproposal and the Appeals Tribunal’s report to the Legislative Assembly for consideration.Additionally, the Authority may choose to consult further with the public prior to submissionof the plan to the Legislative Assembly. This last step, however, is not mandatory unlessotherwise 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 public consultation,however, can be subject to a number of critiques. First, substantial discretion in theory isleft to the CPA regarding whom it should consult. It is therefore arguable that the CPA canexclude certain actors from the consultation stage.Secondly, to anyone familiar with typologies of citizen participation, it is clear thaton Arnsteins ladder (See Chapter 2) this type of participation reaches rung 5 (consultation)and within this framework is considered a degree of tokenism. Measured againstSandercock’s typologies it can be labelled as market research, which as previously stated79views the bureaucratic efficiency of the Government administration as its rationale.Simultaneously, it views the public as clients able to offer advise and suggestions onplanning details but not on policy.Thirdly, the semantics and method of input are 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 to participate.” Further the public is enabledto make “objections and representations” (through a public inquiry) on proposals rather thanprovide policy options or offer suggestions for alternative proposals through referenda, 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, but tragically doesnot oblige him to get public participation throughout the planning process.”Regarding the generation of useful information, again section 7 of the law is enablingrather than prescriptive. It is mandatory that the CPA shall at least once in every five yearscarry out a fresh survey of the area considered for a proposal and discretionary in that it maycarry out such surveys more frequently. The usefulness of the information in the survey willdepend on the goals and objectives of the CPA at the time. There is no stipulationregarding the form and content of such a survey. Therefore, the issues that are raisedtherein maybe other than those most acutely requiring attention. Once again the flexibilityand pragmatism of the incrementalist approach 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 organizations that providefor conflict resolution in the discourse on physical planning should exist. From the80preceding discussion it is evident that the Section 8 actions of the appeals tribunal providesfor a legally entrenched method of conflict resolution regarding debate on developmentplans. Additionally, Sections 40 and 41 of the Law offer legal mechanisms for thoseaggrieved by a decision of the CPA and the Development Control 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 to theAuthority 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 respondent and appellant arerequired to be present before the Tribunal. Both the Tribunal and the CPA are appointedbodies. Thirdly, anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Tribunal may appeal such decisionto the Grand Court. Clearly the decisions of the CPA, regarding applications for 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 the final submission of its plan hasreviewed and considered the Tribunal’s Report. This may or may not impact on thecontents of the Plan. However, a further discretionary provision exists within the processthat might result in the CPA consulting further with those that initially made the objectionor representation if instructed to do so by the Governor. This form of input in the pastcontributed to overt political dissension, which was manifest in highly charged publicmeetings and public protest marches. It is well known that in order to quickly resolve a81conflict one can escalate the conflict. However, the results are not always predictable nordesirable. Therefore, based on its historical propensity to generate conflict and divisiveness,policy debate on land use and planning issues appears to be a prime candidate forexpansion of conflict resolution mechanisms.This is suggested for a number of reasons. First, those mechanisms that exist arehighly legalistic in nature and, as such, are fundamentally adversarial. Further, they promotethe propensity for objections to initiatives to emerge by not mandating that citizenparticipation is undertaken throughout the plan making process. Additionally, the “topdown” bent of the planning process almost guarantees that any opportunity for citizen inputcomes at a very late stage. Despite this fact, the initiating agency may choose to provide forit earlier. Nevertheless, any prior provision to that legally mandated, can be viewed aswithout legal standing, and therefore less meaningful.5.5 Cultural Acceptability And Contextual AppropriatenessThe fifth criterion was that a planning process that is culturally acceptable andotherwise contextually appropriate should exist. Lichfield (1 979, p.7) suggests that in theU.K. context, dissatisfaction with the planning system results from a general unacceptabilityof a whole system where “we seem to stagger from issue to issue, and there is no clear leadas to what should be done”. In the Caymanian context, cultural acceptability to planninghas been expressed as political acceptability. Rational comprehensive planning was shownto be not acceptable and therefore its 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 development initiatives.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 the Central 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 inadequate sea- side setbacks have failed to accommodate coastal 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.The extent and pace of mangrove swampland loss was chronicled previously (Ebanks,C., 1 988), and earlier by the Natural Resources Unit (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 also welldocumented (See for example Ebanks, C., 1 988).More recently, concern has been expressed about the destruction of buildings ofhistorical value due primarily to their architectural quality. In this regard, the National Trusthas taken a fairly active preservation role. Still, there is no articulated overall policy on 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 this thesis, acquisitionof property is limited to a five year period.835.6 Implementation And MonitoringThe sixth criterion was that methods for the effective implementation of planningdecisions that include sequencing and monitoring should exist. The Development Plan, andthe Development and Planning Law and Regulations are conspicuously silent on the meansof implementation and monitoring of development plans. Although sections 6 and 30 ofthe law provide for conditions and limitations to acquisition of property by the CPA, thedevelopment plan has not been implemented in this fashion.Generally, because of the relative fragmentation of the planning function as describedearlier, implementation of projects are left to the particular Ministry with jurisdiction overthe given activity. The land use aspect of government development projects appears to bea secondary consideration relative to the budgeting process. There is a public sectorinvestment committee that includes membership from the senior, technical civil servants.Within this body, all of the large government projects are reviewed from a multi-disciplinaryperspective.Most of these projects, however, will not have been identified in a development plan.Rather, in keeping with the incremental approach, they will have been identified in theannual budget process either as a one, two or three year project. Therefore, whiledevelopment projects have been provided for in terms of implementation, there is verylimited potential for the implementation of the Development Plan, except by affectedMinistries. The degree that they will be affected depends primarily on how involved theywere with the plan preparation, and how both the plan and the ministerial agendas areintegrated.Monitoring evaluation is a necessary component of the planning process. Alexander(1981, p.138) notes that84without a diagnosis of the deficiencies of planning efforts which is more than thelargely intuitive recognition we have now, we can expect little improvement beyondthe groping attempts at trial-and- error and the succession of fad by fashion whichhave characterised the evolution of planning as an organised activityThe requirements for an annual report by the CPA, a mandatory five year review of the planand a provision for more frequent discretionary reviews imply that the need for monitoringhas been considered. However, as a highly organized systematic activity that providesevaluative criteria to distinguish between intentions and outcomes, planning monitoring inthe Cayman Islands is largely underdeveloped. Alexander (1981, pp.1 38-1 39) contends that“Success or failure must be judged both as functions of internal or process consistency andof appropriate assessment of, and adaptation to the opportunities and constraints of the realworld environment.” Initiatives that mandate evaluative or monitoring action for planningin the Cayman Islands context require additional formulation.85CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSDevelopment control, i.e. the evaluation of applications for planning permission, hasbeen the primary form of planning that has taken place in the Cayman Islands. At least oneprevious study (Roakes, S., 1987) proposed various methods through which the developmentcontrol function could be reformed. However, Roakes’s study was based primarily on acomparison between the U.K. methods of development control and that of the U.S. Bothwere juxtaposed against the Caymanian system. The comparative analysis was augmentedby interview questions posed to members of what was termed 11the developmentcommunity.” These individuals were persons engaged in either architecture/engineering,real estate, construction, or the CPA. Some of them wore a number 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 Planning Agency, but ifthey are only applying existing regulations and controls they are doing very little or noPlanning.” It is presumed that Alexander does not include the modification of regulationsand controls in this categorization. It is suggested that in developing areas, especially smallislands, development control has a far greater impact on the aesthetic qualities than it doesin larger, more developed metropolitan areas and, is therefore more crucial.Development control issues are the tangible aspects of planning that the communityobserves, complies with, are constrained by and given opportunities through. In societiescharacterised by face to face relationships, scarcity of resources, and vulnerability to outsideevents, development control must be both protective and enabling. It must also be86anticipatory, and augmented by a correct measure of land use planning. Striking a balanceis the crucial ingredient in planning both as a process and a product.The following recommendations are put forward in a spirit of concern about the wayplanning is done and the effects of both the process and the content of 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 was said about the inadequacies of the currentplanning function as a participatory process. Additionally, the definition of planning putforward as appropriate for the Cayman Islands included collaboration and education. Thisis not to suggest that the education alluded to is solely that of positivism. Rather, it isenvisaged as a meeting of minds from a broadly constituted, 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 manner form ofaction or physical plan of what must be done is put forward. Rather, a number ofalternative forms for physical plans and ways within which the pratice of planning can bemore autonomously developed are suggested. Each neighbourhood, or electoral district candecide for itself how it can best articulate its aspirations to the elected officials. A mandatedpublic input procedure, however, that is entrenched in Law will have to exist to augmentthe more experimental approach of community consensus building. This will ensure thatwhat has been decided upon has an accepted avenue to become legally binding.(1) Planning staff should make a concerted effort to impart both process and substantiveskills to the community through formal and informal networks and contacts. Group87dynamics, such as coalition building, co-optation, mediation, negotiation and otherprocess oriented activities are beneficial methods of enquiry and action.(2) The beliefs and value systems of those engaged in the process should not be assumedbut should be made explicit.(3) Planners should visit various communities along with the representatives for the areato see first hand what problems are being experienced and to learn from 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 initiatives that 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 than public 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 description of 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 of what the process can result in both temporally andspatially.Such initiatives should take the form of the following hierarchy:1) 30 years - a strategic (advisory) plan that would concentrate on long rangeplanning policies regarding the provision of infrastructure open space, and thecharacter of the community.2) 10 years - a land use plan regarding zoning and spatial layouts of areas.883) Executing or implementation orders 1-5 years to ensure that the policies of thelong term plan are integrated with the day to day demands for servicesfacilities and programmes.These will give flexibility in terms of timing, and certainty in what is wanted spatially. Thus,if the economy is overheated implementation can occur more rapidly and if sluggish moreslowly. As the cliche goes, change is constant. Its direction can only be constructivelyguided if a community articulates its aspirations. The community should be able to answerthe following regarding the process, timing and product of 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 provided in the following discussion.6.2 Creating a Vision - Planning As ProductsNo one individual has a right, it can be said, to impose 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 to look or “feel” like anything in particular.Through the collaborative process (or another variant), ideas can emerge on how an areawill be constituted to achieve certain ends. Such ends could be increased recreationalopportunities, increased sea views, or the maintenance of cultural activities, As a point ofdeparture, the following are put forward to indicate how the island community may wishto evolve.(1) Increased or expanded views to the waterfront should be provided for alongwith access to the sea. Lineal Parks and pedestrian ways should be providedfor especially in the George Town waterfront area.89(2) Lands and the marine areas that support traditional activities such as fruitgathering, crab hunting, shore based fishing etc. should be identified with theaffected communities. Subsequently, these lands should be acquired and 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 ambience and peacefulness to areas that is lost when they are replacedby roadways.4) Incentives should be provided to encourage the preservation and perpetuationof the Cayman Image. Again it must be realized that aesthetics may bedynamic. However, the traditional scale, detail colouring and placement ofstructures suggest compelling and enduring qualities. Such incentives couldinclude community awards for various types and styles of buildings, landscapetreatments, ancillary structures such as gazebos and docks, and ecologicalpreservation areas, public beaches and recreational areas.5) Provision should be made to increase the incidence of travel by nonmotorised means including walking and bicycling. This can include networksof pedestrian and cycling paths, the widening of road shoulders and or theprovision of dendritic open spaces throughout urbanizing areas.6) Current vacant waterfront properties should generally remain undeveloped.The coastal dynamics can be accommodated and scenic roadways can beprovided for. Additionally, development projects located adjacent to suchroadways can be tiered with increased heights away from the road towardsthe center of the island. This has the advantage of affording views to a largersegment of the community and decreasing the risk of storm surge damage tobuilding projects. It is also likely to positively affect the cost of propertyinsurance.7) The use of endemic trees, plants and shrubs in landscaping projects shouldbecome more prevalent. Animal species associated with the endemic florawill retain a habitat and the use of biocides and expensive irrigation will beprevented or avoided.8) Compact, mixed use arrangements of housing, businesses andinstitutional/civic centers should be planned and constructed. Face to faceinteraction can be enhanced and most everyday trips may be within walkingdistance for residents of these areas. This will save on fuel consumption, carmaintenance, etc. and will reduce automobile emissions.9) Within 8 above, tourist accommodations 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 opportunities to localcornmun iti es.10) Additional consideration should be given to the site planning and theaesthetics treatment of supermarkets, office buildings and mini-malls. Thehard, stark areas of asphalt parking lots should be provided with grassed areas,areas with brick payers, areas with pea-gravel or packed white sand finishes,and landscaped islands and buffers to provide for visual relief.11) Signs should be appropriately scaled, coloured and tastefully placed andappear as integral parts of the project presentation. They should be erectedwith the concepts of safety and their cumulative aesthetics effects in mind.12) Civic squares and public recreational areas should be laid out to provide forthe comfort and convenience of users. This should include shade trees, sittingareas and design solutions that encourage social interaction, such as attentionto the heights, widths placement etc of street furniture. Additionally, drinkingfountains, restroom facilities and information centres should be seen 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 collection of waste from such boats.Additionally, the amount of refuelling areas can be lessened which leads tomore comprehensive monitoring and thereby decreases the incidence ofpollution via spills, leakages, etc.There are many other initiatives which could and should be undertaken to provide improvedquality, promote cohesiveness, and improve the habitability of the built environment.Obviously, these initiatives will have cost implications and will require proper planningandprogramming to guide their success. The point is that they demonstrate the kinds ofinitiatives that will be required if the planning function is to advance, beyond that ofincremental development control.916.3 ConclusionsPlanning in the Cayman Islands has existed as a legal entity since 1935. The earlyplanning initiatives took the form of Government capital works programmes involving theprovision (development) of civic buildings and physical infrastructure. In this form, theywere considered to be development plans (i.e. plans for development). Because it waswholly dependent on the Government budgeting process for implementation and providedtangible evidence of development (or gain) through works completion, capital worksprogramming came to be viewed as development planning. Coupled with a generally lowlevel of land based economic activity, due to the size, insularity and, marine oriented natureof the community precluded the need for land use planning was 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 of Government intervention in land use activities. Other political actors however,though supportive of an expanded government function in the control of use of land,disagreed on the nature and degree of such 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 of addressing the concerns of a rapidly evolving island society. Theassumptions of this initiative proved to be culturally unacceptable. This was due in part tothe previous dearth of both land use activity and land use regulation. Another contributoryfactor was the timing of the initiative relative to the economic opportunity of the day. The92economic expansion that suggested the need for land use control and planning hadtemporarily slowed. The pressing need therefore was economic activity.Incrementalism, though not formally identified as such by name by the island societyhas offered a more flexible, pragmatic, culturally acceptable and, therefore, enduringapproach to land use. It has persisted as the main form of planning action in the CaymanIslands. Included in this approach has been the gradual advance of development standards.The primary form of planning action that has taken place has been development control, inthe form of reviews of applications for planning permission. Land use planning has, on acommunity wide scale, remained largely under-developed.6.4 ImplicationsPlanning involves contradictions (Lucy, 1988, p.219). Such contradictions maymanifest themselves as problem specific (myopic) vs comprehensive (overgeneralized). Theyarise because of limitations on for example time and certainty. Other limitations includesensitivity to the decision context, attention to implementation, monitoring and theevaluation of results (Lucy, 1988, p.221). However, one of the important functions ofplanning is to adapt to such limitations in specific cases (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, pp. 1-38).As population and development pressures increase in the Cayman Islands, thebenefits that can be achieved through land use planning will come to be recognized bymore people. In the interim, the opportunities for optimum spatial planning will decreaseas virgin land becomes “developed.11 Institutional inertia and cultural resistance maycombine to produce constraints to an expanded planning function if the methods andpolicies do not appear to be appropriate. In determining appropriateness, correct timing and93clear problem identification must occur. This can best be achieved through a form ofcollaborative planning action that provides for the articulation of aspirations of a communityas was previously described. A collective of these aspirations can be viewed as acommunity vision, regarding both the process of planning and the product to be achievedas a result of plans. Such a process will demand commitment in terms of capital, and effortand other resource allocation. The benefits of the process may be contained in various timeframes and therefore may not lend themselves to easy evaluation or political acceptance.As an initial advance towards the establishment of a collaborative planning system,Section 8 of the Development and Planning Law (R.) it is recommended, should beamended. Such an amendment should include the creation of district planning committeesand, a co-ordinating committee. These committees should generally be non-partisan and,should included approximately seven to eleven members. Membership, initially, should bea two year appointment to allow for some continuity in the process of planning. Themandate of the co-ordinating committee should provided for strong public/private coalitionsto be formed by allowing for a broad based membership. Organizations that should beincluded are the Chamber of Commerce, the Real Estate Brokers Association, the NationalTrust, etc. Each electoral district committee however, should concentrate on a membershipof individuals from within the district.In keeping with the concept of incremental advance, the second stage should be toentrench in Law the formation of neighbourhood advisory councils. Entrenchment shouldinclude procedures for their relationships with the CPA and the district committees. Thesegroups would then be able, through legal forums, to advance their fears, concerns andaspirations for the future of their neighbourhoods. Additionally, in keeping with acollaborative approach, staff from the various technical agencies should be assigned to94facilitate, mediate, negotiate and advocate for and against proposed initiatives. Such staffwould, thereby, directly contribute to 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 moreappropriate development projects from both a bio-physical and socio-economic perspective.Long range planning, however, should not be overlooked during the process of incrementalreform. A fundamental goal of any such system, should be that of a healthy community forhealthy 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 rivalries among advocates of variousaspects of the development process that may come about as a result of thesize of the islands and their limited resource bases, for e.g. the traditionalenvironmentalist vs. developer dispute.3) A history of political conflict and divisiveness because of, and resistance to,planning initiatives.4) The inability of the island community to recognize the urgency of appropriateplanning methods to address the threats and negative effects of thedevelopment process.5) The identification of planning initiatives as impediments to progress, ratherthan as necessary and inherent parts of the development process.95Simultaneously, a number of opportunities to realize advances in the planningfunction exist, that include:1) The relative ease that fact to face communication between electedrepresentatives and other stakeholders in the development process can occur.2) The potential for the clearly articulated concerns and visions of the constituentcommittees 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 will becomeincreasingly apparent that there should be greater attention paid to the process of planningand the context of plans. The demonstration effect of various successful projects,programmes and, other initiatives overseas will help to further the acceptance of planningas an essential guiding element in the development process.A long (59 years) association with planning in the Cayman Islands has witnessed theemergence of a sceptical view of its value as a long term, guiding and enabling mechanism.Incrementalism, in the form of a gradual expansion of the development control aspects ofphysical planning, has emerged as the culturally acceptable form of planning. Such anapproach is pragmatic because of its ability to respond to changing circumstances.However, because it does not contain a long-term perspective, 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 expand in the absence ofland use planning. There are, however, several indications to suggest that there is cause foroptimism.96First, there is a growing awareness in the civic administration of the Islands on theneed for planning of various forms that manifest themselves as, sectoral planning from botha programme budget and a strategic perspective. Secondly, there is an increasing cadre ofuniversity educated Caymanians that have been exposed to various methods of dealing withcomplex problems, who continue to have access 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-diversity appear to havebecome accepted by many in the business community. Fifth, Government has seen it fitrecently to recruit a number of planners and establish a long range planning section withinthe Planning Department.Future research will determine how effective land use planning becomes and whetherit 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 on thehistorical 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 I BitOGRAPHYA. Government DocumentsCayman Islands Government: Annual Report = 1988. George Town: 1 989.• Cayman Islands Development 1 947. Kingston: The Govt. Printer.Development Elan 1977.Development and Planning Regulations (1 972).Development and Planning Regulations (1 977).• Economical aii Financial Review, 1982.• Hansard parliamentary debates (especially between 1968 and 1977).• Hurricane Preparedness .Eian fj th Cavman Islands. George Town: Office of theFinancial Secretary, (Typewritten), 1 990.• Statistical Abstract f th. Cayman Islands - 1 988. 1 989.• Statistical Abstract .f th. Cavman Islands 1 987. George Town: 1 988.• fl Development Planningj (1971).• fl Development jj Planning jy (Revised) (1978).flj Land Development (Interim Control) (No 2) Regulations 1970.fl Land Development (Interim Control) (No 2) Regulations 1 969.Master Ground Transportation .j.an 1 988.• The Proposed Development Plan 1975.• Iii Regional Planning 1935.• Ih Regional Planning (Amendment) j.y, 1965.B. Primary Sources(1) Newspapers98Cavman , August 2 9th, 1 972.iJa Caymanian Weekly - The issues from 1 969 to 1 976.Ii Cayman Compass - The issues throughout the 1 970s.(ii) PeriodicalsIh Nor’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”, lournal f American Institute fPlanners Vol.35, No.4 (1969) pp. 216-224.Alexander, Ernest R. Approaches Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories.Concepts, ansi Issues. 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 Theory acj Principles, California:Palisades Publishers, 1983.Burchell, Robert W., and Sternlieb, George (eds) Planning Theory jjjJb. Nineteen Eighties:Search f Future Directions. New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research NewBrunswick, 1978.Carter, W. Air Vice Marshal. Procedures jj Guidelines f Disaster PreparednessResponse. Honolulu: East West Center, 1984.99Clavel, Pierre. Ih. Progressive City: Planning Participation, 1 969-1 984. New Jersey:Rutgers, University Press, 1 986.Coastal Management: “Planning on the Edge”, lournal f jb. American PlanningAssociation. Vol. 51, No. 3 (Summer, 1985).Coccossis, Harry N. “Planning for Islands”, Ekistics, Vol. 323/324 (March/April - May/June,1987): pp. 84-87.Connor, Desmond M. Constructive Citizen 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. and Lapping, Mark B. fl Small Town PlanningHandbook. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1 988.Davies, Elizabeth W. ]jj Legal System f Cayman Islands. Oxford: Law ReportsInternational, 1 989.Diamond, Derek, “The Uses of Strategic Planning: The example of the 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, Microstates Islands. London: Croom Helm,1985.Dorney, Robert and Rich, George. “Urban Design in the Context of AchievingEnvironmental Quality Through Ecosystems Analysis” Contact May 8th 1 976, pp. 28-48.Drabek, Thomas E. Human System Responses Disaster: Inventory j SociologicalFindings. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1 986.Ebanks, Carson. “Integrating Resource Protection and Development in a Mangrove 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: Problems 2f Planning, Penguin Education, 1 971 pp. 409-424.Equinox Travels, Ib Cayman Islands. January, 1 987.100Fagence, Michael. Citizen Participation Iji Planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press 1 977Forester, John. Planning in Face f Power. 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. Planning in th. 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. An Outline f Planning 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). Problems j2.çj. Policies j Small 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. Evaluation in th. Planning Process. Oxford:Pergamon, 1975.Lucy, William. Close Power, Setting Priorities yj.th Elected Officials. Washington:APA, Planners Press, 1988.Masser, lan (ed). Evaluating Urban Planning Efforts: Approaches Policy Analysis.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.323/3 24 (May/June,1 987), pp. 93-100.Pace, David and Hunter, John. Direct Participation in. Action: Ii New Bureaucracy.Hants, England: Gower Press, 1 978.Patton, Carl V. and Sawicki, David S. Basic Methods ç.f Policy Analysis ai Planning. NewJersey: Prentice Hall, 1986.Pollard, Duke E.E. etj. Environmental laws Qftb. Commonwealth Caribbean, Analysis nciNeeds Assessment. Caribbean Law Institute, 1991.Potter, Robert B. Urbanisation and Planning in th Third World: Spatial Perceptions aniPublic 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 Analysis f Development 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 Involvement j th Planning Process. Roseville Australia:Impact Press, 1 986.Sauer, Jonathan D. Cayman Islands Seashore Vegetation: A Study In ComparativeBiogrography: Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 982.Schellenberg, James A. fl Science j Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.Slater, David C. Management j Local Planning. (Municipal Management Series),Washington DC: International City Management Association, 1 984.102Straub, Conrad P. Practical Handbook f Environmental Control. Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press, Inc., 1989.Susskind, Lawrence, and Ozawa, Connie. “Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector:Mediator Accountability and the Public Interest Problem.” American BehaviouralScientist. Vol. 27, No. 2 (November/December 1983) pp. 255-2 79.Swaby, Christopher and Lewis C. Bernard. Report .n Forestry i12 th Cayman Islands. GreatBritain Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies, 1946.Tannehill, Ivan Ray. Hurricanes, Their Nature History. Princeton University Press,1942.The Conservation Foundation. Coastal Environmental Management: Guidelines fçConservation f Resources an Protection Against Storm Hazards. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 980.Thomas, John Clayton. Between Citizen City. Neighbourhood organizations niUrban Politics in Cincinnati. 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. 91-1 01.Walker, J. Social Planning: Strategy fQj Socialist Welfare. Basil Blackwell, Publisher, Ltd1984.Williams, Neville. I History f th Cayman Islands. The Government of the CaymanIslands Grand Cayman, 1970."@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "1994-11"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0099122"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Planning"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "Facing the future: the function of planning in the Cayman Islands"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/5180"@en .