The matter of architectural style as it affects the grant or otherwise of a planning consent application under Regulation 9 of the Development & Planning Act, very rarely raises itself and it seems only as an item for objection where it may be included in a battery of other causes that has irritated persons against an application before the Central Planning Authority. Regulation 9(1) requires that applicants for planning permission for a development in a residential zone shall ensure that the ‘massing, scale, proportion and design of such development is consistent with the historic traditions of the [Cayman] Islands’.
An application for a large mixed-use commercial and residential mall -type development recently came before the Central Planning Authority. The location of the proposed development was comfortably within a mixed-use precinct south of George Town and on a well-used arterial road connecting fairly dense residential areas with educational and some retail and service premises close by. Several objectors, apparently resident within the precinct adjacent to the site of the proposed development, amongst the usual ‘not-in-my-backyard’ complaints about increased traffic, potentially inappropriate commercialisation of the area etc, laid claim to an assertion that the development’s massing, scale, proportion and in one specific objection case, design, was inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood.
These objections of course misconstrue the intent of the Regulation which is to ensure that a proposed development within the context of its site meets these criteria and not by comparison with that of the neighbourhood at large, but the interesting thing is that the single comment in one objector’s statement- “I did not have the ability to see what exactly is designed, but we can safely assume that there is no traditional architectural features in the design… [and] from the drawings supplied, it has the appearance of a concrete jungle“- gave some cause for consideration by the Authority. In hearing the application, this objector on invitation by the Authority to speak to their concerns in this regard, commented on the record that “the Planning Regulations say CPA shall ensure the mass, scale, proportion and design is consistent with the architectural traditions of the Islands and she can’t see what architectural tradition has been used here, it is ugly and out of character with the area.“
In granting the planning permission sought by the applicant, the Authority stated as part of their reasons for the grant
- “historic traditions” is not defined in the Regulations
- the architectural styles of the Islands have changed over the past few decades. What may have been considered an “historic tradition” in 1960 has morphed and evolved into a wide variety of architectural styles such that there are several styles that could now be considered an architectural tradition. In fact, the architectural design of the proposed apartments is very consistent in mass, scale, proportion and design to a vast number of residential projects approved over the past several years that exhibit a contemporary and linear style of architecture.
This determination of ‘architectural style’ as far as it is of concern to the Central Planning Authority, may now serve as a definitive interpretation of Regulation 9(1) and especially when one considers the further criteria implicit in Regulation 9(2)- historic traditions of architectural style, or any architectural style at all in fact, are no longer a pressing concern of the Central Planning Authority if indeed they ever were.
Andrew Gibb Chartered Architect 