Exploiting Shorelines: The Missed Opportunity at Point Deroche

Thanks, Bryson Guptill for revealing what seems to be a bit of greenwashing on the Point Deroche construction. The blame for this mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the government, but the owners had ample opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to, demonstrating that our shorefront is open for exploitation to the highest bidder.

An opportunity squandered

Developer for property at Point Deroche could have built back further from beach

The Guardian (Charlottetown)1 Mar 2023 BRYSON GUPTILL COMMENTARY Bryson Guptill is a retired public servant who worked for many years as a senior policy adviser to the federal and provincial governments in Ottawa and in Charlottetown.

The large ‘cottage’ being built next to the beach at Point Deroche has attracted considerable media attention since photos of the building site were posted on social media in September 2022. Debate on the development raged for weeks in the P.E.I. legislature, with Premier Dennis King saying he would pull the development permit if anything illegal had been done.

In a new twist, the developer has created a website showing photos at the construction site and the old Macandrew house and seawall that were there prior to June 2022.

BUFFER ZONES

The developer claims their new armour stone seawall stops short of the old seawall. They also claim the new build is further back from the edge of bank than the old Macandrew house.

Whatever the merit of these claims, they don’t change the fact that the new armour stone wall and building foundation do not comply with existing buffer zones, setbacks and possibly other regulations. To keep developers from building too close to the public beach, government requires that buildings in high erosion zones like Point Deroche be set back at least 60 times the annual rate of erosion from the edge of the bank.

When the developer removed the old house and seawall, they could have built further back from the beach and the edge of the bank. Instead, government gave them permission to build very close to the water.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Despite restrictions on nonresidents buying larger parcels of land, the developer at Point Deroche received permission to purchase 17 acres that goes back more than one kilometre from the shoreline. They had the opportunity to do the right thing — build back a little further. Instead, they pushed ahead with a plan that flies in the face of climate change realities and sets a bad precedent for other developers who see P.E.I. as a real estate investment dying to be exploited.

They missed the opportunity to respect Mother Nature and show what it really means to be an Islander.

Share On Social Media

About the site

Stay up-to-date on Coalition activites here.

Find us

Address

81 Prince Street

Charlottetown, PE

c1A 4R3

Related Posts

UPCOMING FORUM

https://www.peicanada.com/island_farmer/silencing-of-the-land-topic-for-coalition-forum/article_377a8576-c754-11ee-b125-eb0a0b7d3ad0.html#tncms-source=block-contextual

Read More »

Thanks to Chris Ortenburger for sharing this article in her Citizens’ Alliance newsletter this morning, along with these comments: “There is so much in that interview that brings up more questions for the Minister and Premier: must all land be in “production”? where is good Land Use Planning? (notice that may not be the same as Where is the Land Use Plan? ;-) where is the IRAC report on the Kings County land holdings that former Environment and former Lands and Community minister Stephen Myers set in motion? Why can’t the Land Department keep track of land? Why have IRAC in charge of this when her government has announced it is set to break up IRAC and there will certainly be a lot of transition? And things not addressed here: What about non-profit land protection organizations like Island Nature Trust? (this has been addressed elsewhere with a wave of the hand, but it would be good if the minister recognised this clearly) Why are agriculture giants not addressed, but non-profits? How easy will it be to work around this law? Have they thought that far in the future? This also feels like a use of *a lot* of government legislative writing time that could be spent on other promised legislation

Thanks to Chris Ortenburger for sharing this article in her Citizens’ Alliance newsletter this morning, along with these comments: “There is so much in that

Read More »