For years, planning officials have fought to keep Grand Cayman from being overrun by billboards and banners hawking products and services. The Central Planning Authority routinely orders applicants to tailor or take down signs members deem to be unnecessarily large or distracting. 

On 31 August, the Planning Authority determined that the Dart Group should cut down a proposal to add signs onto its Island Plaza building in George Town, the home of Margaritaville, stating that some of the signs were excessive in size. 

According to the Planning Authority minutes, a member said, “This Board is challenged with companies wanting excessive signage. We would be Hong Kong or Las Vegas if they were allowed to do what they want. The Board always has to work out how to cut the number. For a small island, signage can’t be over done – it’s not attractive.” 

During the next item on that meeting’s agenda, the Planning Authority granted approval to the dms Organisation to place three large digital signs at the Grand Harbour roundabout, despite objections from the Planning Department and National Roads Authority. 

dms video  

The three dms video screens went into operation the week of 23 January, alternately flashing the dms logo and a reminder against drinking and driving.  

According to the conditions set by the Planning Authority, the electronic signs are not supposed to display commercial advertisements, video or other moving images. In its comments on the dms proposal, the Roads Authority said it “does not wish to set precedence by allowing signage [...] on any of the roundabouts. Not only will it be a distraction to motorists but it also could lead to commercial ventures in the future”. 

The video screens – each 6 feet 8 inches by 5 feet – were part of dms’ agreement with the government that also involved the landscaping of the roundabout. The Roads Authority noted that entities who sponsor roundabouts in this way are allowed four low signs identifying the roundabout sponsor. 

According to the Planning Department’s analysis, dms had applied for the video screens to be placed within concrete walls with “an illuminated dms logo [...] placed beside the video screen”. 

Like the Roads Authority, the Planning Department was also concerned that the signs could pose a safety hazard for motorists joining the roundabout. The Planning Department cited a section of draft Sign Guidelines stating that “billboards or other off-site signage and digital boards will not be permitted”. 

The Planning Department reminded the Planning Authority of a previous decision from September 2010 where the Planning Authority refused an application for a digital sign, saying in that case: “The proposed sign would be in a prominent location along West Bay Road and will pose a significant distraction for motorists. As the sign would be illuminated, the distraction would be even greater in the evening. The [Planning] Authority is very concerned that the level of distraction created by the sign will endanger the safety of the travelling public”. 

The Planning Authority had considered a similar application even before September 2010. In that case, too, the board refused the application for reasons including that “The proposed sign would be in a prominent location within the traffic circle and this will pose a significant distraction for motorists. As the sign would be illuminated, the distraction would be even greater in the evening.” 

On 31 August, 2011, dms President Don Seymour told the Planning Authority that his signs would be for community service functions only, not for commercial purposes. “The roundabout will be designed to not create a distraction for drivers. The signs will be 40 feet from the road. You can only see the signs if you are stopped and then move into the roundabout,” he said. 

After hearing testimony from Seymour, his agents and an objecting neighbour, the Planning Authority issued its judgement approving the digital signs: “The Authority does not concur with the Department of Planning, the National Roads Authority and the objector that the proposed signs pose an unsafe distraction to travelling motorists. The signs are 55 feet away from the internal edge of the roundabout and are positioned such that they will be viewed in a straight line as vehicles approach the roundabout. The signs and their messages will have been viewed before vehicles enter the roundabout and will not interfere with or distract drivers as they manoeuvre through and exit the roundabout.” 

 High Impact  

The September 2010 Planning Authority decision cited by the Planning Department concerned an application by Robert Baraud to operate his High Impact Media mobile digital billboard company. 

Baraud first took his application before the Planning Authority in July 2010, as part of the process to obtain a Trade & Business Licence. The company has 9-foot by 5-foot LED screens on 12-foot trailers. 

“I am requesting permission to be allowed to place this product at specific locations such as athletic venues [...] and private businesses to promote their products [...] as they need. THIS PRODUCT WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AT ANYTIME,” according to the application. 

During the July 2010 meeting, Baraud said the video screens would use either moving images or static images, which would rotate every six seconds. He said the screens would be placed at each location for four or five hours at a time. His colleague Angie Chan said the screens would not be lit from 10 pm, to 6 am, Baraud said the signs would be removed each day and then put there in the morning. 

The Planning Authority advised Baraud that an application for planning permission would have to be submitted for each proposed location of the digital signs. 

In September 2010, Baraud appeared back before the Planning Authority, to apply for permission to place a digital sign in the parking lot of Tiki Beach, and to request permission to place the signs freely thereafter. 

Baraud presented support from the Department of Sports, Cayman Islands Cricket Association, Cayman Islands Road Safety Council, Mark Hennings of Cayman Contractor Store and Osetra Bay on behalf of Tiki Beach. 

In his presentation, Baraud referred to unsightly temporary banners and signs on roadways, as well as other means of working around Planning Authority guidelines. Baraud’s attorney J. Samuel Jackson asked how Baraud’s proposal was any different from the Cayman Free Press truck with advertisements on the sides. 

Jackson said, “They realise that this is a flashy display, but the world has changed, look at New York City.” 

A Planning Authority member responded, “If we wanted to be in New York City then we would go there.” 

Then the Planning Authority ruled against the application – the decision that would be cited by the Planning Department in August 2011 regarding the dms proposal. In the meantime, Baraud would be granted a Trade & Business Licence for his company. 

CPA v High Impact  

In March 2011, the Planning Authority discussed the fact that Baraud had been placing his digital signs in various locations despite having been refused planning permission. The Planning Authority issued enforcement notices to High Impact as well as to the landowners and occupiers relevant to where the signs were placed. Additionally, the Planning Authority determined to issue an enforcement notice to Cayman Free Press for its truck. 

In April, the Planning Authority issued more enforcement notices aimed a High Impact digital sign in the parking lots of Big Daddy’s and Treasure Island on West Bay Road. In addition to the presence of the sign itself, the Planning Authority noted that in Big Daddy’s case, “the sign is situated such that it blocks two parking spaces and this is in breach of the original plans that received planning permission for the commercial development of the property”. 

In May, the Planning Department advised Planning Authority members that a letter had been received from Baraud’s attorney. 

In the letter, Baraud’s attorney argues that Baraud only sought permission from the Planning Authority because the Trade & Business Secretariat had insisted he do so in order to obtain a Trade & Business Licence.  

“As you are aware, the CPA refused planning permission and there has been no appeal filed in respect of the same. Fortunately, Baraud was nonetheless able to obtain a Trade and Business Licence and has been conducting business in accordance with the same. As it was the sole purpose of his applying for planning permission to obtain a Trade and Business Licence, and since it was, and still is, his position that the CPA does not have jurisdiction over the parking of a media displaying vehicle, my client chose not to appeal as this simply was not a necessary, viable and certainly, expeditious way 

forward for him. My client has, after obtaining the Trade and Business Licence been parking his media trailer at various and numerous locations around the island, in accordance with Police and NRA guidelines, on private property,” the attorney wrote. 

The attorney argues that the Planning Authority “acted outside its remit” when it issued enforcement notices against the digital signs.  

“However, he has suffered loss and damage now at the instance of the CPA’s unlawful decision to issue notices, as a number of landowners who licensed my client to park on their land have now told them that they can no longer allow it,” he wrote. 

“This is obviously intended by the CPA to shut down my client’s business, which he has already established, licensed and invested significantly in. The purpose of this letter is to therefore put the CPA on notice that, unless the enforcement notices are withdrawn, and the CPA ceases to target my client’s business in this way, he will be instructing counsel to file an action in the Grand Court against the members of the CPA who took part in issuing such notices without any further notice,” he wrote. 

Planning Authority members reviewed the letter and recommended that the Director of Planning seek an opinion on the merit of the letter from the Solicitor General. 

In July, the Planning Authority issued another enforcement notice, this time in regard to Baraud’s digital sign near the Grand Harbour roundabout. In October, the Planning Authority issued another enforcement notice for the digital sign near the Grand Harbour roundabout. 

In November, the Planning Authority received information that High Impact was applying for a renewal of its Trade & Business Licence. The Planning Authority told the Trade & Business Licensing Board that the digital signs require planning permission, and also resolved to advise High Impact that planning permission applications “would be required for any and all locations for this type of commercial signage”. 

Also in November, the Planning Authority formally adopted language specifying what types of signs require planning permission. That includes signs/advertisements for commercial business, events and charitable organisations “whether or not freestanding, mobile, digital or fixed to a building/structure”.