7,424 judgments 29,721 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

In the Matter of the Development and Planning Law (Revised) and In the Matter of Richard Arch Esq - Judgment

G 0151/1984 · 1984-12-20

Development and Planning Law—appeal from Appeals Tribunal; Refusal of planning permission for redevelopment; Adequacy of car parking provision; Tribunal affirmed Authority’s decision

Full metadata
Cause Number G 0151/1984
Court CIGC (Civ)
Judge Summerfield CJ
Parties In the Matter of the Development and Planning Law (Revised) and In the Matter of Richard Arch Esq - Judgment
Judgment Date 1984-12-20
Subject Development and Planning Law—appeal from Appeals Tribunal; Refusal of planning permission for redevelopment; Adequacy of car parking provision; Tribunal affirmed Authority’s decision
Filename (current) 84-12-20-Richard-Arch-In-re.pdf
Legislation cited
Statute Sections cited Mentions
Development and Planning Act 38 2
Full text14 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0151/1984
In the Matter of the Development and Planning Law (Revised) and In the Matter of Richard Arch Esq - Judgment
Before
Summerfield CJ
Judgment delivered 1984-12-20

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SIR JOHN SUMMERFIELD C.B.E., Q.C., J.P.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ON 12 DECEMBER 1984

CAUSE 151/84

APPEAL NO. MISC. 1/84

IN THE MATTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING LAW (REVISED)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD ARCH ESQ.

Mr. R. Alberga Q.C. for appellant (with him Mr. M. Alberga)
Mr. R. Ground for respondent

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the Appeals Tribunal, constituted under section 38 of the Development and Planning Law (Revised), affirming the decision of the Central Planning Authority to refuse permission to develop a project involving the redevelopment of commercial property fronting onto South Church Street and Harbour Drive in George Town. Both the Authority and Tribunal were of the opinion that the proposed redevelopment was generally meritorious and beneficial to George Town. The application and appeal failed on the ground that the proposal made inadequate provision for car parking.

The letter from the Authority communicating its decision (dated 25 August 1983) states:

"While the proposal was considered generally satisfactory, I regret to advise you that the application was refused because of inadequate car parking provision. Seven car parking spaces would be required, although this need not be on-site car parking. A revised submission, to include the required number of car parking spaces would be considered at the first available meeting of the Authority, after submission."

The letter conveying the Tribunal's decision states:

The Appeals Tribunal which met on March 22nd 1984 to hear your appeal from the Central Planning Authority considered

Find similar