February 5, 2025
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands
On February 5, 2025, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands delivered its judgment in the case of The King (otao The National Conservation Council) v The Central Planning Authority and Bon Crepe Ltd. This case, presided over by The Honourable Justice Jalil Asif KC, addressed critical issues concerning the unlawful grant of planning permission to Bon Crepe Ltd and the powers of the Central Planning Authority (CPA) under the Development and Planning Act (D&P Act).
Following the release of the judgement from the Grand Court, National Conservation Council Chairperson Mr Stuart Mailer, said: “The National Conservation Council is pleased to receive the final ruling of the Judicial Review which confirms that the Central Planning Authority (CPA) were indeed acting unlawfully when it adjourned, and then subsequently reactivated and amended, the After-The-Fact permission it had improperly granted for a private road. The NCC’s success in this case, and the previous case brought against the CPA by the NCC, validates how critical it is that the NCC retain the ability to challenge questionable decisions made in contravention of the NCA in a Court of Law.”
The judgement outlines that the Court found the CPA’s decision to grant planning permission on March 14, 2024, was unlawful. It also states that the CPA failed to consult the NCC as required by section 41(3) of the NCA and misdirected itself on the adverse environmental impact of the road. The Court concluded that the planning permission should be quashed. The Court also held that the CPA’s decision on April 10, 2024, was intended to modify the earlier decision rather than revoke the planning permission and emphasised that the CPA’s power to modify a permission under section 17 of the D&P Act does not extend to revoking planning permission. The Court further clarified that the CPA does not have the power to revoke a retrospective planning permission once granted, noting that the statutory framework under the D&P Act limits the CPA’s power to revoke permissions to situations where the development has not been completed.
Kate McClymont, Attorney for the NCC who instructed Chris Buttler, K.C. appearing on behalf of the NCC said, “The judgment underscores the CPA’s continuing failure to properly understand and apply both the environmental and planning legislation. We are pleased to see the Judge’s acknowledgment that it was the CPA’s refusal to agree to the NCC’s reasonable settlement proposals that led to expenditure of public funds in this instance. We hope the CPA will cooperate with the NCC more sensibly in future, to ensure such issues are resolved without recourse to litigation.”
The NCC acknowledges that the judicial review has been a lengthy process, but said it is pleased to now have clarity and closure on this issue. The NCC offers its sincere thanks and appreciation to the legal teams involved for their diligent handling of this case.
End.
Media inquiries contact
Judy.Hurlston@gov.ky
949-8469