Sunset House Ltd v Central Planning Auth
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Sanderson, J.) |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2001 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 05 July 2001 |
(Sanderson, J.)
J.R. McDonough for the appellant;
A. Warner, Crown Counsel, for the first respondent;
R.D. Alberga, Q.C. and R. Annette for the second respondent.
(1) National Trust for the Cayman Islands v. Central Planning Auth., 1999 CILR 147, followed.
Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) (Law 28 of 1971, revised 1999), s.20(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 12.
s.20(2): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 12.
s.21(1): ‘If it appears to the authority that . . . any conditions subject to which . . . permission was granted in respect of any development have not been complied with, then the Authority may . . . within three years
after the date of the alleged failure to comply with it . . . serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.’
s.22(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 8.
s.51(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 5.
Development and Planning Law-enforcement notice-refusal to issue notice-adjoining landowner has right of appeal under Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), s.51(1) as person aggrieved by Central Planning Authority”s refusal to issue enforcement notice
The appellant appealed to the Planning Appeals Tribunal against the Central Planning Authority”s failure to issue an enforcement notice.
The second respondent obtained planning permission under s.18 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) for the construction of an oil storage facility on land adjacent to the appellant”s complex. The Central Planning Authority approved the construction of two 30 ft. high storage tanks. When the finished tanks exceeded 40 ft. in height, the appellant requested the Authority to issue an enforcement notice under s.21. The Authority refused to do so and gave no reasons for its refusal.
The appellant appealed against the refusal to the Planning Appeals Tribunal under s.51 of the Law, as a person aggrieved by a decision of the Authority, but did so 11 days outside the time-limit specified in that section. The appellant”s attorney explained that he had initially intended to seek judicial review, but later concluded that an appeal was the appropriate course. The Tribunal refused to grant an extension of time for leave to appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It stated that enforcement notices were governed by ss. 21–25 of the Law
and that only persons with an interest in the land affected by the notice could appeal.
On further appeal, the appellant submitted that (a) ss. 22–25 of the Law, which governed non-compliance with an enforcement notice, were not definitive of rights of appeal; and (b) an appeal against refusal to issue a notice lay under s.51(1) whether or not the appellant had any interest in the land affected.
The respondents submitted that (a) ss. 22–25 dealt comprehensively with all matters relating to enforcement notices; and (b) s.51(1) applied only to appeals from the grant or refusal of planning permission.
Held, allowing the appeal:
(1) The appellant had a right of appeal as a person aggrieved by the Authority”s decision not to issue an enforcement notice, under s.51(1) of the Law. Although the right to appeal against the issue of a notice was confined to persons having an interest in the land to which the notice related, s.22 and the following sections were not exhaustive of the rights of neighbours and other interested persons. As an adjoining landowner, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial