At a glance
- Planning approval has been granted for a $40 million commercial and residential development on Walkers Road in George Town
- Developers said the plans were in keeping with the area and the Development Plan
- Lawyers for the objectors are now preparing an appeal
Planning approval has been granted for a $40 million commercial and residential development in George Town, almost two years after permission was first given and later overturned.
The planning board gave the green light to the plans submitted by International Mall Ltd., the developers behind City Plaza on Crewe Road and City Walk on Maple Road, for three commercial buildings and 44 townhouses arranged across seven buildings with a gated entrance on a 3.9-acre vacant plot of land on the corner of Walkers Road and Ellery Merren Drive.
The developers said that the plans would provide housing and services to the local area, but objectors said that the plans would increase traffic along Walkers Road as well as permanently change the nature of the neighbourhood.
A total of 11 objections were submitted, with objections being aired before the Central Planning Authority in a meeting on 6 May. However, in the minutes of the meeting that have just been published, the Central Planning Authority said that objectors “did not raise sufficient grounds for refusing permission”.
Lawyers for the objectors say that their clients are “disappointed” with the decision and are planning an appeal.
Shops and homes planned
The development, which is located in Neighbourhood Commercial and Low Density Residential planning zones, had been granted planning permission by the Central Planning Authority in September 2024 subject to various conditions and revisions to the plans, including the removal of a restaurant drive-through and reducing the total number of bedrooms to 70.
That decision was later appealed, and in Oct. 2025, the Planning Appeal Tribunal overturned the planning permission, citing in its written decision, “a number of errors of law and fact” and found that the process was both procedurally unfair and legally deficient in several respects.
New plans and documents were later submitted with various changes, including the removal of a proposed drive-through, a smaller gym and changes to parking allocation.
The plans also include space for at least two restaurants, a swimming pool and a one-storey gym building, with a total of 30,102 square feet of retail space and 79,189 square feet of residential space.
Objectors had queried whether the number of bedrooms was actually 70 as stated in the plans, or whether family rooms and offices should be considered as bedrooms in the application. If so, this would have taken the number of bedrooms from 70 to 134, but the Central Planning Authority ruled that it was satisfied that family rooms and offices were not bedrooms.
A letter submitted by Jess Peacey from PPDS Cayman Ltd. on behalf of the developers said that the previous application had been rejected on regulatory and procedural issues rather than the merits or otherwise of the development itself.
She said the proposal “represents a well-considered mixed-use development that provides additional housing and neighbourhood services within George Town,” and that “the residential density and building scale are consistent with the surrounding area and the commercial component aligns with the intent of the Neighbourhood Commercial zone”.
Shops and cafes
Peacey added that the units were suitable for neighbourhood-oriented uses such as small retail services, professional offices, restaurants and cafés and commercial services and that objections about traffic and compatibility with the neighbourhood had been addressed.
She said that the National Roads Authority had confirmed it planned to widen Walkers Road and said, “the site is considered to represent a suitable location for townhouse development, having regard to the zoning intent, the established mixed-use character of Walkers Road, the availability of infrastructure and services and the broader strategic objectives of the Development Plan”.
However, one objector called the plans “an insult” to neighbouring property owners and that it would blight “one of the few remaining residential neighbourhoods in George Town” and accused the developer of having “zero regard for our laws, our way of life [and], our neighbourhood.”
He added, “The rights of the objectors to defend and preserve our way of life and our peaceful neighbourhood must be given the same consideration as the developers right to develop his land within the confines of the law. Our way of life has a high value too that we do not wish to lose.”
Explaining its decision, the Central Planning Authority said that “there are several townhouse/apartment developments in the surrounding area and the proposed townhouses are consistent and compatible with the established building character of the area”. The authority added that there is sufficient infrastructure at this site to support the residents of the proposed townhouses.
Appeal pending
JacksonLaw, who are representing some of the objectors, told the Compass that its clients were “very disappointed” by the decision and have instructed them to prepare an appeal to be filed shortly.
It said, “At this stage, it would not be appropriate to comment in detail on the grounds of appeal before the process has formally commenced. However, our clients remain firmly of the view that the proposed development raises serious planning and related concerns which were not adequately addressed by the CPA and which warrant further scrutiny on appeal. They are particularly disappointed by this outcome given that the matter was previously remitted to the CPA following a successful appeal, during which the Planning Appeals Tribunal identified a number of errors in the Authority’s earlier decision.
“The objectors’ concerns have never been directed at development for its own sake. Rather, they have consistently sought to ensure that a development of this scale is assessed and determined in accordance with proper planning principles, the applicable legal framework, and the public interest.”
Related Videos
