Woman Faced $188,000 Planning Enforcement Fine; However, The Court Showed Leniency.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Tamara Shelly-Ann Pearson appeared before Magistrate McFarlane today, June 24, 2026, to face a charge of failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice. The fine was initially calculated at $188,000, however, Magistrate McFarlane reduced it to $6,483.
According to Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, on July 22, 2025, a planning officer observed an unauthorised detached structure to the left rear of Pearson’s property. A later check of the online planning system revealed that no planning permission had been granted for the conversion.
On August 11, 2025, the matter was forwarded to the Director of Planning for the issuance of an enforcement notice under the Development and Planning Act. Conditions stipulated in the notice were as follows:
** obtain an after the fact planning permission, building permit, and CO for the unauthorized detached structure
** or remove the unauthorized structure and tidy the surrounding area.
On August 27, 2025, the enforcement notice was sent by registered mail to the postal address listed on the land registry to Pearson as the registered owner.
A further check of the online system showed that no application was submitted within the notice period of fifty-six days.
A further site inspection was done on October 28, 2025, which revealed that the unauthorised detached structure built to the left rear of the property was in the same condition as first discovered and that no remedial action was taken.
Regarding legal consequences, DPP Crown Counsel explained:
A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine of one thousand dollars for every day after the first day during which the requirements of the enforcement notice, other than the discontinuance of any use of land, remain unfulfilled.
DPP Crown counsel added that the Crown sought $500 in costs or any amount deemed appropriate by the court.
Pearson was then given an opportunity to explain how things came to this point.
She said:
At first, it was a shed… It went through the planning and everything.
Because one of my kids moved home from college, so I decided to let him live in there because a lack of space, Your Honour. It was a bad idea.
She added that, although the enforcement notice was sent by mail, it was sent to an old mailing address. As soon as found out about the enforcement letter, she rushed to get everything in order.
After hearing from Pearson, Magistrate McFarlane highlighted that the violation period spanned 183 days and the Planning and Development Act 2021 states a base fine of $5,000 and $1,000 per day of non-compliance. In the circumstances, this would lead to a fine of $188,000 ($5,000 + $183,000). In addition, the prosecution sought $500 in costs.
After considering the facts of the case, Magistrate McFarlane granted leniency and significantly reduced the daily penalty to $25 per day (total: $4,575). Combined with the base $5,000, the subtotal was $9,575.
A one-third discount for early guilty plea reduced this to $6,383. After adding $100 in costs, Pearson was asked to pay a total fine of $6,483 or face three months in prison. Pearson was given a payment deadline of June 30, 2027 (one year).
Note to readers
The Cayman courts often highlight that a planning enforcement notice may be deemed served if sent by registered mail to the address stated on the land registry. If the address changes, it is the responsibility of the land owner to notify the land registry of the changes. Otherwise, the registered land owner may face a hefty fine.
For persons who have little financial means to pay fines, the court sometimes considers a fine reduction.
