Chairs on the beach at Grand Case

AN ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS WHY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CANCELED THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL’S DECISION TO PROHIBIT ANY OCCUPATION ON THE GRAND CASE BEACH.
read the story : http://www.soualigapost.com/en/news/1741...t-defend-itself

Grand Case Beach Chairs: all you need to know about the case in 5 questions : read the story : http://www.soualigapost.com/en/news/1555...ase-5-questions

Well, I'm confused, what was the result?? I guess the judge ruled in favor of the restaurant owners? The Daily Herald doesn't have today's full paper online, as of yet, anyway..

The way it sounded to me is that the Collectivite didn't defend their position, so the restaurant owners won by default.

That's sort of what it sounds like, but the story doesn't even really say what happened, like it was just a follow-up story, explaining why something happened.

That's how I read it too

When I read both stories noted on estellaesxm. post, I got the impression that by not defending position the restaurant owners are able to put out chair etc, however; I believe they still have to get an AOL and pay a fee. AOL's limit the number of chairs that can be placed.

I think because one establishment abused this, and due to greed, placed chairs up to water's edge thus blocking walkers from traversing the beach which is public. Thus, because of one, all suffer. Time will tell if the Collective enforces AOL's.

One person started it.

On Tuesday, after a long meeting, the proposal was adopted by a single vote; since the five other elected officials and members of the executive council had abstained

Was finally able to see yesterday's full Daily Herald online. Yes, the court annulled the decision of the Council, stating they did not have the authority to make the decision. It wasn't clear to me whether this was because the President was the only vote or what the specific reason was. The story did seem to say that the restaurants still would need to get AOT's (leases) in order to place chairs on the beach..

Confused by a sentence in the 2nd link - ie 5 questions ...

"... It should be noted that some beaches are private in Saint-Martin and are therefore subject to an AOT; they have been sold by the State to individuals. Such is the case for plots of land in Nettle Bay, Friar's Bay, Orient Bay and the Anse Marcel Cove. ..."

Private beaces are subject to AOT? does not make sense
and Orient Bay has a private beach ie land sold to?

Am I mis reading this or is there a mistake in the story or?

J&B

The way I interpreted this is that the public beaches have been made somewhat private by the sale of the AOT. Individuals who "own" the AOT have the privilege of the private occupation of the beach.

I think the "private beach" in Orient refers to Club O section. There was a previous post about the special disposition to allow total nudity. Sorry but I don't remember exactly what it was.

La Samana has the right to a portion of Baie Longue and can keep people away. Nettle Bay has villas that purchase privacy in front of these villas.

Grand Case Bach Club has a portion of Grand Case beach that is posted "residents & guest only" .

But I don't know what is deemed private in Anse Marcel.