By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Wendy’s last night said it is tasting success in its “long and hard-fought battle” to expand to Paradise Island after Atlantis agreed to drop its Supreme Court challenge to the proposed restaurant.

Gail Lockhart-Charles KC, attorney for Aetos Holdings, the fast-food chain’s Bahamian franchisee, told Tribune Business in a statement that her client has “always maintained” that converting the former Scotiabank branch property for its flagship brand as well as Marco’s Pizza was “lawful and appropriate” - especially since it had obtained all necessary planning approvals.

Pointing out that both the Town Planning Committee and Subdivision and Development Appeals Board had rejected the opposition from Atlantis and other Paradise Island hotels, she said: “On October 24, 2023, the Town Planning Committee approved Psomi Holdings Ltd’s proposal to develop a Wendy’s restaurant and Marco’s Pizza on Paradise Island at the location of the former Scotiabank building.

“Atlantis challenged this approval by filing an appeal with the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. In July 2024, the Board dismissed the appeal, confirming that the proposed use of the site for the restaurants did not violate any existing restrictive covenants and was compatible with the surrounding area.” This, though, did not result in closure.

“Atlantis then appealed to the Supreme Court,” Mrs Lockhart-Charles confirmed. “Meanwhile, Wendy’s continued operating its state-of-the-art branded mobile kitchen while the appeal process was underway. On February 5, 2025, Atlantis filed a notice of discontinuance, officially ending the appeal.

“It has been a long and hard-fought battle, but our client has always maintained that the use of the site for Wendy’s and Marco’s Pizza was lawful and appropriate, with all necessary planning approvals properly obtained and granted.”

It is unclear whether Sterling Global Financial, the Hurricane Hole developer, and the Paradise Island Tourism Development Association (PITDA), which represents the likes of the Ocean Club and Comfort Suites, will seek to challenge the Appeals Board’s decision via the Supreme Court although they are likely to follow the mega resort’s lead.

The Appeals Board had found the restaurant, which is expected to involve a $3m investment and create 75 full-time construction jobs and between 100 to 125 permanent full-time jobs once completed, “does not offend” land use restrictions and is “compatible” with the surrounding area and nearby businesses. It rejected all opposing arguments, including lack of a traffic impact study and non-existent Paradise Island land use plan.

Chris Tsavoussis, Aetos Holdings’ principal, in a TV interview earlier this week, said he recently met with Audrey Oswell, Atlantis’ president and chief executive, with the two sides finding they had more in common than not and agreeing that their respective developments can co-exist.

Aetos Holdings, which Mr Tsavoussis runs with his brother, Terry, had always believed the main reason Atlantis and other Paradise Island resorts fought so vigorously against the proposed restaurant’s presence is because of the competitive threat it poses to their own dining and food and beverage operations. The delay caused by the planning approval challenges is likely to have cost it significant time and money.

The former Scotiabank branch occupies a key spot at the junction of Harbour Drive and Paradise Beach Drive. Drivers coming on to Paradise Island reach it before they get to Atlantis, Hurricane Hole and any of the other resorts, while persons exiting via the off-bridge also have to pass it.

It is also within walking distance for both the thousands of staff and tourists at Paradise Island’s hotels, giving any fast food operator a lucrative and large market to tap into, not to mention the area’s residents. Wendy’s and Marcos Pizza’s offerings will also likely be competitively priced compared to many Paradise Island rivals.

Tribune Business previously revealed that both Atlantis and Sterling Global both had chances to acquire the former Scotiabank property before Aetos Holdings. Atlantis did not move, while Sterling’s offer is understood to have been rejected by the bank because it was too low.

Atlantis and its fellow resorts had put forward multiple challenges to the original Town Planning Committee decision. They claimed “there was a failure to consider or receive traffic studies and/or assessments” on the impact the Wendy’s and Marco’s Pizza restaurants would have, plus the “disregard of lack of a land use plan, zoning bye-laws or transparent, objective development for the property area”.

Further objections included “the standard of clientele, traffic congestion, parking demands, obstacles for luxury development... and disregard for the views of [Paradise Island] residents at large”, with the general sentiment that Wendy’s and Marco’s Pizza would devalue Paradise Island’s image and status as a high-end tourism destination.

However, the Appeals Board knocked down the Paradise Island resort industry’s arguments one by one.

“While objections were made based on the lack of a traffic study, the same is not a mandatory requirement under the terms of the Planning and Subdivision Act and or Planning and Subdivision Regulations and, therefore, despite protest, the Board sees no reason on the basis of the intended use of the property that the lack of one should amount to the setting aside of the decision,” the Appeals Board said.

“This point may have been more materially considered if the report, which was said to have been commissioned by an appellant, was provided to the Board. However, absent more, the failure to consider same does not in the Board’s view rise to the level of vitiating the approval.”

As for PITDA’s argument that the lack of a land use plan and zoning bye-laws for Paradise Island resulted in the Town Planning Committee acting unlawfully, and in violation of the Planning and Subdivisions Act 2011 when granting site plan approval, the Appeals Board said it was guided by the legal expression that “the law does not compel the impossible”.

On the land use plan, it added: “Such a plan cannot be regarded as one does not exist, while it is extremely preferable that one is promulgated post haste.” Turning to the site itself, the Appeals Board confirmed that restrictive covenants determining what it could be used for have long expired.

“Having reviewed the restrictive covenants in the title documents of the proposed site, the intended use of the proposed site for the restaurants does not, in the Board’s view, offend the existing restrictive covenants,” it said.

“Moreover, and in any event, having regard to the surrounding fast food businesses and the indication that there will be no drive-through services this use does not seem incompatible once the conditions imposed by the approval are met.” Those conditions relate to the erection of signs, billboards and advertising devices at the site.