Facts

Parties: [A.A.] , [B.A.] , [C.] , [D.] , [E.] Hotel AG, [F.] Hotel AG (appellants) against Government of the Canton of Graubünden, Municipality of St. Moritz, [G. AG] (respondents).

Subject: Appeal against the judgments of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden dated December 2, 2019 concerning the partial revision of the local planning in the area of Serletta Süd in St. Moritz.

Facts:

  • The sub-areas Serletta Nord and Serletta Süd in St. Moritz are assigned to the special zone Serletta and are separated from each other by the Via Serlas.
  • The [G. AG] acquired the parcels No. 1808 and 2354, on which the post office building and the underground parking garage Serletta See with the Residenza Rosatsch are located today.
  • On October 18, 2015, the electorate of St. Moritz decided on a partial revision of the local planning for the sub-area Serletta Süd, which adapted the previous comprehensive revision of 1999 to the changed circumstances.
  • Against this partial revision, the appellants filed planning appeals, which were partially upheld by the Government of the Canton of Graubünden.
  • Against the approval decisions and the appeal decisions of the Government, the appellants filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden, which dismissed the appeals.
  • Against the judgments of the Administrative Court, the appellants file an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The proceedings 1C_47/2020, 1C_48/2020, 1C_49/2020, 1C_53/2020 and 1C_54/2020 were combined, as they all concern the amendment of the partial zone plan Serletta Süd and relate to a common subject of challenge. The appellants, as owners of adjacent parcels, are particularly affected by the partial revision of the local planning and have a protected interest in the annulment or amendment of the challenged decisions.

The lower court saw the changed circumstances required by Art. 21 para. 2 SPA for a plan amendment as given and carried out a balancing of interests. The appellants allege that the municipality failed to carry out a balancing of interests in view of the intended plan amendment. However, the lower court concluded that the changed circumstances were given and spoke in favor of a plan amendment. The appellants do not succeed with their complaints, as the lower court correctly carried out the balancing of interests and the plan amendment is permissible.

The appellants further allege a violation of the planning principles and the coordination with other plans. However, the lower court…