Order! Who Represents Jamaican Homeowners?

Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, has continued to proffer the notion of a “one-stop” agency to treat with building approvals, even seeking to establish a 90- day timetable for the applications to be vetted and a decision made. Failing this, the Prime Minister indicates that the developer would be entitled to treat the application as being approved and commence development. While this may be a seductive approach to the uninitiated, this has “nightmarish” implications for the plethora of homeowners and their respective community associations and community development councils among other representative bodies, across Jamaica who have been clamouring for orderly development for decades.

In Kingston and St Andrew, the Constant Spring Citizens Association, the Richmond Park Citizens Association, the Cherry Gardens Citizens Association, the New Kingston Citizens Association, the Golden Triangle Citizens Association among countless others across Jamaica, have been agitating for order in the development process but with little or no success. The lobby is often conveniently misconstrued, by members of the political directorate and attempts made to politicize the process or falsely label those agitating as being anti-development or elitist and thereby stymie the efforts of aggrieved homeowners. However upon close examination, the issues that are being raised by the homeowners all fall within the ambit of sustainable development, which is the accepted goal of good governance and therefore would be expected to garner the requisite political will to streamline Jamaica’s development.

Development in the parishes of Kingston and St Andrew, is currently governed by a Development Order that was developed in 1966 and whereas there is work being done on an update, this has not been completed. In fact in a NEPA organized meeting on August 21. 2006, citizens of Seymour Lands (Golden Triangle) were invited to a public consultation on the revised Development Order as it affected the community. The proposals were rejected, as not only were they inimical to the interest of homeowners and founded on incomplete data, but would foster a disorganized and arbitrary approach to development.

But what are some of these offending issues? Density ratios – NEPA proposed that the density be increased to 50 habitable rooms per acre or 125 rooms per hectare when there is access to central sewerage up from 30. Setback distances (the distance between the building and the property boundary) of 5-feet per floor constructed – this used to be 15 feet per floor. The obvious implications of these two would be the creation of high rise developments which would not only lead to a loss of privacy by their neighbour but more importantly would overshadow and overlook the adjoining property resulting in a loss of value coupled with the possibility of over-intensive developments resulting from high plot ratios and undeveloped amenity areas Whereas those were rejected by the citizens of Seymour Lands, those are the guidelines being offered to potential developers in the area. Further in this ruinous urban development strategy, no provision is made for additional water to be piped into the communities, so with each new development which receives the approval of the state, the quantum of water to the neighbourhood declines. Indeed one major developer recently offered some gratuitous advice to residents to “invest in water tanks.” To further compound the issue, the State agencies do not seek to consult the citizenry as part of the approval process in new developments and oftentimes residents wake up to see construction commence in their respective communities and have no idea as to what is being built. For its part, the local authority (KSAC) is also guilty, in so far as part of the requirements for any developer is for signage to be posted in a conspicuous position on the property to be developed, describing the nature of the proposed activities. However those breaches are not addressed. Of course, there is the matter of the restrictive covenants. In most cases where there is need for modification to or discharge of the restrictive covenants to facilitate development and which requires the agreement of the citizens this is not sought prior to development and is not a deemed to be a condition precedent to application by the developer. Indeed in several cases the modification of the restrictive covenant is sought retroactively to legitimize the illegal development which had previously occurred.

Who therefore represents the homeowners? The citizens seek to represent themselves through their associations. They ask for the assistance of their respective Members of Parliament who are in actuality fairly limited in their ability to address constituency issues in Parliament and through their Parish Councillors with limited effect. This leads to an increasing reliance on lawyers and the legal system for redress. “Jamaica…No Problem” is a slogan often repeated in tourism circles, but in the absence of political will and meaningful attempts at structured urban planning, Jamaica’s development will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis, pausing only momentarily, with the occasional intervention of the courts, leading to the decimation of an island paradise.

NEPA Strikes Again! LOJ Project Approved

NEPA has approved the LOJ Development at 23 – 25 Seymour Avenue. At least that’s the word from LOJ President Richard Byles in an informal rap session on Wednesday February 27, 2008 with the Trafalgar Council and the Member of Parliament, Mrs Maxine Henry-Wilson. However if the word of Town Clerk, Lincoln Evans is accepted, this approval occurred even before the KSAC (local authority) received the requisite application from the developer. In fact, the approval has been granted without even signage posted to indicate the nature of the project, much less even an attempt to advise and solicit the views of the residents in the immediate footprint of the project. This lack of dialogue with even the residents in the immediate footprint of the project would also imply that the requisite modification and / or discharge of the restrictive covenants have not been effected because that would necessitate the involvement of the affected parties. Subdivision approval would have also been granted, but again with no reference to the citizenry.

According to the developers, the multi-billion dollar upscale development designed by Martin Lyn and Associates, will boast 23 townhouses and 32 apartments over 4.3 acres of land and is slated to be constructed over a 20 month period. This development, the largest in the Golden Triangle, which is fronted on the northern side by Seymour Avenue and its southern side by Upper Montrose Road, is likely to fundamentally alter the skyline of the community as it boasts 4 blocks of 4-storey apartments. Further, LOJ advised that it will be “putting up” $40 million for the National Water Commission to lay sewage mains down Seymour Avenue and then along Fairway Avenue to be attached to the sewer mains at Lady Musgrave Road. However, this would facilitate the higher density ratios proposed by NEPA in August 2006, whereby the State Agency suggested that where a central sewer line has been laid the density should be increased to 50 habitable rooms per acre. The fact that this was rejected by the citizenry as at the NEPA Public Meeting on August 21, 2006 does not seem to deter the state agency and has set the stage for litigation.

However much to the chagrin of the Trafalgar Council and MP, there will be no new water mains laid and no plans to do so in the immediate future and therefore the supply of water to the existing residencies will be considerably depleted. For its part the KSAC has advised that pictures of the roadways will be taken before construction commences and the developers will be required to return the roadways to that condition at the end ogf the construction period.

This is yet another example of the impunity with which NEPA continues to treat the citizens of Jamaica says Joseph Cox, Convenor of the Trafalgar Council. “How many more communities are to be destroyed by this cavalier approach to development” questions Cox, citing NEPA’s checkered track record relating to the current controversy in Ramble, Hanover and their 2005 legal entanglements with the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association and the Jamaica Environmental Trust relating to their unlawful behaviour. Interestingly, in that matter Justice Bryan Sykes noted that NEPA / NRCA had breached “their own and the legal standards of consultation, including failure to consult with relevant government agencies.

This points to NEPA’s protracted but casual relationship with the laws and makes even more frightening the notion being promoted by Prime Minister Golding of a “one-stop” agency to treat with building approvals and even moreso his stated intent to change the regulations so that if a developer does not receive a response to its application within a 90-day period, such developer should treat the application as being approved and commence development. With NEPA’s track record, if unchecked, Jamaica’s development will continue to devolve into a series of concrete jungles transforming formerly picturesque communities into urban ghettos without the requisite infrastructure to facilitate their sustainability.

Update: A small sign has now been affixed to the perimeter wall on the premises advising of an intent to apply for permission for development

Who's in Charge of Jamaica's Development

Who’s in charge? It’s an oft repeated but unanswered question regarding Jamaica’s physical development. We have two principal groups, the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and the local authority which is supposed to guide the planning and development process but there is often considerable overlap and information gaps leading to an effective breakdown of the processes involved.

NEPA is an Executive Agency and is said to be an amalgam of the Town Planning Department, the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) and the Land Development and Utilization Commission. NEPA then is the agency under which the NRCA falls. The Kingston and St Andrew Corporation (KSAC) is the local authority for matters concerning the parishes of Kingston and St Andrew and has a critical role in the development process regarding building plans and subdivisions among other areas of the planning approval process. Both groupings are represented on the Town and Country Planning Authority with NEPA providing technical services to that body and hence cooperation of both bodies in terms of information flow is not only implied but a requirement in the quest for good governance and sustainable development.

A typical case in point is the growing controversy over the proposed LOJ development at Seymour Avenue. As at Thursday, February 21, 2008, the KSAC advised that it had no formal application relating to this project and there is no signage posted on or near the proposed site to indicate the nature of the project. Indeed the KSAC has a rule which dictates that signage must be posted at conspicuous places in the vicinity of the development no less than 3 days before an application is filed and no more than 7 days after. There have been a few snippets of information in the newspapers, at least since the acquisition of the property but nothing substantial.

For its part, NEPA has remained completely silent but in the interim the developers have cleared the site of the buildings that were previously there and have commenced construction on at least two perimeter walls. This would imply that the developer has at the very least received “preliminary site clearance” approval from NEPA. This is before any public meeting to even outline the nature of the project and listen to the concerns of the citizenry and might only serve to further undermine the requisite trust between the planning authorities and the citizenry. Indeed under the NEPA / NRCA guidelines, the proposed project will require a permit in accordance with section 9 of the NRCA Act and may require an EIA in accordance with section 10. This as it falls in the category which governs housing projects of 10 houses or more. Nevertheless, preparatory work continues apace with the citizenry remaining largely oblivious to the events at hand.

This can be construed to be mirroring the ongoing Hanover controversy, whereby approval for a cemetery in Ramble was approved and a permit given by NEPA to the applicant, prior to any EIA being conducted. Understandably, there are mounting concerns in the Golden Triangle regarding the new LOJ project; however, there is a similar but noticeable paucity of information. It is understood that the developer has requested a meeting with the citizens albeit with a mere two (2) days notice.

Who’s in charge? No one seemingly knows but with legal teams already being formed it seems that there are storm clouds on the horizon.

The Law is not a Shackle

Over the next few months it is almost certain that residents / owners of property in the Golden Triangle, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston will be bombarded by persons and/or organizations seeking to enlist their support in changing the character of the neighbourhood to something more reflective of their narrow self interests. This must be resisted on several levels.

The Infamous NEPA Meetings
Residents of the Golden Triangle (Seymour Lands) and New Kingston have been engaged in dialogue with NEPA through their citizens associations and in the case of Seymour Lands by way of dialogue through a Public Meeting on August 21, 2006 at the PCJ Auditorium and then by way of additional dialogue over a period of at least six (6) months through a joint select monitoring committee. Further, the New Kingston Citizens Association has had additional dialogue with representatives of the Town and Country Planning Authority (TCPA) for which body, NEPA provides technical support. The outcome of all this dialogue has not been encouraging, as to date no single worthwhile achievement can be identified. NEPA proposed changing setback distances and substantially altering density ratios in the community which were soundly rejected as a setback distance of a mere five (5) feet per floor from the boundary line was deemed untenable and increasing the density up to 50 habitable rooms per acre, nonsensical. However, it is apparent that these are exactly the guidelines and specifications being currently provided to developers, who wish to engage in construction in the above-named areas. The impact of this to date is around for all to see. Apartments being constructed and creating overshadowing over as much as 50 percent of their immediate neighbour’s premises is part of the new reality of the communities and when they are approached the standard refrain has become "we are responding to development pressures". Even when there are clear breaches, NEPA has a strategy which dictates that enforcement notices cannot be served unless both tenant and owner are on the premises at the same time.

Poor Judgment
This seemingly highlights poor judgment and in some cases borders on being obtuse, on the part of the State Agencies and indeed suggests a fleeting relationship with the law. This, as it is ludicrous to believe that a law could be enacted with no reference to the citizens but which, by its very nature, impinges on the property rights of persons (loss of privacy, poor lighting, noise, increase in traffic flows among others) in the immediate vicinity of the new construction, negatively impacts on property values (if 50 percent of a housing unit is under a shadow its value logically plummets) and irreparably alters the character of the neighbourhood to name a few issues.

Law is not a Shackle
However the maxim seemingly governing the State Agencies is that the law is not a shackle that enslaves, but a mere tool of social engineering as significant numbers of these new developments are being effected without any alteration whatsoever to the restrictive covenants governing the property’s and indeed several developers are reportedly attending the offices of the State Agencies after the fact for retroactive approvals. This must not be tolerated and indeed citizens must be prepared to take drastic legal action if necessary. However in the interim, the services of the Member of Parliament, Mrs. Maxine Henry-Wilson should also be enlisted as it seems that a Resolution tabled in the Houses of Parliament seeking to force the relevant state agencies to cease this highly irregular approach to development, is in order. Further, citizens need to step up to the plate and not be afraid to let their voices heard on the radio call-in programmes, in corporate speeches and write letters in the newspapers, as their very way of life is at stake.

Protect your Rights
The citizens of the Golden Triangle and New Kingston have already spoken and have rejected these State proposals (to increase the densities and reduce setback distances) which seek to diminish our quality of life, the value of our investments and in fact our democratic rights as prescribed under the Constitution of Jamaica. This unscrupulous activity is founded on the expectation that because of the middle / upper class status of the community’s, there will be an aversion to a confrontational approach and therefore through the timely mutterings of pious platitudes and soothing solemn noises from a connected few, we are expected to compromise our rights to satisfy their narrow self-interest. This as we continue to adhere to our motto: Preserving our Community …One Home at a Time

Ambience of the Golden Triangle Rocked!

There is a considerable degree of disquiet in the Golden Triangle, as word continues to circulate about a proposed development by Life of Jamaica at 23 – 25 Seymour Avenue. Citizens are concerned that where there were two homes, there would be an estimated 56 homes in total (32 apartments and 24 townhouses). Adding to this disquiet, is that apparently these calculations are based on a previously proposed increased density ratio, which the residents of Seymour Lands had rejected at the Seymour Lands Public Meeting conducted by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) on August 21, 2006 at the PCJ Auditorium.

At that time NEPA proposed densities of 30 habitable rooms per acre / 74 habitable rooms per hectare with a proviso that a minimum of ½ acre must be available. NEPA alternately proposed 50 habitable rooms per acre / 125 Habitable Rooms per hectare where there is access to central sewage.

Interestingly the following are the concerns that were raised by NEPA on August 21, 2006, about the very multi-storeyed developments now being proposed all over the Golden Triangle with no reference to the residents / owners:

Non residential activity
a. Associated traffic, noise and air pollution
b. General degradation of the residential nature of the area
c. Erection of signs and hoardings on the roadside.

High density housing developments
a. Especially when several adjoining lots are developed for multifamily housing solutions.
b. High walls detract from neighbourhood

Overshadowing and Overlooking
a. Multi-storey development occurring beside single story residences
b. Inadequate set-backs from lot boundaries

Over Intensive Development
a. Too many units on a lot (high plot ratio)
b. Inadequate or undeveloped amenity areas (green/ open space)

These concerns were as relevant then, as they are now and were raised by the very agency that provides technical services for the Town and Country Planning Authority and which reliable sources are suggesting have already given “no objection” to this project. Interestingly though ,the developers of the project have not yet sought to display in a prominent space, their intended development project. Further, it is understood that the setbacks are likely to be no more than 5 feet from the boundary wall per floor and with the likelihood of over 100 cars being parked on site, it is apparent that there is likely to be on street parking for visitors.

Whereas, it is hoped that with lobbying, significant modifications to the planned development will be effected, the possibility of legal action would obviously remain a viable option. However in the interim, it might be useful if residents express their concerns immediately in writing and by telephone, to not only the KSAC but to the Town and Country Planning Authority, [see previous blog "Approval Process Revealed"] with a view to facilitating an effective intervention prior to the commencement of construction. The residents of the Golden Triangle have already expressed most vociferously their objections to altering the densities and set back ratios and without any further consultations and or indeed change of mindset, it is apparent that the authorities need a reminder of those objections before more drastic tactics are employed.

The complete NEPA presentation in August 2006 can be accessed through the following link

Trafalgar Council and KSAC find common ground?

Members of the Executive of the Trafalgar Council paid a courtesy call on the Chairman of the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation, Mayor Desmond McKenzie and in so doing met with a high powered team (Deputy Mayor Lee Clarke, Town Clerk Lincoln Evans, City Engineer, Norman Shand and the Director of Planning) from the local authority to discuss the issues of creeping commercialization and flawed urban planning in the Golden Triangle, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston. Further some discussion also occurred regarding the breaches that have occurred in the commercial parts of New Kingston with Mayor indicating that the KSAC will be reviewing those matters presently. Indeed, in a frank yet cordial atmosphere the issues were ventilated and the groundwork was completed for further collaboration. In fact the discussions were so successful that convenor of the Trafalgar Council Joseph Cox has hinted that a “big announcement” could be anticipated by early next week but declined to elaborate further. Fellow Trafalgar Council Executive Jason Lawson and Councillor for the Trafalgar Division, Waderoy Clarke were similarly tightlipped.

In a related item the Mayor has instructed his City Engineer and Director of Planning to investigate an abandoned construction site at the corner of Pawsey Road and Altamont Crescent where a huge hole has been excavated but subsequently abandoned but which has been creating quite a nuisance. In that vein a tough talking Mayor has advised members of the community who are being adversely affected by improper disposal of construction waste, particularly by those who seek to burn the waste, that they should contact the NSWMA, the Police and the Public Health Department as he indicated that it was not merely a nuisance, but a criminal matter, noting the noxious fumes which can emanate from burning those materials. Mayor McKenzie indicated that there is a designated area for construction waste at the Riverton Landfill and hence there was no excuse for improper disposal.

Know the Law: Noisy Nights No More

For those of us who are constantly afflicted by loud music, whether gospel or popular and other forms of noise disturbances which seemingly constantly compromises our ability to enjoy the quietude of our homes, there is relief under the law. Indeed, it would seem, that several of these open air places of amusement that have established themselves in the midst of residential communities, are operating in flagrant breach of the law and have been doing so with impunity for some years now.

Indeed Section 3 of the Noise Abatement Act 1997 also colloquially referred to as the Night Noises Act, states that no person shall, on any private premises or in any public place at any time of day or night-

(a) sing, or sound or play upon any musical or noisy instrument; or
(b) operate, or permit or cause to be operated, any loudspeaker, microphone or any other device for the amplification of sound;

in such a manner that the sound is audible beyond a distance of one hundred metres (328.1 feet) from the source of such sound and is reasonably capable of causing annoyance to persons in the vicinity so, however, that where during the period specified in subsection (4) such sound is audible beyond that distance in the vicinity of any dwelling house, hospital, nursing home, infirmary, hotel or guest house, such sound shall be presumed to cause annoyance to persons in that vicinity.

Subsection (4) of the Noise Abatement Act specifically refers to that time interval between:

(a) 2 0’clock and 6 o’clock in the morning on a Saturday or Sunday; and
(b) Midnight on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday and 6 o'clock in the following morning.

Further, under Section (5) , subsection (1) of the Noise Abatement Act, where a person intends to operate any specified equipment to provide music for dancing or any other form of entertainment in a public place in circumstances where such music is reasonably capable of disturbing any person occupying or residing in any private premises, such person shall make a written application to the Superintendent of Police in charge of the division in which the activity will be held for permission to do so, not later than ten clear days before the date on which it is proposed to hold such activity. The Superintendent of Police may upon receipt of an application under subsection (1) refuse to grant permission or may grant such permission subject to such conditions as he may specify in writing: so, however, that no permission shall be granted for the operation of specified equipment in the vicinity of any hospital, nursing home or infirmary.

For added convenience there is a link attached to facilitate your full perusal of the Noise Abatement Act, 1997

To help battle this scourge, which is really an offshoot of the creeping commercialization affecting our communities please contact the police. For ease of reference please see the following contact information listed below to register our disquiet about a frequently occurring breach or one which is occurring presently:

St Andrew Central Division (Half-Way-Tree Police) – Senior Superintendent George Quallo – 9267281, 926-7129

The New Kingston Police Post – Assistant Superintendent Wayne Cameron – 926-3508

Matilda’s Corner – 927-8219, 927-6061

Trafalgar Council to meet with KSAC

The Executive of the Trafalgar Council is slated to pay a courtesy call on the Chairman of the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation, Mayor Desmond McKenzie on Thursday February 21, 2008. It is expected that the concerns of the residents of the Golden Triangle, Trafalgar Park and the residential section of New Kingston will be outlined and that areas of commonality between the KSAC and Trafalgar Council will be established, culminating in a heads of agreement.

Know the Laws: Speak Your Truth With Conviction

Several laws exist relating to the management of Jamaica. They address issues relating to governance; land use planning and development and environmental resource management. Some of these existing pieces of legislation either partially or totally address some of the concerns of the Trafalgar Council. These include: the Housing Act; the Natural Conservation Authority (NRCA) Act; Town and Country Planning Act; Kingston and St Andrew Corporation (KSAC) Act; The Urban Development Corporation (UDC) Act; Local Improvement Act; Land Development and Utilization Commission Act, and Local Improvements (Community Amenities) Act.

The Housing Act
Under the Housing Act, the Minister is deemed a “Corporation Sole” given him absolute discretion in the process of approval. The Minister may also cause an area to be deemed a “housing area” for which a housing scheme may be developed. The Minister also has the power after making an assessment of the housing conditions in any area; declare the area for “slum clearance” where it is deemed unfit for human habitation or dangerous too human health. Where such areas can be improved through demolition, reconstruction or repair, the Minister may declare such an area to be “Improvement Area”. The Act also provides that the clearance or improvement areas that have been declared and that such scheme shall contain plans and particulars relating to the works that are to be done in such areas. The Act also provides for the establishment of emergency housing in instances of public calamity either generally or in any particular area. The Act provides for the acquisition of land where required for the purpose of establishing a housing scheme, improvement scheme or emergency housing scheme. The Act also provides the Minister with the authority to make regulations relate to over-crowding, sanitary defects and for the inspection of houses and land vested in the Minister.

The Principle of Adverse Possession and the Limitation of Actions Act
The doctrine of Adverse Possession (colloquially described as “Squatters Rights”) operates so as to allow a person who is in possession of land as a mere squatter to obtain a good title if the true owner fails to assert his own superior title within the limitation period set out in the Limitation of Actions Act. This Act prohibits persons from bringing actions to recover land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to bring such a claim first arose. The effect of the prohibition is that, on the expiration of the twelve-year period, the true owner is barred from asserting his right against the person in adverse possession. The Act applies to both registered and unregistered land.

The Natural Resources Conservation Authority Act (NRCA Act)
The Act gives the NRCA the power to provide for the effective management of the physical environment in order to ensure the conservation, protection and proper use of natural resources. The authority has the power to:

1. Develop, implement and monitor programmes relating to the management of the environment;
2. Formulate standards and codes of practice to be observed for the improvement and maintenance of the quality of the environment;
3. Investigate the effect on the environment of any activity that causes or might cause pollution or that involves or might involve waste management disposal

The NRCA Act requires:

a. Permits for designated classes of enterprises, construction and development; and
b. Licenses for the discharge to the environment of any sewage or liquid waste (referred to, as “sewage, “trade effluent” and “poisonous”, and noxious “or” polluting matter.

The Town and Country Planning Act
This Act makes “provision for the orderly and progressive development of land, cities, and other areas whether rural or urban, to preserve and improve the amenities thereof, and for other matters connected therewith”. It has the responsibility for development, which is defined “as the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations, in or, over or under land”. It also establishes guidelines for the preparation of development orders as well as their contents and makes stipulations for Advertisement Control Regulations and Tree Preservation Orders. The Act is only applicable where a Development Order exists. However the Act also makes provision for the preparation of an interim Development Order for an area, which does not have a confirmed Development Order. This as some areas of Jamaica are not covered by Development Orders and therefore no planning permission is required for developmental works.

The Town and Country Planning Authority, which is appointed by the Minister who has responsibility for town and country planning and the local planning authority, administer this Act. The local planning authority exercises full authority for planning within their respective areas unless the planning areas have been “called in” by the TCPA, in which case the planning decisions are made by the authority.

The Town Planning Department provides the TCPA with the technical support in the preparation of Development Orders and the review of development applications. The Act confers the authority with the power to initiate prosecution enforcement procedures on the local planning authority, the TCPA and the Government Town Planner. Each agency has the power to inspect, investigate and monitor compliance and enforcement proceedings. The Act also gives the Government Town Planner, the TCPA and Local Planning Authority the power to issue or request the issuance of a stop order for unauthorized development or development that is deemed hazardous or otherwise dangerous to the public.

Kingston and St Andrew Building Act
The purpose of this Act is to regulate the construction of buildings in the Kingston Metropolitan Area. This applies to all buildings except those under the supervision or control of the Chief Technical Director in the Ministry of Works. The Act also outlines regulations, standards, codes of practice and requirements to which new buildings, or alterations to existing buildings, should be constructed. The Act establishes the “set back” distances between buildings, and outlines a building permit approval process for new buildings or for alterations to existing buildings. The Act also provides that the construction or alteration of any building shall be under the supervision of the City Engineer or his/her nominee, and that notices to inspect the buildings at various stages of work being undertaken shall be given. There is also a penalty for proceeding with work without giving such notice.

The Urban Development Corporation Act (UDC Act)
The Act establishes the Urban Development Corporation as a major development arm of the Government that undertakes mostly large-scale urban development projects, which private enterprise may find too risky or unprofitable, but which are vital to economic and social development. The UDC is authorized to acquire and dispose of land within areas designated under the Act, and is the local planning authority in such designated areas.

The Local Improvement Act
This Act, which regulates the subdivision of land, falls under the jurisdiction of the KSAC and the Parish Councils. It stipulates that before a sub-division is laid out on the ground an application must be submitted to the Local Authority in which the proposal is located. The local authority sanctions the sub-divisions after they have received advice and assistance from the Chief Technical Director of the Ministry of Transport and Works and the Government Town Planner

Land Development and Utilization Commission Act
Under the provisions of this Act, land may be declared, “idle”; thereafter the owner or occupier of such land would be required to submit a plan for its development. The owner or occupier would also be required to implement such a plan; non-compliance can lead to the compulsory acquisition of the said land.

Land Acquisition Act
This Act allows for the compulsory acquisition of land where said lands are required for “any public purpose” Any such acquisition is subject to the payment of compensation to the registered owner of said land. However this compensation may or may not reflect the true market value of said land.

The Local Improvement (Community Amenities) Act
This Act establishes the administrative procedures for planning and establishment of community amenities in areas not covered by a development order. The Act regulates the sub-division of land for the purpose of obtaining government approval of the layout and design of streets and services. It prohibits the sub-division or laying out of land without sanction of the Parish Councils in parishes designated by the Minister.

THE APPROVAL PROCESS REVEALED

Formal Developments are usually characterized by the following procedures. An application by the developer is usually submitted to the Minister of Housing, under the Housing Act, for his/her approval. The application is then referred to the Local Government Authority (The Parish Council or in the case of Kingston and St Andrew the KSAC) for their approval of building plans and comments, after which it is submitted to the Town Planning Department for the consideration of the Town and Country Planning Authority (TCPA) as well as the National Resource Conservation Authority (NRCA).

Please note that both the Town Planning Department as well as the NRCA are part of the umbrella organization known as the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and indeed that NEPA provides technical secretariat services for the TCPA.

A part of this approval process usually involves the conducting of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Further, the agencies are required to seek the input of residents / affected parties likely to be impacted by the proposed development or alteration of zoning or change of use of property. In the event that an application has been refused, the developer / advocate has the right of appeal to the Minister of Housing. At this point, the documentation is returned the Minister of Housing, acting in his/her capacity as “Corporation Sole” – a power afforded that office under the Housing Act – for final approval. Affected parties may also submit directly to the Minister their concerns/objections to the proposed project at hand as will the developer / advocate submit documentation seeking to bolster his/her application. In recent times the process of approval has been aided by the provision of topographical maps on the basis of which the suitability of lands can be determined for the specific project at hand.

Residents are also reminded to pay particular attention to the legal notices that appear in the daily newspapers as they may involve proposed modifications to or discharge of the Restrictive Covenants applicable to their neighbourhood.

The TCPA was appointed in January 2006 for a period of two (2) years and in the absence of any information to the contrary, the members of record remain as follows:

Chairperson
Ruth Potopsingh, Group Managing Director, Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica -

Vice Chairman
Earl Patterson, Mechanical Engineer, National Works Agency; Vice Chairman;

Members

Elizabeth Steer, Chief Executive Officer, National Land Agency (NLA);
Carl Chen, Architect;
Michael Lake, representative, Jamaica Developer's Association;
Norman Shand, City Engineer, Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC);
Constance Trowers; Attorney-at-law
Lorna Perkins, Chief Physical Planner, Ministry of Local Government
Doreen Prendergast, President of the Jamaica Institute of Planners
Rollin Alveranga, Senior Director, Ministry of Land and Environment,
Winston Hartley, Chief Physical Planner, NWA
Dr Leary Myers, Chief Executive Officer, National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA),

Other members of the authority are one representative each from the Jamaica Institute of Engineers, the Local Planning Authority and the Jamaica Trade and Invest.

Perhaps as our (citizens of Jamaica) representatives on this august body, the above named members may welcome our numerous telephone calls and / or letters when we have difficulties in our respective communities with errant developments and flawed planning decisions, so that they can truly appreciate our collective intent to Preserve Our Community…One Home at a Time

NEPA: NAPOLEON RESURRECTED

Friday, February 15, 2008: Is it merely a coincidence or is it a case of unending ineptitude or is it a case of gross abuse of power? Those are the questions which are seemingly being raised by Jamaicans citizens after interacting with NEPA. The citizens of New Kingston, Seymour Lands, Trafalgar Park, Paddington Terrace, Cherry Gardens, Eastwood Park Gardens and a multitude of others all have the same complaint against this agency. Indeed, all these communities are insisting that they have a voice in the development of their communities but are routinely rebuffed by this out of control state body. The similarities are there in nearly every parish as evidenced by the fight the citizens of Shettlewood, Ramble and other communities in Hanover are embroiled in about the construction of a cemetery in their community. When there is the possibility of contamination of the Great River which serves as far afield as Montego Bay there is more than reason for concern. However when these concerns are dismissed on the basis of a controversial report, the larger question of whether or not Jamaica remains a democracy is brought sharply into focus. Indeed the autocratic strategies being employed by NEPA is leading several communities to seek legal representation with a view to taking legal action against this state body.

NEPA has sought to alter zoning regulations with no reference to anyone. Their decisions, particularly in recent times are flawed and seemingly geared to serve the interests of a well connected minority while ignoring all others. This cannot be allowed to continue and unless the Government of Jamaica wishes to be embroiled in litigation far into the middle of the century it is clear that an increased and sincere level of dialogue must be pursued. With every new apartment complex, at least 50% of the neighbour’s home is suddenly submerged in darkness, water pressure declines and several other social problems surface. Are the communities to remain silent? Obviously not, but if the State continues to treat citizens legitimate concerns with impunity then the Privy Council will be the final arbiter.

NOT SO DEPUTY MAYOR CLARKE

Friday, February 15, 2008: It was with some amusement coupled with consternation that we watched KSAC Deputy Mayor Lee Clarke expound on Tuesday February 12, 2008 on the TVJ newscast ostensibly in response to the press statement by the Trafalgar Council on Friday. Deputy Mayor Clarke patronizingly opined that the Council should abandon any notion of suing state agencies which contravened their rights in the affected areas of the Golden Triangle et. al. He invited the Trafalgar Council to meet with the KSAC and to allow cooler heads to prevail as he indicated that as Chairman of the KSAC Building Committee, he always scrupulously followed the laws of the land in granting approvals for new developments.

First of all, the Trafalgar Council remains steadfast in its intent to represent the interests of the citizens of the affected communities and is undaunted by this patronizing yet unsolicited advice given by Deputy Mayor Clarke. Indeed as outlined in its earlier press statement the Trafalgar Council has as one of its members Councillor Waderoy Clarke Deputy Chairman of the KSAC Building Committee. Secondly the Trafalgar Council has always favoured continued but effective dialogue rather than court action, however after several decades of inaction and gross ineptitude on the part of the state agencies legal action cannot be ruled out. Also it is little troubling that Deputy Mayor Lee Clarke, who in his capacity as Chairman of the KSCA Building Committee, is obviously experiencing some level of disconnect with the issues at hand and indeed has sought to assume responsibility for some breaches that were never laid at the feet of the KSAC while clearly oblivious to those matters in which the KSAC is complicit. Are we therefore to assume from the Deputy Mayor’s statement that the KSAC is now assuming responsibility for the proliferation of massage parlours in the community, the establishment of a few motels / inns in the community, the establishment of several nightclubs in the community among other flagrant breaches? What we do know is that the residents of the Golden Triangle, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston are caught in quite the conundrum with the state actively seeking to commercialise their community with private developers seeking to maintain its residential status.

Powerful Coalition Formed to Fight Commercialization of the Golden Triangle

Friday, February 8, 2008: The citizens of the Golden Triangle and surrounding areas, have declared war on creeping commercialization and flawed urban planning in one of Kingston’s oldest and most prestigious residential districts with the formation of the Trafalgar Council. The Trafalgar Council – a citizen’s action committee, is an amalgam of the main umbrella citizens associations in the Golden Triangle (Seymour Lands), Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston and reflects the political unification of Waderoy Clarke, Deputy Chairman of the KSAC Building Committee and JLP Councillor, Trafalgar Division and PNP Deputy General Secretary Julian Robinson in his capacity as Caretaker / Councillor, Trafalgar Division, on these issues.

Convenor of the Trafalgar Council, Economic Consultant and former talk show host Joseph Cox, notes that the over 20,000 residents the group represents are angered by years of inaction and / or lassitude on the part of public sector agencies to effectively treat with the myriad of complaints about creeping commercialization spanning decades. This, he notes, as the public sector bodies with which they have had to interact on an individual association basis have not operated in a consistent manner and indeed have rendered all prior agreements meaningless as the “rules” seem to have a fluidity of their own and such “rules” seem to be dependent on which citizens group is being addressed. Some of the breaches highlighted by the Trafalgar Council include the operation of a nightclub boasting open air entertainment within 100 metres of a Ministry of Health approved Home for the Aged in the midst of a residential community, the granting of permission for the operation of a massage parlour (despite objections from both the citizens and the KSAC), and a radio station right beside a multi-storey apartment complex, itself a breach.

In this regard, Cox notes that though the intervention of the Public Defender had already been sought, a powerful legal team is being developed to utilize the court system to facilitate effective enforcement of the restrictive covenants by NEPA and the Town and Country Planning Authority. This will include a stop order on any new commercial developments coupled with the seeking of injunctive relief to force NEPA to consult with affected persons before making any amendments to the zoning laws, density ratios or setback distances for Seymour Lands, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston. The Council will also be seeking a reversal of those approvals granted without proper consultations as required under the law. This as persons in the affected communities are being misled into believing that the zoning regulations have been altered and despite strong objections by individuals and citizens associations, planning permission continues to be granted in an arbitrary fashion and citizens concerns dismissed with impunity.

“We are undaunted by the tasks ahead and wish to put everyone on notice that we will be unrelenting in our pursuit of all legal and moral remedies to preserve our community, one home at a time”, the Trafalgar Council Convenor bluntly stated.