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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment