RIU Controversy: Building Approvals Merely Indicative Not Binding

“Although RIU maintains that these revised plans were submitted to the Parish Council and approved, the sequence of events cannot be accurately reconstructed.” That’s the response of the RIU Hotel Group to the growing controversy regarding the construction of an “illegal” fourth floor at their property in St James, in defiance of previous rulings by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), St James Parish Council (Local Authority) and the Civil Aviation Authority. However in a now characteristic strategy adopted by local authorities island wide, “RIU will resubmit the revised plans to the Parish Council who will forward copies to NEPA and the other relevant agencies to have the three buildings with four storeys approved.” In other words, though breaches have occurred in terms of the number of floors constructed, the local authority and other regulatory bodies are now willing to engage in a re-assessment exercise which could lead to the retroactive approval of these “revised plans”, which had inexplicably been stamped and approved by an official of the Local Authority. Indeed for there to be any re-consideration by the regulatory agencies, would also seek to suggest a degree of flippancy and arbitrariness in the original determination, in so far as no new material fact has been brought to bear pointing to an initial error, nevertheless reconsideration of a blatant breach is now a viable option

This issue raises a number of questions which have particular relevance to the communities of Seymour Lands, Trafalgar Park and the residential section of New Kingston, given that they routinely face similar challenges coupled with the fact that in the main all Local Authorities are similarly organized:

Has the Local Authority sought to perform a forensic audit into all approvals which were signed and thereby granted by the same senior official implicated in the RIU controversy and in that vein what assurances, if any, can be provided that other projects have not been similarly compromised?

Are building approvals granted by the Regulatory Bodies inclusive of the Local Authorities merely indicative or are they meant be binding upon a developer?

What are the effective versus notional processes of oversight within the Local Authority to ensure that the integrity of the approvals process is maintained?

Does the local authority have the legal standing to be the sole arbiter in the approvals process when substantial amendments to building plans are approved and if not what are the functional systems replete with internal checks and balances to ensure that other regulatory agencies namely the National Environment and Planning Agency and the Town and Country Planning Authority are duly consulted?

The fact that the controversial “fourth floor” has reached the stage where it has already been primed for painting, how is it that the breach is only now being detected by the Regulatory Agencies and what are the implications for the inspection and verification processes regarding the quality of work done in this and other projects falling under the jurisdiction of the local authority?

What percentage of breaches eventually uncovered by the Local Authority lead to negotiated settlements with the developers versus demolition of the sections found to be in breach and if negotiated settlements have been principal strategy utilized, what additional strategies are being employed to preserve the integrity of the approvals process?

The fact that the Local Authority and the other regulatory agencies are even willing to reconsider at this stage their previous decision to allow only three storey buildings at the RIU site, undermines the approvals process. Indeed, it suggests that building approvals granted by these agencies are merely indicative and not binding and highlights an absence of political will to enforce the rules. Whereas this explains the plethora of questionable building projects in Seymour Lands and the residential sections of New Kingston, this public fumble by the regulatory agencies will only succeed in providing additional impetus to unscrupulous developers who subscribe to the notion that “the law is not a shackle that enslaves but merely a tool of social engineering.”