COVENANT CLASH

Residents of a quiet Kingston 6 community are threatening court action to block Porter Centre for Knowledge from launching school operations on Tucker Avenue, citing traffic concerns, fears of commercialisation, and a change in the pace of life in the community.

The pushback comes as founding principal Barbara Kerr-Thompson seeks to protect her $78-million investment at 21 Tucker Avenue, describing the venture as a low-impact prep school.

However, residents insist that the property’s title prohibits a school and vow to fight the relocation in court if the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) grants a change in the covenant and the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) gives the go-ahead for operations.

Already, property owners likely to be affected by school operations have lodged formal objections with KSAMC and NEPA, warning that approval would set a dangerous precedent for the area.

Residents claim that an informal poll of 43 homeowners returned a unanimous opposition to the proposed relocation, contradicting a reported survey submitted on behalf of the school which found no significant opposition.

In a Gleaner interview on Monday, Kerr-Thompson acknowledged the tension surrounding the move, admitting that the school did not consult directly with neighbours before purchasing the land because of time constraints and advice from her team.

She maintained that the institution’s small student body, capped at roughly 10 children per class, would bring minimal disruption to the area, but expressed frustration over the mounting backlash from residents.

With both regulatory agencies yet to issue a final decision on the change-of-use application, residents say they remain united and are actively preparing to take the matter before the Supreme Court if the proposal is approved.

Documents seen by The Gleaner detail eight primary concerns held by homeowners. The group has cited incompatibility with residential zoning under the Confirmed Kingston and St Andrew Development Order.

Further, they say a school in the community would amount to a loss of residential character and quiet enjoyment because of increased noise and activity.

They argue that the community’s road network is unable to accommodate drop-off and pick-up periods, queuing, and parking risks. Additionally, they assert that the institution would cause disruptive operational noise from students and vehicular traffic.

However, the primary concern centres on fears that approval for a school would establish an undesirable precedent for commercial invasion.

The group said development trends in the area favour multi-family residential projects and that the school risks informal commercial activities, such as vending, beginning to “creep” in.

The community’s stance was echoed by a resident who gave his name as ‘Marcus’. He stressed that property owners bought their homes expecting peace and predictability.

“We are opposed [to] having a school in the neighbourhood because of the entire change in the nature of our neighbourhood that it will create,” he told The Gleaner. “It’s a residential neighbourhood ... turning entities that are non-residential will definitely change the whole nature, the whole atmosphere of the neighbourhood.”

He warned that approving the school would open the floodgates.

“Obviously, if residents come around and see a school, they’ll say, ‘Hey, why can’t I open my shop next door? Why can’t I open my supermarket? What about a bar down the road?’ So, we are trying to stem this,” he said.

“There is literally a caveat on the title that says, literally, no school; literally points out, no school shall be established. It’s actually on the title of the very property that they’re trying to convert to a school.”

A copy of the property’s title obtained by The Gleaner showed restrictive covenants, including that no building be erected on the land “other than a private dwelling house”. It also forbids carrying on “any trade or business whatsoever upon the said land” and mandates that “no shop, church, chapel, school or like building shall be erected on the said land”.

Added to that, residents have raised concerns about a controversial survey submitted to regulators by a company on behalf of Kerr-Thompson, which claimed there was no opposition.

“On that survey ... none of them on that survey said there was any objection. According to them, almost everybody, they literally said 95 per cent of everybody that they surveyed did not have a problem, and five per cent was indifferent,” said Marcus. “I did an informal survey over WhatsApp, and I said, ‘Did anybody come and ask you about this survey?’ Forty-three people in the group responded and said, ‘No’,”.

He said residents later conducted a door-to-door petition where “almost every household signed in objection”.

At a NEPA-mandated meeting held on Saturday at Alhambra Inn between Kerr-Thompson and the residents, the surveyor reportedly acknowledged that the survey was conducted in the “wrong area”.

“In our minds, from our perception, it is deceptive, to be kind, and more than likely fraudulent,” the man stated.

The situation has also raised conflict-of-interest concerns, as the surveyor reportedly serves on a three-member review panel of the KSAMC.

Responding to the pushback, Kerr-Thompson told The Gleaner that direct engagement with residents was delayed.

“In hindsight ... we didn’t really say a lot to the neighbours, because we weren’t sure what was happening,” she said. “And we didn’t want to pre-empt people until, you know, there was a level of certainty.”

She explained that after 25 years at her former location, mounting pressures to leave left her with little choice.

“We had been looking for a place for about two years. We can’t compete with developers. You see something that you think [is suitable], the next day it was bought cash by someone,” she said, noting that her team was given an August 12 deadline to vacate their previous premises.

Kerr-Thompson maintained that the school is small and that its operation is too.

“This seemed an ideal opportunity for a boutique prep school, a very small prep school that started as a home school,” she said.

“Our school really is supposed to be 10 [students per class] ... . We don’t intend to be a large school,” she added.

She noted further that the community already hosts non-residential activities, including hotels, a museum, a gift shop, and a nursery school across the road.

“We felt that it would not be so much of a, you know, a big deal to get it done since we consider ourselves that little, not pushing the community to any greater activity than they’re accustomed to,” Thompson said.

At the meeting on Saturday, Kerr-Thompson asked residents to rethink their position, but this was met with resistance.

Residents indicated that they would give the nod to an apartment complex over the school.

They argued that should the KSAMC or NEPA grant approval for the change of use, they would immediately file for judicial review to enforce the restrictive covenant to “protect the character of the community”.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com