NEPA cites Dillsbury developer for three breaches
The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) says since permitting construction to be undertaken at 29 Dillsbury Avenue in Barbican, St Andrew, it has cited the developer for three breaches.
In an emailed response to a July 26 Gleaner story, ‘Dillsbury dilemma’, NEPA said the developers were served on July 17 for failing to post a sign, tree flagging, and hoarding the site.
“The National Environment and Planning Agency issued an environment permit to the development. Save for three breaches ... , the permittee is generally compliant with the conditions in the permit,” NEPA said.
Neighbours had contacted The Gleaner expressing concern over the multistorey development after failing to get sufficient information about the project from NEPA and the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation.
Despite attempts over more than three weeks, The Gleaner has been unable to pin down either Town Clerk Robert Hill or Mayor Delroy Williams for comment on the Dillsbury matter and other issues concerning developments in the constituency. This despite numerous calls and a visit to the offices of the KSAMC.
To date, there has not been a response from the KSAMC.
awaiting further dialogue
Attorney-at-law Gavin Goffe, who is representing the disgruntled residents, has also indicated that they are awaiting further dialogue with the municipality following the July 22 meeting.
According to the attorney, there were red flags from the initial stages of the development.
“One of the issues with Dillsbury is that the law requires them (the developers) to put up a notice at the site that they intend to apply for approval of these plans, and if anybody has any objections, they have 30 days to send in their objections to the KSAMC. Can you believe that in this particular case, the plans were approved months before that notice went out?” Goffe had said in a previous Gleaner interview.
Brian Morris, chief architect and principal at Plexus, developer of the 29 Dillsbury Avenue project, has, however, maintained that they did not act in contravention of the Building Code or Building Act.
He told The Gleaner that the notice was in place, giving residents time to file objections with the KSAMC before approval.
“Probably not in full view of everybody,” he explained. “They (the residents) were aware after the approval. I think it (a notice) was posted on the building and not on the wall.”