Editorial | A win against unregulated development

For the second time this year, the Supreme Court of Jamaica has ruled in favour of Corporate Area communities where developers have trampled on the rights of citizens. We refer to judgments in the Birdsucker Drive development and, before that, the Montrose project in the Golden Triangle, which handed wins to citizens and defeats for disorderly developments.

These verdicts strike at the core of what appears to be rampant unregulated housing developments across Kingston and St Andrew. While these verdicts may have brought belated relief to some, they will have no such cathartic effect on the city as a whole, because so many communities are under stress because of developers acting in defiance of local zoning laws and regulations.

The Birdsucker Drive case, which pitted citizens against WAMH Development Limited, was heard in 2019, and, while they awaited the verdict, the developer went ahead and completed the project. The court agreed with the citizens that both the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) and environmental regulator National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), erred by granting approval to WAMH Development Limited to build a multi-family structure on less than half-acre of land, in violation of density standards set by the Town and Country Planning Development Orders.

A development of this type is usually modified in the planning phase so that it remains in compliance with standard regulations. However, in this case, the KSAMC building engineers just stood back and allowed the developers to start construction, even before all approvals were given, and to complete the building in the face of strong objections. Indeed, citizens reportedly got no help from the KSAMC and had to take matters into their own hands and seek legal remedy.

After several reports by this newspaper highlighting the virtual “free for all” in the housing development sector, and citing examples of the KSAMC not following its own development rules in approving certain projects, the mayor of Kingston responded by announcing the establishment of a “short-term review panel” to deal with multi-family developments, specifically, to make residents aware of plans prior to approval, and by ensuring notices are posted and information is available on its website.

ADD CREDIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Although thin on details about who will serve on the panel and its terms of reference, we welcome this announcement by saying it is long overdue. Such a panel should be a fixture, not merely a short-term measure, as it may help to add credibility to the process and introduce transparency where it has been lacking.

These cases may prove to have far-reaching implications for the common and environmental good of this country. Surely, many aggrieved property owners must now be thinking about their own chances of success as they battle to get redress from developers who have been allowed to ignore the law in carrying out their building projects.

For example, there is every indication that many old and current developments do not fulfil set-back rules which were established to provide privacy and space for the maintenance of properties. Standards relating to parking and the availability of sanitary conveniences are also often ignored.

We believe these rulings will send a clear warning to developers to show respect for the law but, more important, to the municipal and regulatory authorities to take their jobs seriously and ensure compliance from all developers. These rulings also raise concerns about the application of retroactive approvals in the overall approval process of the KSAMC.

We still do not know the immediate fate of the Birdsucker Drive development, although there appears to be the potential of demolition, as was ordered in the Montrose scenario. Demolition would have severe consequences for the developers and their creditors.

While Jamaica tries to capitalise on real estate, the regulatory authorities cannot ignore zoning laws to justify new projects to boost our economic fortunes.

There is a clear public interest in enforcing planning law and planning regulations, and the authorities must recognise that a developer may believe he is immune from enforcement, if quick action is not taken when breaches occur.