Why Rush To Parliament To Ban Hillside Development?

Every time there is some disaster which visits our citizenry, it appears that the first ‘cure’ proposed is to enact new laws, whether or not there is already legislation on our statute books to address the particular shortcoming.

The Minister of Works and infrastructure has already made such a proposal  during one of his visits to Maraval, Diego Martin and Long Circular, following the devastating floods experienced in those areas recently.  The Chamber though, is not singling him out for any negative mention, as his predecessor in office and present Member of Parliament for the recently flooded areas, Colm Imbert, made a similar promise in 2009, during the course of a press conference at the office of then Prime Minister Manning.  Mr. Imbert, at that time Minister of Works and Transport, is reported to have said that with respect to rivers, waterways and roads, the Government would be going to Parliament to strengthen the said Ministry’s capabilities with respect to blockages of  watercourses and unchecked developments.

This propensity to new legislation can also be exemplified by Ministers Glen Ramadarsingh and Lincoln Douglas in addressing street dwellers, despite the appropriate provisions of the existing Mental Health Act. So is Minister Roodal Moonilal with the Beverage Container Bill, where our existing Litter Act may have been more easily amended or supplemented as an alternative and even Minister Volney, with a third DNA Bill, which is still not without controversy, in the minds of our Independent Senators.

While Minister Warner may be accurate in his diagnosis that the indiscriminate development of the country’s hillsides is the reason for the disasters in La Seiva, Debe and Saddle Road, most, if not all, are under the watch of the Town and Country Planning Division, the Diego Martin Regional Corporation, the Drainage Division of his own Ministry and, in some cases, the Environmental Management Authority. All of these bodies were established to give oversight to projects, including adequate drainage, preserving our water table and resources, containment of storm water and landslides.

With respect to the Town and Country Planning Act, Section 16 allows the Minister of Planning and the economy , where it appears to him/her that any development of land is being carried out after the Act without the grant of permission required thereby, or that any condition subject to which permission was granted in respect of any development and has not been complied with, but within four years after the date of the alleged failure to comply; if the Minister considers it expedient to do so, having regard to the provision of the development plan and to any other material considerations, serve on the owner or  occupier of the land an enforcement notice. The latter may require the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, the discontinuance of any use of land or the carrying out on land of any building or other operation.

Since this Act became law in 1969, the evidence suggests that the path of those who wish to observe the law and engage the process must prepare for a lengthy experience.  From the run around at public utilities like the Water and Sewerage Authority, the Regional Corporations, the Fire Services, the Environmental Management Authority, the Drainage Division, and the Office of the Commissioner of State Lands  to final approval of the Town and Country Planning Division, the process is so frustrating, annoying, inconvenient and  inefficient, that many law abiding citizens find themselves seriously considering bending the rules in order to proceed with necessary repairs, additions, or renovations.  So, not only does it appear that there is no enforcement of Section 16, but citizens themselves who wish to observe and so obey the law, have no alternative but to grit their teeth as and bear the bureaucracy for an indefinite period.

In the Chamber’s opinion, an immediate exercise in consultation between the Ministers of Works and Planning, their technocrats and  organisations representative of our architects, engineers as well as the Housing Development Corporation, land developers and building contractors, to identify the existing inefficiencies, loopholes, opportunities for corruption and ways to make the several laws which govern land development, more effective and user friendly, would be more productive, than simply heading to Parliament.  The end result may be a mutually acceptable freeze on all future development of land above a particular height until some policy or regulatory process is carefully considered and installed, to ensure law and order in the process of approvals for future hillside development, a policy or process which will be transparent, enforceable in the national interest and timely to engage.

The Chamber certainly shares the view of the Prime Minister that every victim of the recent floods cannot expect to be compensated, as opposed to qualifying for assistance.  While the pockets of the State may be perceived as being deep, they are not boundless and we cannot justify compensation, or assistance, to those homeowners who have deliberately built without statutory approval and/or insurance in risky flood and landslide prone mountainous locations. This would amount to rewarding the lawless and ignorant!

Of course, there are ripe opportunities for the state to partner with stakeholders to engage in a meaningful public education campaign.  Opportunities are there too for our general insurance industry to encourage purchasing of appropriate insurance coverage by compliant parties.  here The Chamber invites Minister Tewarie to peruse and take advantage of section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which requires him to carry out a survey of the entire country and submit to Parliament a development plan, consisting of the survey, together with recommendations indicating the manner in which that land in Trinidad and Tobago may be used (whether by the carrying out of development or otherwise), and the stages by which any such development may be carried out.  It appears to the Chamber that his access to Parliament for this reason may prove to be more beneficial than simply laying a new Bill, with which technocrats must begin to familiarise themselves afresh.

Section 5 also requires the Minster to table this plan not later than seven years after the commencement of the 1969 Act.  Even if Government did so in 1976, the needs of our people and land stock available to meet such needs, as well as the consequent risks would have changed, in over forty years!  This is what Parliament should be asked to address, and address before the next torrential downpour.