- Norman Grindley/Staff Photographer
Virtual slum dwellings, a result of shoddy development planning by authorities, have been greeted with surprise by planning officials.
Glenda Anderson, Staff Reporter
COMPLAINTS THAT several communities in Portmore have degenerated into virtual slum dwellings because of shoddy development planning by the authorities, have been greeted with surprise by planning officials.
Representatives from the Planning Division of the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) say it is unfair to blame the planners.
The complaints had centred on the fact that several communities were comprised entirely of low income, studio or starter flats, some now in varying stages of disrepair.
"We (NEPA) can say whether the land is suitable for residential use, we'll check on details such as the height of buildings and density, but we cannot specify the types of units to be constructed. It's just not on the system," Joy Alexander, head of NEPA's Planning division said. "There are instances where the developer will write a plan and will include a proposal for different types of houses, but there is nothing (legislation) to say to them that you must provide X or Y types of housing.
"The starters (homes) give persons access to affordable shelter and so any incremental activity or upgrade is dependent on the disposable income available to the individual or resident. Some have utilised it more than some."
DEVELOPMENT MIX
Glendon Newsome, president of the Land Surveyors' Association, also noted that there was no agency which could dictate on development mix.
"It's all up to the developers, what it is they are responding to, what it is that the market requires. One thing for sure is that it attracts the vast majority (of persons) in a certain income," he said.
Some communities, he said, would also be simply affected by a situation where many of the units were rented.
"In any situation you're gonna find that there are people outside of that realm who will do elaborate development, or some who will not. So that the character or general development of an area will sporadically change," he said.
One former town planning executive was adamant, however, that the Portmore planning process was flawed, and could have allowed for greater creativity.
"For such a large parcel of land, (Portmore) ideally there should have been a greater mix of houses, so that you have semi-detached, detached, apartments and single units across the area, " he said.
Several residents agree that if such an arrangement of mixing housing types in each unit existed in the areas it would have allowed for a more diverse mix and stem what they have called the 'social breakdown' in some areas.
The examples given were areas in Waterford, 'Pig City' in Passage Fort and sections of Braeton.
"When you look at some of these places, it's just like a ghetto, they have zinc fences, and the clothes (laundry) hanging from everywhere and they are just not keeping the places up," one resident said. "But then what do they expect when they put all of the same type of people together, squeeze up into the little space."
Now developers must submit their proposals to NEPA which conducts site inspections to determine aspects like zoning, suitability of land use and conformity to locational aspects.
Written submissions including design details from larger applications are circulated to the relevant agencies including the Agriculture Ministry, National Water Commission, Mines and Geology, and the Office of Disaster and Emergency Management (ODPEM).
But technical advice from the agencies on project specifications may be ignored by Government-sponsored developers.
"NEPA planning guidelines may not necessarily be considered because the Town and Country Planning Act does not bind the Crown," Ms. Alexander said. "Whereas private developers are bound by the Act, the Ministry of Housing is not so bound."
She said there was, however, recent efforts by the Ministry to stay within bounds, as well as develop policy to prevent any bypassing of guidelines.
The Sunday Gleaner was unable to get a response from Clive Laidley, director at the Water and Housing Ministry, who was said to be responsible for the portfolio in the Ministry.
NEPA's manual for Development October 1982/1992, (Town Planning Department), outlines that for residential areas "The minimum common amenity area for each unit should be provided as follows; studio unit 15 square metres, one-bedroom unit 30 square metres, two-bedroom unit 60 square metres".
One source said there were instances of developers sticking to the barest minimum of the regulation guidelines regarding space, in an effort to curtail costs.
