Kindly disregard the previous minutes sent earlier today.
MINUTES OF PLANNING CONTROL COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE CENTRAL HOUSING AND PLANNING AUTHORITY HELD ON TUESDAY 12th APRIL 2016 AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE AUHTORITY BOARDROOM AT 41 BRICKDAM AND UNITED NATIONS PLACE.
Mr Hamilton Green- Chairman
Mr Brian Lewis- Member
Mr Darul Khan- “
Mr Egbert Carter- “
Ms Meshel Austin-“
Mr Michael Huston- “
Mr Naresh Mangar-“
Ms Sonia Luke-“
Ms Winifred Heywood-“
Mr Winston Hope- “
Ms Heather Martins- (excused)
Dr Mallika Mootoo-“
Mr Mark Jacobs-“
Mr Ronald Alli-“
Public Officers Present
Ms Myrna Pitt-Chief Executive Officer
Mr Rawle Edinboro-Chief Development Planner
Ms Hannifah Jordan-Corporate Secretary
Ms Deborah Edwards-Secretary, CHPA
Ms Mariella Khirattie-Development Planner (ag)
Ms Denise Pellew-Development Facilitation Officers III
Ms Paulette Roberts-Development Facilitation Officer II
Ms Reshma Persaud-Development Facilitation Officer I
Item No. 1: Call to order
1. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Hamilton Green OR, JP Chairman, at 10:15 a.m. Prayer was said by the Chairman, followed by the reciting of the National Pledge.
Item No. 2: Opening Remarks
1. The Chairman informed the Board that the previous Sunday some members visited and had the privilege of speaking to some of the allottees in housing developments in Region #3. Also the Board had met with allottees of the Perseverance housing development and they had a plethora of complaints. He said that it was clear that the present system had not delivered a satisfactory service to the people and that CHPA needed serious reform. He said that a decision would have to be taken at that meeting and subsequently to the statutory meeting as a matter of urgency.
2. He informed the meeting that he had met with the foremen and they were asked to give their comments on the works at the Perseverance site however, their silence spoke volumes. He mentioned that he had asked the CEO to submit the leave roster for the officers since he opined that can be a process affecting change.
Item No. 2: Consideration of Minutes – 8th March, 2016
Pg 2(b) should read ‘processing fee’
Pg 4(11) should read ‘Reinstating
There being no comments, the minutes of meeting held on 8th March, 2016 was moved by Ms. Winifred Heywood and seconded by Mr. Winston Hope.
1. Application No. 0-4LL/11/14 for Food Restaurant with Malt and Wine Facility at sub Parcel ‘N’ portion of Parcel 3572 Pln. North Ruimveldt, Georgetown (North of Aubrey Barker Road, between Jackson Street and Plaza Bridge Entrance) was deferred.
a. The Chairman said that he had cause to visit the abovementioned site and had spoken to contiguous neighbours including the nearby church and they said that they had no problem with the development and that it was of assistance to them. The developer said that the on-site space had adequate parking for his clientele and as such the Chairman opined that parking was not germane to the application. He opined that the recommendation by the officer was not valid since the area was compromised.
b. He proposed that CHPA and Ministry of Public Infrastructure should collaborate to chart the way forward as to use of that strip of reserve.
c. After some discussion, the Chairman recommended that the application be approved. The Board raised no objection.
Item No. 3: Consideration of Building, Land Use Clearance and Land Subdivision applications
1. Application No. P- 4E/108/15 for Gutter Fabrication Workshop at Lot 402 aka Parcel 416 Herstelling EBD was deferred pending further clarification by EPA. Ms Luke reported that the above application was cleared by EPA and could now be approved. The Board so approved.
2. Application No. P-4DD/31/16 for planning permission to add two storeys to an existing four storey building for residential purposes to establish fourteen apartments at sublots A & B of lot 83, Albert and Robb Streets, Bourda, Georgetown was deferred.
a. It was pointed out that the application did not cater for parking and the question was whether some conditionality for parking should be imposed since the law was limited on such matter.
b. The CDP said that since there was no special provision for parking, the application must be taken in the context that in certain parts of Georgetown full plot coverage and common walls are allowed. It is possible to advocate for parking outside the town centre. He said there was no legal authority to request parking.
c. The Chairman asked whether an administrative policy could be enforced for parking. The CDP said that conditions could be attached or there could be dialogue with the developer to have parking.
d. Mr Carter suggested that the big businesses be approached to revet the canal bounded by Church Street and North Road so it could be utilised for parking.
e. The Chairman said that the developer should be written to indicating that the Board had examined his application and requested to be advised on what parking would be provided to accommodate the increase usage of the development. As such the application was put on hold.
3. At this point the Chairman broached the issue of the two hotels in church and said that there was no parking available for the hotels and casino on Church Street, Queenstown and that there were complaints made against the type of business.
a. Ms Khirattie, Development Planner (ag) informed the Board that CHPA had granted permission for the developer to construct one building on the site for the purpose of a hotel. The developer then acquired the adjacent land and had said that would be for parking. However, that changed and the City Council granted permission for further buildings on the site.
b. The CDP said at this early stage CHPA would interface with the Police Traffic Department to request that markings with respect to parking be place off the intersection.
c. After some discussion, the Chairman said that the officers should write the City Council indicating that the applications for the other buildings had not come to the CHPA and that there was no parking for the said development. Also to interface with the Police Traffic department to express our concerns and to request that the requisite markings be placed at that intersection.
4. Application No.P-4RR/131/15 for planning permission to erect a four storey building at lot 1 Garnett and Middleton Streets, Campbellville, Georgetown for use as travel service and variety store on the ground floor and hotel on the other three floors was deferred.
a. It was also pointed out that there was no provision for parking. The CDP explained that the developer had surrendered the frontage so that parking could be accommodated partly onsite and off-site. The Chairman opined that there were some technical and other concerns and that it was not assured that the development would not create congestion in that residential area.
After some discussion the Board put the application on hold for the officers to re-examine and to arrange a site visit.
At this point the Chairman called a recess at 12:30 p.m.. Ms Luke asked to be excused at 12:45. The meeting reconvened at 1:00 pm.
5. Application No. P-4DD/103/15 by Peter Assing for permission to erect a four storey building for use as offices on all floors at Lot 226 South Road, Lacytown had been deferred.
a. Mr Carter said that at a meeting with the City Engineer in which he indicated that he was satisfied that the piles driven by the developer could accommodate a four story building and as such he recommended it for approval. The Board considered and approved the said application.
6. Application No. OL-4JJ/14/16 to erect a four storey apartment building at lot 10 Earl’s Avenue, Subryanville, Georgetown was approved. It was pointed out that on the 25th February, 2016 the Board considered and accepted the developer’s revised building plans for four storeys, in accordance with his letter dated 22nd February, 2016.
7. It was pointed out by the CDP that in the context of the CH&PA’s approach, ‘regularisation’ is considered as a process to legitimize development that is in existence. On the other hand to ‘alter’ means to conduct specific building operations that constitutes a deviation from the existing state and for which permission is required. The CDP also explained that as a matter of policy, the CH&PA does not approve applications for regularization in cases where there are fundamental ‘wrongs’ regarding the development.
The CDP then presented the following for the Board’s consideration:
a. Application No. OL-4A/8/16 by H.N. Narine for R. Potter:
This application was introduced to the Board by the CDP. It was explained that the proposal is to utilize approximately 31 acres of privately owned land at Soesdyke (south of the Linden/Soesdyke highway and approximately ¼ mile from its intersection with the East Bank Public Road) for a proposed residential scheme. According to the CDP, the proposed layout satisfies the requirements of the CH&PA and provides for total of 137 residential lots, inclusive a community recreational park and community reserve sites. The CDP also stated that the E.P.A will be notified of the proposed development should there be a need for environmental issues to be addressed. It was stated that a full report on the application will be presented to the Board at the next planning committee meeting.
b. CHPA had received a request from the Regional Executive Officer on behalf of the RDC, Region no.4 for a plot of land in the Eccles housing scheme for use as a health centre. There is a plot of land reserved for community use and that plot adequately satisfied the requirements for that project. As such the CDP recommended that the plot land be allocated to the Ministry of Public Health for such purposes.
c. The Cummings Lodge/Sophia Community Group was requesting from CHPA that a plot of land in the Cummings Lodge be used for a health centre. The plot is shown on plan as a reserve site. As such the CDP recommended that the reserve land be allocated to the community for the purpose as a health centre.
d. After some clarification, the Board had no objection to the reserve lands being used for community purposes as health centres, in the Eccles housing scheme and in the Cummings Lodge area.
8. The Secretary informed the Board that two applications were deferred pending advice on the ownership by NICIL. She said that NICIL had forwarded documents (lease and Agreement of Sale) for the applicants along with Cabinet’s approval. The CDP said that NICIL had verified that the transactions were above board. The Chairman said that it was approved at that time. As such the Board considered and approved the applications.
Item No. 4: Correspondence
There was no correspondence.
Item No. 5: Any Other Business
1. The CEO explained the following
a. that the Ministry of Culture had indicated that the Government buildings had to be decorated for the Golden Jubilee by the end of the said week. The cost was $1.6M.
b. Also the Ministry of Communities would be participating in the medium band float parade and CHPA was required to stand part of the cost ($3M) towards that activity.
c. The Chairman said that the request before the Board was for the expenditure of $4.6M for the Golden Jubilee celebrations and that he was recommending it for approval. The Board concurred.
2. Mr Khan said that he was encountering some difficulty from the security to enter the building for Board meetings. Some members said that the security needed to be polite. The Chairman then suggested, if not in place, that
a. arrangements be made for the members to have identification badges
b. that staff be trained in customer service,
c. seating accommodation be provided for senior citizens and the physically challenged.
3. The Chairman then informed the Board that the meeting held with the allottees of Perseverance was very informative. He said that if the current system was changed it would delay persons getting their homes and an alternative which may not be the best was to call in some big contractors to finish those houses. He opined that the issue with the latter was that the time to do an analysis of each house and that could further delay the process. He said that the Board had already taken a decision in principle not to use the foremen.
4. The other alternative was put to the allottees, that he could possibly recommend to the Board that the allottees source someone to complete their homes and the CHPA would pay the bill. However, that proposal received a negative response from the allottees. There was another reaction from some in that they did not want to be part of such negotiations, just give them the house that they paid for.
5. Mr Carter opined that the persons did not respond enthusiastically to the proposal because it was not properly understood and they were somewhat intimidated. He said that it would be better understood if the proposal was put to small groups of allottees. He then forwarded the following
a. Give the money to the allottees to finish their homes (who would have paid their $4.9M. He asked whether that would have implications for the banks. The CEO said that the banks would only pay for the houses when they were completed.
b. Let the allottees know that they could fix their homes and submit the bill that would reflect the true cost to CHPA. He opined that persons would accept that proposal.
c. If there were houses that were not allocated, those could be allocated to policemen and as such there would be some security presence within the area and that there should be a police outpost in the area as soon as possible.
d. That the foremen should be allowed to correct their work. The level of their experience and exposure would need strict monitoring.
6. The CEO said that she had met with the electricians, contractors and plumbers and had discussed the issue and had sent the engineers to the site to look at those issues and to come up with a check list against each house and anything to be corrected would have to be at the expense of the foremen. She continued that it was imperative to have a Project Manager on site and additional Clerks of Work alone with a few experienced engineers.
7. When asked by the Chairman to recommend the way forward, the CEO proposed that the works be completed by the foremen with strict supervision and monitoring on site. There was no objection from the Board.
8. The Chairman then asked to have the names of experienced engineers and that the CEO to arrange for a meeting with them on the Thursday of the said week at 11:00 a.m. to discuss the above issue.
There being no other business the meeting ended at 2:25 pm.
CENTRAL HOUSING AND PLANNING AUTHORITY
Lot 41 Brickdam and United Nations Place
29th April 2016
Chairman and Board Members
Re:Planning Control Committee Meeting of the Central Housing and Planning Authority
Notice is hereby given for a Planning Control Committee Meeting of the Central Housing and Planning Authority to be held on the TUESDAY 10th May 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the Central Housing and Planning Authority Boardroom, Head Office, 41 Brickdam and United Nations Place, Stabroek, Georgetown,
The Agenda is as follows:
1. Call to Order, Prayer and National Pledge
2. Opening Remarks
3. Consideration of Minutes
4. Consideration of Building, Land Use and Sub-division Applications
6. Any Other Business and Closure
Please make every effort to attend.
Central Housing and Planning Authority
DECISIONS/ACTIONS EMANATING FROM PCC MEETING
HELD ON 12th APRIL 2016
DECISIONS/ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY
1. To continue with current foremen to complete houses at Perseverance with strict supervision
2. Convene Meeting with experienced engineers
Thursday 14th April 2016
3. Write MCC and indicate that application for additional buildings in Church Street, Queenstown had not yet come to the Board and interface with Traffic Department re: no parking sign off Albert and Church Streets intersection.
Mr Rawle Edinboro
Chief Development Planner
4. Deferred Applications
No. P-4DD/31/16 for permission to add two storeys to an existing four storey building for residential purposes (14 apartments) at sublots A and B of lot 83 Albert and Robb Streets, Bourda.
Developer to be written on how he proposed to provide parking to accommodate the increase use of the development
No. P-4RR/131/15 for permission to erect a four storey building for use as a travel service and variety store on the ground floor and hotel on the other floors.
Application to be re-examined and arrange site visit
Mr Rawle Edinboro
Chief Development Planner
Received, and forwarded to Ms. Jordan for necessary action.
From: Mark Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:09 PM
Cc: Ronald Bulkan; valerie.adams
Subject: List of schemes CHPA does not legally own
Dear Mrs. Pitt:
Please find attached a memo for information regarding the 22 schemes CHPA does not legally own thanks in advance for your anticipated co-operation.
Mark Jacobs<email@example.com> Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
hannifah am trying to piece together this remigrant programme from
what ally and tudor telling me and also reading back old newspaper
articles Continue reading “is there a remigrant policy?”