Eliz­a­beth Gon­za­les

To­ba­go Cor­re­spon­dent

Weeks be­fore the com­ple­tion of a ma­jor road ex­pan­sion project in To­ba­go, ques­tions are be­ing raised about the project af­ter the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Di­vi­sion re­vealed that the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly (THA) did not ob­tain the nec­es­sary ap­proval.

The $70 mil­lion Friend­ship Con­nec­tor Road project is 75 per cent com­plete. How­ev­er, the 2.7-kilo­me­ter dual-lane sec­tion from Cove Road to Store Bay Lo­cal Road has not been grant­ed plan­ning per­mis­sion.

In re­sponse to a Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion re­quest from Guardian Me­dia, the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Di­vi­sion said search­es of their records found no ap­pli­ca­tions for plan­ning per­mis­sion from the THA or the Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture, Quar­ries and Ur­ban De­vel­op­ment.

The doc­u­ment spec­i­fied that no ap­pli­ca­tions were sub­mit­ted or ap­provals grant­ed for the con­struc­tion of the road or any oth­er projects on the prop­er­ty known as the Friend­ship Es­tate.

It fur­ther stat­ed: “No grant of ap­provals for Plan­ning Per­mis­sion was is­sued by the T&CPD for the car­ry­ing out of en­gi­neer­ing op­er­a­tions, name­ly, the con­struc­tion of a 2.5 kilo­me­tre road from Cove Road to Store Bay Lo­cal Road or for any oth­er con­struc­tion projects on the prop­er­ty known as the Friend­ship Es­tate, to the THA or Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture, Quar­ries and Ur­ban De­vel­op­ment based on the site in­for­ma­tion pro­vid­ed for road nor for any oth­er con­struc­tion projects on the prop­er­ty known as the Friend­ship Es­tate bear­ing the names THA or Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture, Quar­ries and Ur­ban De­vel­op­ment based on the site in­for­ma­tion pro­vid­ed.”

The rules of the Cer­tifi­cate of En­vi­ron­men­tal Clear­ance un­der the En­vi­ron­men­tal Man­age­ment Agency (EMA) Act 35 of 1995, spec­i­fy that an ap­pli­ca­tion must be sub­mit­ted to the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Di­vi­sion for a des­ig­nat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty

It states: “An ap­pli­ca­tion shall be sub­mit­ted

(a) to TCPD in re­spect of a des­ig­nat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty con­sti­tut­ing a de­vel­op­ment re­quir­ing the ex­press grant of per­mis­sion un­der the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Act; or

(b) sub­ject to para­graph (a), to a per­son ap­point­ed as re­cip­i­ent of ap­pli­ca­tions by the Au­thor­i­ty by no­tice pub­lished in the Gazette.”

Con­cerns re­gard­ing the ap­proval of the road project came to light dur­ing a THA ple­nary sit­ting when a ques­tion was asked. Trevor James, the Sec­re­tary for the Di­vi­sion, was un­cer­tain whether a re­quest had been made or ap­proved.

“I’ll have to check my Di­vi­sion to con­firm or de­ny and I will present that an­swer in the fu­ture if the ques­tion is asked again,” he said.

The EMA had made two com­pli­ance vis­its to the site and ac­cord­ing to James, there was no com­plaint. He in­stead raised con­cerns about the air­port ex­pan­sion project.

“There seems to be a lack of ap­pre­ci­a­tion of how things are done. The air­port project to­day has not sub­mit­ted draw­ings to the Di­vi­sion of In­fra­struc­ture for ap­proval. The project is go­ing on for three years. Maybe we should take an in­junc­tion against it,” he said.

Ear­li­er in the de­vel­op­ment of the project, the EMA filed le­gal ac­tion against the de­vel­op­ment, cit­ing the lack of nec­es­sary ap­provals from the THA. In June, the High Court grant­ed the EMA an in­junc­tion to halt the road con­struc­tion. How­ev­er, it was lift­ed af­ter the THA ob­tained the re­quired ap­provals from the EMA.