Comments on the Planning and Facilitation of Development Bill 2013 to the

Comments on the Planning and Facilitation of Development Bill 2013 to the Special Select Committee of the Parliament The Clerk of the House of Representatives, Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Levels G-7, Tower D The Port-of-Spain International Waterfront Centre 1A Wrightson Road Port-of-Spain RE: Planning and Facilitation of Development Bill 2013 - Comments Dear Madam Clerk, Whereas the Planning and Facilitation of Development Bill 2013 has been referred to a Special Select Committee of the Parliament, and whereas the Committee is soliciting the views of the general public on the Bill, I wish to submit the attached comments on the Bill on behalf of the Independent Liberal Party (ILP) for the consideration of the Committee. The ILP is happy for the opportunity to contribute to this exercise. Respectfully Submitted, Jack Warner Political Leader Independent Liberal Party Comments on the Planning and Facilitation of Development Bill 2013 To the Special Select Committee of the Parliament The Bill does not sufficiently involve the Local Government bodies in the planning process. While Clause 18(5) provides that the National Planning Authority (NPA) must hold public consultations and must take into account the public comments received in the development of and review of the National Spatial Development Plan (NSDP), this is not sufficient. Clause 18(6) specifies that the Tobago House of Assembly’s (THA) proposal shall be given consideration in developing the NPA. Similarly, the proposals of the Local Government bodies (referred to as the municipal planning authority) must be taken into consideration. However the collaboration should be taken one step further. The NPA should be required to develop the NSDP (and to conduct the prescribed reviews) in conjunction with the municipal bodies. With respect to the granting of approvals (Clause 35), the authority has been placed with the NPA, and again the Local Government authorities have been left out of the process. The Local Government authorities should be required to sign-off on all approvals (including applications for variations) including those pertaining to large-acreage developments (above 20 plots) and all commercial buildings (buildings above 500 m2 in floor area). Approval of plans for simple dwelling houses and small-acreage developments could be (and should be) done by the local authority but a copy of these approvals should be lodged with the NPA. The Bill does not (and therefore should) give authority to the Local Government body to determine “development hazards” (see page 5 of the Bill). The definition of “development hazard” (sub-sections a, b and c) should be amended to read, “… National Planning Authority or municipal planning authority…” This would empower the Local Government authority to be proactive or to respond to violations, especially where many violations are likely to impact on the business and service of the Corporation. Authorizing the Corporation to act on violations does not preclude the NPA from acting on a matter if a complaint or observation is made at the NPA. The Local Government bodies, therefore, should be empowered in the enforcement process. Some clarification is required with respect to Clause 62 (1) which deals with the authorization (in writing) of inspectors by the Chief Building Officer. Does the NPA need to authorize the Regional Corporation’s Building Inspector, and if so, why? The Municipal Planning Authority should have an officer who is so authorized by virtue of his office. This is an un-necessary layer of bureaucracy. Similarly, with regard to Clause 17 (4) (a), which states that delegation of functions to an officer shall be made to the officer in “name”; why is it necessary to delegate the functions by name and not to the office so that whoever holds the office becomes automatically vested with the authority? With regard to the publication of notices, in addition to publishing notices in the Gazette and daily newspapers, the NPA should be required to maintain a website, to publish notices online and to maintain a searchable archive of notices online for quick and easy access of information by the public. Where appropriate or relevant drawings should be available online. For example, in the case of a proposed development or subdivision, drawings depicting the proposed development or subdivision should be accessible to assist persons in understanding or visualizing the possible impacts of the development or subdivision. Similarly, where professional bodies are concerned (around pages 81-82) it is quite alright for the professional bodies to publish an annual list of members but I may become onerous on the body to make monthly publications in the daily newspapers. The professional bodies should be required to maintain a website where the information is published and accessible. Even if it is felt that notices mentioned in Clause 80 should be published in the newspapers, online publication of the professional body’s registry should still be mandatory. Consideration should also be given to whether (and how) professionals who are deregistered or banned due to gross misconduct should be published in the interest of protecting innocent, unsuspecting citizens from being the victims of fraud or other shams. The NPA should be an avenue of appeal against decisions taken by the Municipal Planning Authority (or other minor planning authority). This would complement the provision in Clause 90 and Part VIII where decisions of the NPA can be appealed by application to the Environmental Commission (EC). With respect to Clause 92, why is it necessary to prescribe a “manner of hearing appeal” for the EC when the EC already has a prescribed procedure under the Environmental Management Act? With respect to penalties (Part IX), there should be a schedule of penalties according to the severity of the offence and the continuation of the existence of the breach or offence. For very large developments, a $20,000 fine may amount to a slap on the wrist. Additionally, Clause 96 (1) (c) should state that the offence is only committed if the person “knowingly” refuses or neglects to produce the item. A person knowingly supplying false information (Clause 96 (1) (d)) should be subject to a higher fine than a $20,000. The penalties prescribed in Part IX of this Bill are inconsistent with similar provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) where the penalties are higher (for similar offences such as bribing a public official). Clause 97 should be reviewed to keep it consistent with the provisions of the PCA which states at Section 6: (1) A person who commits an offence under section 3, 4 or 5, notwithstanding section 100(5) of the Summary Courts Act, is liable, whether upon summary conviction or upon conviction on indictment, to a fine of five hundred thousand dollars and to imprisonment for ten years and, in addition, shall be ordered to pay to such public body and in such manner as the Court directs, the amount or value of any gift, loan, fee, or reward received by him. Such person shall also be adjudged forever incapable of being elected or appointed as a member of a public body or of holding any other public office and shall forfeit any such office held by him at the time of his conviction. Bribery of a public official is a very serious matter and should be treated as such. Similar penalties should be imposed on any public officer who accepts a bribe or inducement. 10. Under Clause 103 with respect to service of notice where the owner of a property cannot be found, a provision can be included where notice can be effected by publication in the newspapers. 11. Applications for grants under Clause 107 should be approved by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) in the case of promoting awareness of environmental issues or the NPA in the case of other issues that are not related to environmental protection. Respectfully Submitted, Jack Warner Political Leader Independent Liberal Party Thursday, January 16, 2014.