This is the info you want. If I may say so it’s a really big story, but long too. Hope you’ll carry it, and the readers will read it.

Thank you. God bless Dukes, St. Thomas, and the citizens of Barbados. We do this for these people, not for any other reason.

May we have peace all in our respective homelands.

Exodus 20:13

A friend of UG went to TCP and see the same applications that I peruse today. These applications do not contain any statements of acceptance or denial. It only contain stamp of acceptance.
I dealt with a senior personnel within the TCP and was inform of TCP Operating Procedures.

I was told if this matter was not approved or the application was not in an advance stage of being approved, then, an enforcement order will be eminent. It was also confirm that no orders were ever issued to stop this development, due to no fixed structures are on the property. What he is saying that the developer can continue doing what he is doing once things remain the same without any construction. I was advised that the laying of marl will not contravene any illegal action.

He dealt with another issue, stating if the developer had a change of use to be a housing development, and the developer was laying down roads with curbs and utilities, possibly, that developer have intentions to start construction of homes. You are dealing with fixed roads with utilities in place. Vaucluse matter is different, the only fixed property is the fencing surrounding the property and the developer has all rights to protect his property.

All the lies about stop orders being issued are all lies, you are a wise guy and you know ‘enforcement ties in with the policing’ yet, you prefer to accept the one sided issue of UG.
Twenty years from now UG will be singing the same tune. Probably, he might convince you so much that you might start humming the same tune.

I did my investigation, I visited the TCP, I spoke to one of the top officials, if you Waterboy has any doubts, visit the TCP before commenting based on empathy.

By the way, Bushy Park is still awaiting approval from the TCP. The problem is the residents who are extremely close to the action, understand motorsports bieng vital to the sporting community.

I wonder if the ‘change of use’ was for an upscale development, if we will be hearing a financial tune.

The two applications you are speaking about do not have ‘No Approval”. If it was ‘no approval’ the next step would have been ‘enforcement’, that did not occur, Why?, because none were ever issued.

Ms. Goodenough, I am giving you the opportunity to write to the Chief Town Planner, copies to the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and the two representatives for the area, and state your concerns. Demand another Town Hall Meeting, rally all your supporters and all of us will come to the meeting base on anonymity and we will hear the concerns of the residents. I look forward for a positive solution.

This is hard to take- really overt, arrogant and oppressive behaviour.

And it’s ILLEGAL.

If you accuse me of breaking into your house and stealing from you, the onus is on you to prove that I did. I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this.

And please don’t confuse my knowledge of the use of the English language to be condescension.

When will you go down there, now that I have obeyed one of your condescending commands?

Establishing roads by retention signifies that TCP approval IS required. Asking for a change of use via a second TCP application is evidence that a change of use IS required.

Bloggers above are working hard to put up a smokescreen but the big brown books at Town and Country Planning tell everyone one the truth. The kind gentleman also told us that all one is able to do is to look at the entries, but that is all you can get- no copies, no confirmations in writing unless you write to the Chief Town Planner.

2363/10/2000C “Retention of the following: exti9nguishing of approximately 1556M of dirt road, establishment of 1682M of dirt road, with berms, upgrading of existing bridge to facilitate agricultural and motorsport activity.”
NO APPROVAL

2264/09/01C
“Change of use from agricultural to recreational (motorsport).”
NO APPROVAL

Now, onwards.

Establishing and “extinguishing’ roads by retention is indicative that development occurred without request to TCP in the first place- illegally. Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed. We sarted to complain as the noise and traffic escalated, and we became more aware that this was not recreational.

That is illegal in the very first place, and that is why we are coming forward to the present in chronological order. To try to show Barbados what has happened and why it is illegal, and why our request is so valid for being upheld.

We do not wish to destroy anyone. A nearby separate development to Dukes “extinguished” our long established right of passage to Holy Innocents. We would welcome a development close to us, but on the following terms:

Firstly, the requirements of Town Planning be upheld and respected. In this case namely that St. Thomas is a designated high rainfall agricultural area, and is designated to be conserved for agriculture. That is agricultural policy in Barbados and Town Planning. So this would need to be addressed.

Secondly, when a development is conceived, the residents’ lands would be considered and integrated as an ASSET to a development. Our villages are proud to have been existing for hundreds of years, and we are good citizens, better neighboursn than many recent immigrants. Rather than making walls and shutting us out as undesireable, we should be empowered by way of additional roads that link us to and within, and through, any site, such that our property values are enhanced and our dignity is increased. Is this wrong conceptually?

Also, any form of development that policy is changed to facilitate from agriculture should not disturb the enjoyment and peace of the existing resident communities, as this one has done, and wil do. That is important. If there is one point that my learned friend Frank is making that I wish to address it is this one.

And lastly for this post the change of use. Agriculture to Recreational.

Is this against policy or not? also, should this not be ‘commercial’? Is this recreational for sport or is it a serious financial escapade being bulldozed across the fields?

All ‘commercial’, while the big losers are the original residents. Is this OK to approve on the basis of this logic?

As I’ve said before, I have nothing to do with Vaucluse. I simply know people who compete and help organise some of the events held there.

If I had something to do with the place, I WOULD prove that permission was granted.

And we haven’t brought in any ‘red herrings’. The enforcement notices were first brought up by none other than Ms. Goodenough. As she quoted in her OPENING post – “Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.” We simply have repeatedly asked that if they exist, prove it.

I would sincerely doubt that the reputable companies you all claim are involved would risk moving ahead on such a large venture without some kind of go-ahead being granted.

Your Parliamentary representative should, be talking to the PM. The residents of the area should hold a Town Hall Meeting, invite the press, Parliamentary Representative, Town Planning Department etc. make sure you record everything at the meeting.
…………………………………………………………………
You write one think and come back and strip up yourself.
“What is the relevance of whether he attended the Town Hall Meeting and his questions answered properly?”

Based on 4morevalves statement of two Town Hall Meetings, yet people failed to turn up and ask questions, then tell me. What is the real issue?

WIV, Waterboy and UG. These are facts, I love research and I love breaking down statements to get facts. I check and here are my findings.

Under Barbados Law. Anytime an enforcement Order is issued, it is valid for 28 days, that enforcement order must have a police officer present. If an application has been submitted by someone, before or after the fact, an enforcement order becomes null and void. In UG’s argument, the person saw two applications at TCP in 2000 and 2001. He could not see any enforcement orders, because non were issued.

This is over seven years and not one solid structure is on the compound, improving the land, (remember, there are no structures) is quite legal, because you are abiding by the law.

I am asking again, UG, let the public know why you are against the racecourse?

No enforcement delivered, no problem with the Zone 4 water, Two Town Hall meeting and residents failed to turn up, 30 days of tekkin’ pictures. And most of all…NO FACTS!.

I made my point and dunn wid dat.

The point is not that they have been denied permission but from what Goodenough has said they do not have permission. They are proceeding unlawfully. Neither you nor Frankology have been able to deny that. And believe it or not I sincerely hope they have permission to develop and Goodenough is wrong. All I am interested in is that it is lawful. It will be another sad day for this country if the law is being breached by brazen acts.

Town Hall Meetings are part of a process in determining whether the application will be approved, plain and simple. The fact that these meetings were held indicates that up to then they had no permission. Stop bringing in the red herring of “enforcement notices”. Either they have planning permission to develop or they do not.

And how do you know that those involved with Vaucluse are also involved with ‘COW Williams et all’?

Another question. IF TCP denied permission for ANY further development, how then were there TWO Town Hall meetings called?