Loading ...
Sandals Grande St Lucian located on the Pigeon Island causeway built some pillars on the beach which has concerned some St Lucians.
The Appeals tribunal of the Physical and Planning Department of the Development Control Authority has ruled that two columns constructed by Sandals Grande Resort on the Pigeon Point beach in Gros Islet are on lands owned by the resort.
As such, it said, by erecting the columns, Sandals was not in breach of the Physical Planning and Development Act.
The four-member Appeals Tribunal headed by Ms Cynthia Combie-Martyr, heard an Appeal by Sandals against the decision of the government agency to reject their application for permission to erect four columns on the beach. The Physical Planning Department rejected the application on the grounds that the development hindered public use of the breach.
Sandals Grande constructed two columns on the property without the department’s permission. Following receipt of an enforcement Notice in November 2007, Sandals then applied for permission for the retention of four columns to be erected on the beach. The department rejected the application.
After filing its appeal against the Planning department’s rejection, members of the Tribunal along with both parties concerned visited the site and observed that there were only two columns constructed.
Appearing before the tribunal on behalf of Sandals Grande, Attorney Bota McNamara submitted that the Department erred in stating that the columns hindered public use of the beach because there was no public use available over Sandals private property and no such right was granted by Sandals.
He made the point that the owner of private land could not be compelled to give public use to it. In any event, he added, Sandals had in fact voluntarily given public access and use of its private land.
McNamara described the columns as adding beauty and appeal to the area and said they were not a hindrance. When completed with lights, he said, the columns would beautify and be attractive and would provide a safety feature especially at night. These features, he added, would be of benefit to the public.
During the hearing, there were issues raised about the ownership of the land. But McNamara submitted that in almost all the documents presented by the Planning Department, there was an acknowledgement that the land on which the columns were erected was owned by Sandals.
In response, Counsel for the Planning Department Mr Adrian Etienne argued that at the time of Sandals application, the columns had been constricted illegally and without permission. Had permission been sought before construction, he said, all issues of public use of and access to the beach would have
been resolved as that would have been a material consideration.
He maintained that the fact that Sandals had built the columns without permission was relevant. He added that a jetty located on the property and the security guard stationed by the columns were considered hindrances to access and use of the beach, although acknowledging that neither were issues to be considered in the appeal.
Etienne conceded that the construction of the columns would normally have been approved by the Planning Department as long as Sandals had followed proper procedure and complied with the requirements of an application for permission.
In delivering its ruling, the Tribunal said that based on documentary evidence before it, the property in question was owned by Sandals and said it was satisfied, and counsel for the Department had conceded, that the Crown had not produced any evidence of title or ownership in support of its claim to the subject property.
Furthermore, the Tribunal said, sufficient opportunity was given to the Planning Department to adduce evidence which would support its mere allegation of encroachment and to refute or rebut the evidence presented by Sandals in support of its claim to ownership of the property.
It concluded that the columns did not prevent, obstruct, impede or hinder the public from sitting, bathing or using the beach.
It noted other developments on the property, including The Landings, which it said, presented such a hindrance to the use of and access to the beach, to the extent that members of the public could no longer walk along the seashore and parts of the beach along the causeway adjacent to Pigeon Island and would require a ferry service to facilitate use of and access to the beach.
The Tribunal said that the area between the columns was wide enough to facilitate access of at least one vehicle to drive through unimpeded. In addition, the area on the other side of the columns in particular the side next to the fence, was wide enough to facilitate pedestrian traffic.
“The columns are not in fact situated on the beach and sea bathing is certainly not hindered by the columns which are constructed on the sand”, it added. It concluded that the columns were constructed on lands owned by Sandals and said it was satisfied that Sandals was not in breach of the Act.
—Ernie Seon
RSS
I wonder how much was paid to the Physical and Planning Department, must be alot eh.
My concern on the issue is a clarification as to whether the queens chain apply since this causeway was reclaimed land. Does that ruling affect St.Lucians right to use that beach? How far from the waters edge does the sandals property begin? The public needs to know where the sandals property begin from the waters edge so that there is a clear understanding as to what is sandals and what is the queens chain if it exist in this case. Mr. Adrian Ettiene and the Department of physical planning please clarify this issue for us St.Lucians
i agree with my mangal…..what happen to high tide water mark……i love sandals but law is law…as a matter of fact landings suppose to provide free ferry sevice to point or have a lifegaurd stationed at the cut……if not before xmass some little kid will drown trying to swim across…..yes we need bread but for who?…lucians first….
Totally agree with Mr Mangal, and the troubled citizen!!! Please Clarify We the people First!!! ok!!!!
i agree wit the comments posted now am wondering what the reporter will do about those valid points raised if nothing then da comments section should be removed i wonder do the writers of the articles ever read the comments posted
I can assure you that we read every post put online and even publish some of them. Please do not feel we in any way neglect or ignore what is posted on our site.
Soon they will have to claim the sea water as part of the property, when is exceeds the post line. This nonsence was tried at Anse Chastanet in Soufriere in the 70′ to control access to the beach via the main entrance of the property, and this was smashed by the people…We’re playing with history. Some of us never learn. Please lay caution in the wind.
I’am a Lucian abroad.Yes please clarify this to all Lucians,because that sounds like some BS aint Nobody gonna stop me from swimming on that beacH. I am a born St Lucian and the beaches belong to the people of the land. Lucians cannot go to Europe or United States and own beaches. Please tell me this is a joke we are not making any beaches in St Lucia Private.My Mother,Grandmother, great grandmother ,and myself were born on this land and u gonna tell me we cant swim on the beach ,thats insane. THAT CANT HAPPEN HERE TELL THEM THAT I SAY THAT THE BEACH BELONG TO WE .THE BEACH IS MINE I CAN BATHE ANYTIME!!!!
In the first place why Sandals can lay ownership of land in SLU??? These people are selling all the beachfront properties in the name of Tourism……Our grand children will inherit an Island of pollution and and living in rental properties. Lucians better WAKE UP and RISE!
Did anyone truly expect a different verdict from officialdom? This is St. Lucia for Christ’s sake. The big guns run the show. Always have, always will. Little people, keep quiet. You will not be heard.
Your story does not say anything about the SLP’s response on the issue. Can we expect anything different? They, too, are among the big guns.
There comes a time when St Lucians must be concerned today we are talking about colums tommorow it will be the beach,some beaches will be out of bounds for local people the future does not look bright for us st Lucians,the government has sold our inheritance for the silver dollar we call tourism.
I grow up bathin, in sea water
But nowadays, that is bare horror
If I only venture, from my seashore
Police Telling me, I cyan bade no more
Cause “Jack” doan want me to bade on my beach
“JACK” tell dem to keep me outto reach
“JACK” tell dem, I would never made de grade
dey STRENGHTEN SECURITY and build barricade
Dat cyan happen here in this country
I want Jack to know that the beach belong to me (we)
Dah cyan happen here, OVER MY DEAD BODY
Tell (big guts) JACK (him)
GABBY (I) say that de beach belong to me (we)
(chorus)
Look! That beach is mine, I can bade anytime
Despite what they say I go there anyway
(I gine bade anyway)
Lyrics and song by The Mighty Gabby, from the song Jack, Barbados.
“Jack”, Gabby says, came as a reaction to an action. It came after Jack Dear, a corporate lawyer for the Barbados Board of Tourism made the decree that hotel owners had the right to bring their property down to the waterfront.