The apartment complex located at 17 Birdsucker Drive, Kingston 8. The Supreme Court ruled that the KSAMC and NEPA illegally authorised construction there.
One of the claimants in Thursday’s successful Supreme Court ruling that a multimillion-dollar St Andrew apartment complex was illegally approved and constructed believes that many more such developments are in breach.
Gavin Goffe, an attorney-at-law, also believes that while the court order made no pronouncement that the complex be torn down, the lack of authorisation suggested that it was “entirely possible that the authorities could ask that it be demolished”.
He argues that a property constructed without any approval or permit is in the same substantive position as one that is built on the pretext of a permit that the court later declares null and void.
Jovan Johnson/Senior Staff Reporter
A multimillion-dollar three-storey apartment on Birdsucker Drive in upper St Andrew was illegally approved and constructed, the Supreme Court has ruled, opening the door for demolition considerations. Justice Georgiana Fraser Thursday overturned the building and environmental approvals for the development, declaring that the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) and the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) broke the law in granting them. “The construction at 17 Birdsucker Drive is not supported by any legal authorisation,” read a section of the 84-page judgment which is a major victory for residents of the upscale neighbourhood who took the matter to court in 2018.