The Integrity Commission (IC) has charged a firm associated with Prime Minister Andrew Holness with intentional construction violations concerning a home development carried out at 2 Weycliffe Close, Beverly Hills, Kingston 6. The IC claims that the complex was built in violation of the conditions of the building permit granted to Holness-affiliated real estate firm Estatebridge Holdings Limited.
The commission has also criticized the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) for inadequately supervising the construction project, implying that the KSAMC was misled when its staff said the building permit was being followed.
- Advertisement -
The House of Representatives received the most recent contentious investigative report from the IC concerning the prime minister.
The 63-page study names several people, including Norman Brown, the prime minister’s real estate partner and the chairman of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), as well as the previous head of the Housing Agency of Jamaica.
On July 12, 2021, the commission’s director of investigations (DI), Kevon Stephenson, concluded that Estatebridge had received the appropriate building permit and planning approval from the KSAMC to construct a complex that included four two-bedroom apartments.
Additionally, the DI discovered violations of the terms and conditions of the construction permission given by the KSAMC for the development. According to the DI’s initial examination, the development included four four-bedroom townhouses rather than the four two-bedroom townhouses that the KSAMC had authorized. This information forms the basis of the DI’s findings.
According to the investigative report, “The DI finds that, in failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the building permit, section 17 (1) of the Building Act was breached.”
According to the DI, Brown, and Kennado Nesbeth, the contractor for KNN Designs and Consultants Limited, gave contradictory statements on the design and structure of the development, “blatant attempts to mislead the Commission”.
In conclusion of the DI forms, Mr. Brown stated that the development included four townhomes with four bedrooms in a witness statement that he signed and in which he made a declaration of truth on December 4, 2023.
The report noted, “This statement was made at a time when the DI was not investigating any breaches of the building permit issued to Estatebridge by the KSAMC, and under circumstances where Mr. Brown was not a suspect”.
The report stated that after learning that he was a suspect in the DI’s investigation into alleged violations of the Building Act and the cited permission, Brown subsequently made false statements in a Judges’ Rules interview held on October 31, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, Mr. Nesbeth submitted a contemporaneous verbal statement to the DI’s investigators stating that there were deviations from the KSAMC-issued building permit and that attempts were underway to correct the violations. Later, he denied the statement.
According to the DI’s inspection on July 12, 2024, the development had four townhouses with four bedrooms when it was first built. The DI’s conclusions align with Mr. Brown’s December 4, 2023, suggestion about the number of beds in the development.
Per the report, “the DI therefore further concludes that the breaches identified of the building permit on the part of Estatebridge were deliberate”.
Prior to Norman Brown’s presentation before the Commission on December 4, 2023, at least one director had knowledge that the development included four townhomes with four bedrooms. This information served as the foundation for the DI’s judgment. It should be mentioned that Brown acknowledged that he has a supervisory role in the growth. He was further characterized as the director who is “generally responsible for Estatebridge’s business operations”.
The DI also concluded that Nesbeth is equally responsible for the breach as she either collaborated with the Estatebridge directors or helped and abetted them in committing it.
In addition, “The DI’s conclusion is premised on the fact that by virtue of Mr. Nesbeth’s role as a contractor, it is reasonable to infer that he must have been cognizant of the terms and conditions of the permit granted by the KSAMC. Furthermore, Mr. Nesbeth’s company is party to a construction contract with Estatebridge which requires him, as contractor, to construct the development in accordance with the building permit, and in his statement dated October 16, 2024, Mr. Nesbeth indicated that “I designed the building plan for the development for submission to the KSAMC. Each unit would consist of four habitable rooms, a pool on the split level, four bathrooms, a laundry and storage area”.
The DI also concluded that the KSAMC had not fulfilled its obligation to guarantee adherence to the terms and conditions of the construction permit that Estatebridge had been granted for the development.
The report noted, “Though their paperwork relating to the three inspections they conducted suggest that the development was compliant at all stages, the DI’s inspections of the development belie this.”
Regarding its inspection and post-permit monitoring duties and tasks, the DI has suggested, among other things, that the KSAMC’s CEO take more steps to guarantee compliance with the guidelines outlined in sections 33 and 34 of the Building Act.
Regarding construction permits given by that organization, he also suggested that the KSAMC carry out an administrative evaluation of its current compliance system. An evaluation of the KSAMC’s ability to monitor building developments within the municipality’s jurisdiction after permits have been granted, as well as the technical proficiency of the officers in charge of enforcement and compliance, should be part of this review.
“Serious consideration should be given to ensuring that the relevant processes are corruption-proof,” the report stated.
The DI further suggested that the KSAMC conduct its own evaluation of the development in light of the violations found, and then take any required and suitable steps to bring it into compliance with the Building Act.
As a result of the violations, the DI also suggested that the prime minister and the minister of local government and community development make sure that growth takes place in a sustainable way within the built environment.
As a result, they should see to it that laws are introduced to impose severe penalties on developers who knowingly breach building and development permits for financial gain. More notably, income due to violations should be lost. Furthermore, developers ought to be barred from obtaining planning and development clearance for a suitable amount of time following the violation.
Additionally, the Registrar of Titles, Local Authorities, and other relevant parties are required to work together and coordinate to prevent titles from being granted for developments that were built without the necessary construction, development, and planning permits.
