OPINION: DCA is a Disaster Zone, Development Control Needs an Overhaul

Development control in Antigua and Barbuda is a disaster. The Development Control Authority (DCA) ought to be the foremost agency guiding the physical development of Antigua and Barbuda, and regulating such development according to geographical, structural, economic, social, and environmental best practices. Instead, what we have is a DCA that does not appear to be anywhere near as robust as it ought to be to execute the task. This is a direct consequence of several political directorates which have supervised the DCA since its inception.

Firstly, the concept of the DCA needs a revamp in our legislation to fully and firmly address its shortcomings and weaknesses. In order to do this, the government must launch a national assessment or inquiry into (a) the deficiencies of physical planning, urban planning, civil engineering, infrastructure planning, environmental planning and land use in Antigua and Barbuda. it must also do an assessment of (b) the functioning of the DCA, and the challenges and opportunities for improvement. This is how public administration is supposed to work. 

You look around at Antigua and Barbuda. You realise that well planned, properly designed, aesthetically appealing and environmentally sound development is significantly lacking and has been for decades. You realise that land is still developed haphazardly. We still have legacy mixed development areas where there was never any plan, resulting in a hodgepodge of buildings for different purposes being located and developed in near proximity to each other – residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, infrastructural etc. You take the steps necessary to understand and rectify the problem. You assess and plan to correct. Here it seems, we meet it one way, and leave it so.

Secondly, the politics needs to go. Like many of the agencies and authorities in this country, the DCA is hampered by useless politicians and their appointees at the top. To my knowledge Maurice Merchant is still the head of the DCA Board. Clement Antonio is now a Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry, and amazingly, remains the Deputy Chief Town and Country Planner. He is running for candidacy with the ruling party in St. George. Meanwhile Frederick Southwell, the head of the DCA, is a complete non-entity. But when they make Maurice your Chairman, Maria your Minister, and Clement your Deputy/boss, I don’t know that you have a choice except to be a non-entity. Southwell does not appear to have what it takes to stand up and chart a course for that agency, and even if he did, they’d just remove him. 

Too many of our agencies are suffocated by politicians and prevented from doing their work, and when (Heaven forbid) an agency head stands up for anything, they are swiftly victimised and or removed. So we get a slew of agencies, departments and authorities that fail to properly do their job because their boards are composed of useless political appointees, their top management is composed of people who are either also useless political hires or professionals who nonetheless allow politicians to steamroll them everyday, or dangerous people who cannot be removed because they have the favour of their respective minister. Nothing is allowed to work in this country. Politics comes first. Governance comes last.

Unsurprisingly, we see the DCA embroiled in pathetic political nonsense. The authority rushes to tear the banners off of opposition billboards and writes a notice saying “development has taken place without a permit”. The authority rushes to tell Sagicor to take down a roll or razor wire because “development has taken place without a permit”. In both cases, running after the Prime Minister to act on things he says he does not like. Yet, look at the state of our country. Look at the lack of development control. But they have energy to run behind the Prime Minister to jump on issues he declares he feels a kinda way about. This is where we live.

And can someone explain to me how Clement Antonio can legally function simultaneously as the Deputy Chief Town & Country Planner under Southwell, and as a Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry at the same time? A Parliament Secretary is a rank below minister, appointed to assist in an executive capacity. Many countries have redesigned this position as Assistant Minister. That’s what it effectively is. That effectively puts him a rank above Southwell while also being Southwell’s immediate deputy. What in the f is that? Does the government have no lawyers? Or any with integrity? How on earth can you be your own boss, functioning as an assistant minister and at the same time as the deputy chief who should report to the assistant minister? And what position does that place the chief town and country planner in? When you speak to him, are you speaking to him as his deputy? Or as his boss, the Assistant Minister (Parliamentary Secretary)? 

Thirdly, we need to address our informal communities. Antigua and Barbuda has many poorly planned, poorly serviced communities which we inherited from the colonial period as villages where Black working class people made their homes. We can’t change that and we can’t fault our administrations today for the racist indifference of colonial governments as to the urban development of the Black working class. However, for decades now, we have been in charge of our own development. For decades now, in order to correct the problem of these traditional communities where roads were never planned for, plots were too small, drainage was not a concern, etc etc, we ought to be driving all new residential construction to new areas where such provisions have been made. How do we do this?

Again, Antigua and Barbud has had unique opportunities which other islands have not, due to the fact that the government of Antigua and Barbuda at some point inherited more than half the land in the country when it bought out the sugar estates in yestercentury. This was a golden opportunity (a missed opportunity) to eventually set about on a multi-decade national housing development scheme, where you push all new home construction to new areas, as opposed to letting people build on the land they own in the traditional communities. You facilitate this through regulation and land swaps. Something like this would not only have involved the DCA but also a national housing authority of some kind.

After decades, you would have ensured that anyone seeking to build a hope over the past 30 years, had the opportunity to do so in a modern, upscale, well planned community, with provisioned green spaces, utilities and infrastructure, supporting small businesses, etc etc. You would also have decongested your traditional informal communities enough over that time period that you could now raze the place and also use the land there for new, well-planned developments. Instead, state land in Antigua and Barbuda has been and remains one of the most abused resources. This is not to say that we have not had thousands of people empowered in different ways through the opportunity to gain land from the state. But the amount of wastage, corruption, patronage and lost opportunity mixed up in the history of state land administration is almost immeasurable.

Fourthly, we need to address drainage and flooding. We have a legacy of appalling to non-existent drainage infrastructure in this country. It is so bad that most people do not even realise how much of an abnormality it is. We build roads with moderate gutters at the sides and presume that this will be enough to carry water away, somewhere, when the inevitable (yes, inevitable) hurricane and torrential rains come each year. We do not have a DCA that demands and ensures the implementation of proper capacity drains running under ground beneath sidewalks or adjacent to roads, such as can handle the capacity of expected runoff. When roadways flood, we are surprised.

We have historically allowed housing and other development in areas known to flood easily. But we have not taken reasonable measures to rectify that problem by outright banning new development in these areas, creating state run programmes to enable landswaps for landowners who wish to build anew, and progressively transitioning communities out of flood prone areas at their own pace over generations. Instead, we watch the same areas flood every year, and allow people to invest their blood, sweat and tears to build in areas which we know are flood prone.

We go down to Friar’s Hill Road, which floods rapidly when it rains heavily due to inadequate drainage provisions on either side of the damn road. Where was the DCA when it was being built? Inspecting road and infrastructure construction even in their mandate? If not, then whose mandate is it? 

Fifth, we need to address derelict structures. We have derelict structures up and down Antigua and Barbuda, and zero enforcement of any form or law that demands they be removed at the owner’s expense. We have structures that have been up so long that they are national landmarks, like the remains of the old factories on Airport Road near the traffic light and what is or used to be the Chinese restaurant. You can see these galvanized, rusted, busted down, dreary, depressed looking structures which have been sitting there since I was a child, doing absolutely nothing except rusting and being an eyesore. When a category 4 hurricane passes and rips the decades old galvanise off those buildings and turns them into projectives, do you know what we will say? There’s no way we could have anticipated that. 

We have derelict structures up and down our city that are fire hazards and eyesores and no effort is made to deal with the problem on a serious basis. St. John’s itself is a development disaster. Market Street and its environs are a permanent disaster zone. This ties into the relationship between the DCA and local authorities, such as the SJDC. In most cases, we have no local authorities and no local government. In cases where we do – like SJDC – they are useless or not designed to do what obviously needs to be done.

All over, there ought to be local authorities to later on enforce certain day to day stipulations but that would take us into a whole conversation about local government which we also lack and no one in authority seems to care about. They seem to like it when constituents have to come pleading to them to fix roads and street lights because there is no local government administration in the area, thus forcing people to turn to the MP. Anyway, I digress.

Sixth, we need to address the issue of setbacks in our communities, our main roads, our development centres, etc. We have rampant non adherence to the concept of a setback from the road when building structures. We see all around us, structures going up a few feet from the road on which they are located. It is the norm. Where is the DCA? I’ve seen two new commercial building developments on Friar’s Hill Road up past the sugar mill where builders have paved a concrete driveway / parking space right down to connect to the main road, with little visible provision for water runoff and drainage to accommodate it. The consequence being, that water that runs off of their paved driveway / parking space is  going to run heavily right across the main road and cause some level of flooding or erosion when it collects on the other side. Where is the DCA?

Seventh, we need to address parking and traffic congestion. For example, I see new developments happening on lower Friars Hill Road where builders are still putting their parking lots directly adjacent to the main road, which is likely to continue to cause traffic congestion. The alternative is to build an access road that carries patrons to a parking lot at the back of your property. This is a measure that could be enforced by the DCA. Where are they?

Eighth, we need to address informal vending and shanty structures going up left right and centre. We see shacks of plywood and galvanise erected anywhere and everywhere becoming eyesores and making the nation appear haphazard, unclean, cluttered and disgusting. This is  a highly contentious issue. The people who put these up have good intentions. They are often hard working people trying to make a living and investing what they have in what they can afford. Most people cannot afford a beautiful rented space or to build a nice structure in a suitable location to ply their trade. So they erect a shack. But it’s past time that our (useless) politicians zone specific areas for the development of small roadside enterprises and create solutions to ensure that they are regulated so as to be clean, aesthetically appealing and so on.

We spoke about this on a national level when we had the whole controversy over the demolition of the food shack in Parham in 2022. We need zoned areas of strips where we say we are going to allow a row of roadside vending. We pass regulations to say how many must be located in any particular strip. We ensure that there is an opportunity to park and drive off the road so that the vendors are not literally on the roadside. We give vendors a simple standardized architectural blueprint they can use when getting traders to construct their structure. This is to ensure all structures are uniform and all meet required standards. We provide small vending entrepreneurs with a list of recommended tradesmen who have built such structures. Make it a one stop shop. Empower people. Isn’t that the mantra of these (useless) politicians? So, why aren’t we seeing it happen?

Why can’t we see a programme where the government uses its own land as well as creates an opportunity for private landowners to use their land to facilitate such vending spaces which are clean, organised, inspected regularly, setback far enough from any road, complimented by greenery, parking space, and benches etc, where vendors can play a healthy trade, the government or the land owners can make a modest rent income from the vendors, and the nation doesn’t have to be dotted with nasty run down hot sweaty fry food and BBQ shacks? How long does this have to be a problem before we deal with it? Small vending is nothing new. It is not  a criminal act or a sin. It is a legitimate business activity and a major part of the day to day economy. But there is no reason it has to be dirty, unregulated and haphazard. We can do better, but the political will to act is wholly and completely absent. 

Nineth, we need a DCA that actually protects the environment and fights for green spaces as well. The DCA is far too slow and too nonchalant when it comes to enforcing environmental regulations. Frankly, the DCA ought to have an in-house department that deals with environmental assessment etc. The government needs to reassess its policies as regards development and environmental impact and renew the mandate of the DCA to regulate development, especially in coastal zones, so as to preserve and limit destruction to the environment. Private developments on the coast, whether condos or hotels, tend to raze whatever they find, build right on the waterfront, and erase any access to the beach which locals may have previously enjoyed. Where is the DCA?

Somehow, amazingly, it has not occurred to anyone in authority that our entire coastal zone right around the islands of Antigua and Barbuda and other islands too, needs to be declared a national park. Development of land in this national park zone then needs to be made subject to special regulations that prioritise the maintenance of green spaces, coastal vegetation, marine biodiversity, beaches and public social access to beaches. The state must demand that SETBACK BE ENFORCED. No one says you can’t build on your private land. But the law should say that you cannot build right up on the damn beach, so as to virtually privatise the space. The state must demand that green spaces and vegetation be maintained for the benefit of all. 

And, just like the suggestion of creating zones for small vendors to play their trade, the government ought to use beach land which it does own, to promote the development of low density leisure zones, dotted with businesses that serve the beach going clientele both local and tourist, instead of carting off the land to a developer for them to privatise it and put a Jamaican security guard in a booth to tell us duttyfoot Antiguans we are not welcome. It makes no sense. These are the things I want our DCA to be concerned about. These are the areas where we need to see the DCA empowered to act.

The other thing we have to be concerned about is the mindset of the people we have entrusted to govern. Who in the Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda has any green credentials? Who has a track record in an environmental NGO? Who has studied anything to do with environmental science? Who has demonstrated any sort of concern for conservation and biodiversity as well as our ability as humans to enjoy green spaces and not just concrete? Who? They all seem to smile when the green is erased and concrete is put down. They do not seem to value the concept of conservation at all, or that the social well-being of humans is enhanced by nature and not just by concrete.

Tenth, we have to get serious about disaster preparedness. Putting that aside however, we ought to have a DCA that has a list of approved practices and styles for hurricane proof windows, roofs, and structures. These should be nationally implemented regulations that are stringently enforced, and a system of waivers granted for those structures that will not meet the standards. At least then we would know statistically what proportion of our structures of different types are likely to incur damage from different storms of varying strength. The DCA ought to be empowered to ensure that all critical infrastructure like buildings that house power generation, water production, our hospitals and clinics and our schools, are by necessity hurricane proof and hardened structures. Do they do that? I don’t know. You tell me. 

Are all the buildings that house our RO plants rated to withstand a category 4/5 storm? Or are we going to be begging the international community for drinking water after a hurricane hits, because the roof of the RO plant came off and we somehow thought it was better to spend the money on One Nation each year instead of hardening critical infrastructure? These are the kinds of things a right thinking citizen must consider. Your public officials can afford to send their children to live in Canada and the US if a disaster makes Antigua and Barbuda unlivable, because the right preparations were not made. Where are you children going to go? Hmm?

As we conclude, I reiterate that more than a DCA overhaul, or an overhaul of development control policy, we need a total overhaul of everything. We need a DCA that has a master plan for Antigua and Barbuda which has been hashed out through consultations with urban planning experts, human geographers, civil engineers, economists, public health specialists, and architects. We need a DCA with a renewed legislative mandate that gives it the authority it needs. 

We need a DCA Board where we have a senior urban planner, a senior civil engineer, a non-party affiliated attorney versed in land and development law, representation from the Chamber of Commerce and the Employers Federation, representation from Homeowners associations (if we had such things), representation from the NGO sector (specifically environmental), a senior government environmental officer, a government economist, and other such persons who would appear to have some semblance of a relationship to the issues of our development planning and strategy.

We need a new DCA head, and it needs to be someone with vigour and vision, and a commitment to best practices, and one who has functioned effectively in similar roles before in another country’s context, whether in the Caribbean or beyond. We need measures to deter political manhandling or interference at the DCA in instances where there ought to be none. We need more qualified technical staff at the DCA to actually go about inspecting and administering the authority’s zone’s of control. 

We have a Chief Town and Country Planner (urban planner, assumedly). Do we have a chief civil engineer who consults on the building of instructure nationally, on provisioning for utilities, transportation, and other such things? Do we have a chief architect who helps set policies on what design and appearance characteristics certain structures in certain zones should have, so as to be in keeping with the general theme within a certain area? Do we have a chief disaster resilience engineer who meticulously sets rules and supervises a body of inspectors to deal with earthquake and hurricane building codes? We have a Chief Environment Officer, but that person sits in another department. Do we need a Chief environmental officer in-house at the DCA who supervises a body of inspectors who are trained to assess environmental impact?

We need governance through the DCA. Not politics. Governance. And we need it to supported by common sense development control policy from the government and by mandated collaboration with all relevant agencies. 

Jonathan Willard

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]