The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

The Building Regulations Act, through its Planning Department, sets out the requirements for obtaining a building permit and makes it an offence to commence construction without a building permit. This includes all elements of physical development, from cutting down a tree to building a city. It includes operating a home office to a theme park. To carry out their work, the ministry employs specialists in environmental design called planners, who call on specialists or specialist agencies when necessary. But the key to the success of this process is the fact that the process is the responsibility of the Ministry of Works and that both applications and approvals are through that ministry, even when the decision is the result of specialist advice. More importantly, that ministry is responsible for the relationship with the public on environmental matters.

A recent attempt to placate “activists” in so-called environmental matters has led to the creation of a totally bogus and unproductive agency, one that simply adds to the already heavy bureaucracy in the approvals process. Apparently, this made sense to legislators because they themselves had become accustomed to operating outside the system, essentially approving projects on the basis of their size or national origin. The fact is, however, that the Ministry of Works and its Planning Department are responsible for approving all projects.

Let me be crystal clear. All building projects require environmental assessment. “Environment” includes both the built and the natural environment, and the individuals involved in approving projects must assess both in EVERY application and are trained to do so, as are architects that design the projects. Further, the approvals process presently includes public hearings and discussion where projects are thought to be “sensitive”. These specialists recognise something many members of the public ignore, that it is impossible to construct anything without affecting the environment, both the natural environment and the existing built environment. They also know the effect the present development will have on future development. It is their job to balance these factors in their approvals process. If the legislators feel they are not doing their job to their satisfaction, it is not appropriate to simply create another level of bureaucracy, adding both time and (most likely) cost to the process. We currently complain about an approvals process that takes over four months for a “normal” project, a process that should take a few weeks at most.

The reason the legislators needed to create this new level of inconvenience is simple. Every major project finds itself the subject of public conversations about “environmental impact”. The public believes, erroneously, that environmental assessment is only needed for large or “sensitive” projects, as noted above, a fallacy. Public “experts” mislead the public by making their demands primarily in large, foreign projects, suggesting that the Environmental Assessment process is a special development control device. It is not. Every project must be assessed, as our built environment is a collection of individual approvals, not just the big or foreign ones, and there is an existing agency in place to manage that process if left to do their job. For political reasons only, legislators have compromised that process. As the public demands that they “do something” about their political agreements they have become accustomed to “doing something” about the approvals process. Their current “doing something” is extremely counter-productive. If the process in place is flawed, fix it. Hire specialists or train better planners. Above all, please, please stop adding layers to one of the heaviest bureaucracies on earth (number 120 or so in doing business). The environment consists of both the natural and the built environment, and it is pure folly to think you should administer them separately.

PATRICK RAHMING

Architect

Nassau,

April 26, 2021.