Poor motive for change in law
“Quot homines tot sententiae:
suo quoque mos.”
(as many men, so many opinions; his own opinion a law to each.)
– Terence, Phormio, II.
THE SPASMODIC CLAMOUR for change of the Town & Country Planning Act as a outdated imitation of the English Act of 1947 is agitated by misinformation, maladministration and ill-advised amendment of the Act as the result of the trite but so true adage, “the bad workman blames his tools”.
The unexpurgated Act Cap 240 passed in 1965, and reluctantly it seemed proclaimed in 1968, has not been observed in professional practice of its principle which addresses a consistent and continuous policy (modernised as sustainable) for regulation of the future use and development of the territory of Barbados.
It is oxymoronic that continuous provision for the future could be out of date.
It is perhaps natural that lawyers should want a change in the law as a convenience as much as planners should want a change in the plan as a product of the law; but the principle on which the Act itself is based is that the guilding policy is not the prerogative of any single individual. It is derived from a legislate consensus formed in deliberation of a Report of Public Inquiry commissioned by a specific Minister into objections and representations in respect of proposals affecting the regulation of the future use of land throughout Barbados.
No more transparency is required of this process for which the Act makes provision. Failure to satisfy and observe these provisions is the cause of the symptoms that generate complaint.
It is not inconsistent with modesty for this letter to draw attention to the Commentary on Principle of Town & Country Planning in Barbados (1959-2014) as an informative exposition of anomalies and remedies frequently misinterpreted as held in public discussion monitored by the author in public office and private practice in Barbados since February 18, 1964.
– LEONARD ST HILL