Three housing developers' dreams to provide affordable housing for university students have been dashed by a Supreme Court order for the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation (KSAC) to demolish the unauthorised buildings.

The buildings are at 2-4 University Grove, Elletson Flats, St Andrew.

The KSAC brought an application in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction on the grounds that the landowners had engaged in the development of 30 studio units on the premises without permission from the KSAC.

Supreme Court Judge Ingrid Mangatal, after hearing submissions from the parties, granted an order for the KSAC to demolish the unauthorised buildings by 5 p.m. on January 8 next year.

Landowners Ian Folkes and Collette Allegro Folkes, and attorney-at-law Andrew Willis, who is the major investor in the project, are the defendants.

Wanted to assist with affordable housing

They opposed the application on the grounds that if an injunction was granted, it would put an end to their hopes of assisting hundreds of university students who are seeking scarce and affordable accommodation.

The KSAC said in affidavits that the residents of Golding Avenue and University Grove, St Andrew, expressed concerns in March 2008 about the developments and building operations being carried out by the defendants on the lands.

The community is characterised by mainly single-storey residential homes.

Employees of the KSAC went to the site and noticed that a three-storey building consisting of 30 studio units was being built. On March 30, 2008, the KSAC issued a cease-work notice under the Building Act because no planning permission or building approval had been granted. The notice was ignored and frequent checks revealed that, up to December 2008, the unauthorised construction work was still in progress.

Inspection of the building by the KSAC on December 19, 2008, revealed that the building had several breaches, including poor construction and no emergency exits, which are in breach of the fire code.

The KSAC said it considered the hardship of the defendants, particularly the financial costs of the construction. It said it also considered the negative impact and particularly the physical danger to life and limb associated with the use of a building that might not have been built in accordance with the required safety standards.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com