A company connected to Prime Minister Andrew Holness has been accused of deliberate building breaches by the Integrity Commission (IC) in relation to a residential development it has undertaken at 2 Weycliffe Close, Beverly Hills, Kingston 6.

The development, according to the IC, was constructed contrary to the terms of the building permit issued to Estatebridge Holdings Limited, a real estate company connected to Holness.

At the same time, the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) has been chastised by the commission for being negligent in its oversight of the building project, with the commission suggesting that the KSAMC lied when its officers claimed the building permit was being complied with.

The latest controversial investigation report from the IC involving the prime minister was tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

Among those named in the 63-page report is the prime minister’s real estate business partner Norman Brown, who is also chairman of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and former head of the Housing Agency of Jamaica.

The commission’s director of investigations (DI), Kevon Stephenson, concluded that the requisite planning approval and building permit required for the construction of a development, consisting of 4 two-bedroom units were properly issued by the KSAMC to Estatebridge on July 12, 2021.

The DI also found that the terms and conditions of the building permit which was issued by the KSAMC for the development were breached. The DI’s conclusion is premised on the fact that at the time of the DI’s first inspection, the referenced development consisted of 4 four-bedroom townhouses instead of 4 two-bedroom townhouses, as approved by the KSAMC.

“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,” the investigation report said.

The DI concluded that the inconsistent representations made by Brown and Kennado Nesbeth (the contractor) of KNN Designs and Consultants Limited in respect of the layout and composition of the development were “blatant attempts to mislead the Commission”.

The DI’s conclusion is premised on the following:

(a) Mr Brown indicated in a witness statement, which he signed and in respect of which he made a declaration of truth on December 4, 2023, that the development consisted of 4 four-bedroom townhouses.

According to the investigation report, “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”.

It said Brown later made contrary representations in a Judges’ Rules interview convened on October 31, 2024 after he had been informed that the DI was investigating alleged breaches of the Building Act and the referenced permit and that he was a suspect;

(b)Mr Nesbeth’s, contemporaneous, verbal statement to the DI’s investigators on July 12, 2024, that there were departures from the building permit issued by the KSAMC and that efforts were being made to remedy the breaches. He later denied making this statement; and

(c)the DI’s inspection on July 12, 2024 revealed that the development, as constructed, consisted of four(4) four (4) bedroom townhouses. The DI’s findings are consistent with Mr Brown’s indication on December 4, 2023 as to the number of bedrooms contained in the development.

According to the report, “the DI therefore further concludes that the breaches identified of the building permit on the part of Estatebridge were deliberate”.

The DI’s conclusion was made on the basis that at least one director, Norman Brown, had knowledge prior to December 4, 2023, when he gave a statement to the Commission, that the development consisted of 4 four-bedroom townhouses. It is to be noted that Brown himself stated that he has a supervisory function in relation to the development. He was also described as the director who is “generally responsible for Estatebridge’s business operations”.

The DI also found that Nesbeth either conspired with, or aided and abetted, the directors of Estatebridge, in the commission of the foregoing breach and is thereby equally liable for said breach.

“The DI’s conclusion is premised on the fact that by virtue of Mr Nesbeth’s role as contractor, it is reasonable to infer that he must have been cognisant 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 failed in its duty to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the building permit issued to Estatebridge for the development.

“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,” the report said.

Among other things, the DI has recommended that the Chief Executive Officer of the KSAMC implements additional measures to ensure adherence to the provisions outlined in sections 33 and 34 of the Building Act, in relation to its inspection and post permit-monitoring responsibilities/functions.

He also recommended that the KSAMC conduct an administrative review of its existing compliance regime with respect to building permits issued by that entity. This review should include a capacity assessment, both of the adequacy of the human resources available to the KSAMC for post-permit monitoring of building developments within the municipality’s jurisdiction as well as the technical competencies of the officers responsible for enforcement and compliance.

“Serious consideration should be given to ensuring that the relevant processes are corruption proof,” the report said.

Given the breaches identified in respect of the development, the DI also recommended that the KSAMC make its own assessment of same and thereafter take any actions as are necessary and appropriate to achieve compliance with the Building Act.

The DI also recommended that in light of the breaches, both the prime minister and Minister of Local Government and Community Development should ensure that development occurs within the built environment in a sustainable manner and, as such, should see to the introduction of legislation, which:

(a)imposes pecuniary penalties on developers who willfully violate building and development permits for financial gain. More particularly, profits attributable to breaches should be forfeited. Additionally, developers should also face debarment in respect of planning and development approval for an appropriate time period post breach; and

(b)require collaboration and coordination between the Registrar of Titles, Local Authorities and other germane entities in a way which ensures that titles are not issued for developments which are constructed in breach of planning, building and development permits.”