At least seven multi-storey residential proposals were halted in 2025 by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), signalling a tougher stance from the building authority as Kingston’s land squeeze continues to push developers to test density limits.

A Jamaica Observer review of NEPA board decisions throughout the year shows that seven residential developments were refused in 2025, up from five in 2024, with the bulk of the refusals concentrated in Kingston and St Andrew.

Six of the seven rejected projects are located in the capital and its immediate surroundings, which is also where planning tensions are now most pronounced, given the city’s land constraints and rising property values. With little undeveloped land left in Kingston and apartment units commanding premium prices, developers have increasingly sought to extract more value from smaller parcels by pushing density, plot ratios and unit counts.

In 2025, the clearest illustration came from Kingston 6, where one developer sought approval for two high-density housing projects – one with 78 units and the other 82 units – across two separate sites at 8 Dillsbury Avenue and 24 Dillsbury Avenue in Jack’s Hill area.

But NEPA shut both proposals down in December, ruling that the developments were “premature and overintensive” and concluding that they “cannot be supported at this time as the standards for development in this locale have been exceeded.” The agency also pointed to density levels and plot area ratios that were well above what had already been approved for the area.

The review of refusal notices showed that the agency isn’t leaning primarily on procedural gaps or missing documentation. Instead, applications were largely being rejected for breaching core planning thresholds including excessive densities, plot area ratios well above approved limits, unresolved sewage treatment concerns, and sites deemed unsuitable for the scale of development proposed.

Other Kingston and St Andrew refusals point to the above pressure points.

A proposed multi-family development at Russell Heights was turned down after NEPA ruled that the density exceeded what the site could reasonably support.

“The proposed development, with a density of fifty (50) habitable rooms per acre, is considered overintensive and cannot be supported, as it exceeds the maximum allowable density of thirty (30) habitable rooms per acre for this site,” NEPA said in its November decisions.

At Barbican Heights, a residential proposal was refused on both intensity and site-suitability grounds, with the agency flagging steep slopes and fractured limestone formations that made the scale of development inappropriate.

Beyond density, sewage and wastewater management emerged as one of the most consistent deal-breakers. In Arlene Gardens, NEPA refused a housing project at Sunrise Crescent, citing the absence of a viable solution to manage sewage and warning of risks to environmental safety and public health. Similar concerns drove the refusal of a proposed housing development at Pigeon Valley, St Andrew, where no adequate sewage treatment plan was submitted.

Outside the Corporate Area, one residential project at Pitkelleney, Westmoreland, was also refused on sewage-related grounds.

NEPA’s tougher stance unfolded against a backdrop of high-profile legal challenges that placed the development approval process in Kingston and St Andrew under sustained scrutiny.

One of the most significant was the long-running dispute over the apartment project at 17 Birdsucker Drive, Kingston 8. Residents brought judicial review proceedings after Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) granted planning and building permission and NEPA issued an environmental permit for what became a multi-storey development, arguing that approvals had been granted in breach of procedural and statutory requirements.

In December 2020, the Supreme Court found that both KSAMC and NEPA had acted illegally in granting those permits, quashing approvals for the development and ordering authorities to enforce construction stop notices and compliance measures on the site. However, the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the lower court was wrong to quash the environmental permit granted by the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) through its administrative arm, NEPA. The appellate judges also held that the building approval issued by the KSAMC to private developer WAMH Development Limited was valid.

Still, that ruling reverberated through the development community and local authorities, forcing both NEPA and the KSAMC to confront procedural gaps in their building and planning systems.

In the aftermath, KSAMC acknowledged the significance of the court’s findings and moved to tighten its internal permit processes. In July 2025, the municipal corporation said it would introduce measures around building approvals to align with the appeal court’s decision and forestall future legal challenges. The mayor noted that the reforms were aimed at ensuring development approvals respected both the rule of law and proper consultation with affected communities.

NEPA’s stance has not been confined to residential development. During the year the state agency refused a proposed commercial subdivision at Hill Run in Fellowship Hall, St Catherine, ruling that the project would contravene agricultural zoning under the parish development order and pose risks to biodiversity and soil integrity.

A similar stance emerged in St Elizabeth, where NEPA refused an environmental permit for the construction and operation of a slaughterhouse and abattoir at Top Hill. In that case, the agency said no appropriate solution had been put forward to treat trade effluent or control odour, warning that the deficiencies would pose risks to environmental safety and public health. NEPA also refused the associated environmental licences, citing design discrepancies in the wastewater system and the absence of basic parameters for influent and effluent treatment.

A multi-storey apartment development at Birdsucker Drive, Kingston 8, which became the subject of prolonged legal challenges and scrutiny over how planning and environmental approvals were granted. The case has since shaped debate around density, enforcement, and regulatory oversight in established residential communities.