The People Of Vaucluse Said No To Building A Race Track In Their Area, Member Of Parliament Cynthia Forde Said No & The Chief Town Planner Said No, But The Development Continues Anyway ~ Does Anyone Know Who Said YES!

The following email was submitted by a concerned citizen who resides at Vaucluse, St. Thomas and we have reproduced without any changes to the content. It seems that this is an issue which the sitting MP Cynthia Forde for the area has been unable to resolve. Please note that this communication was also sent to Barbados Free Press and the Nation newspaper.


There are just a few things that motivate me to write publicly. When something is wrong, legally and morally, and it affects your community, should one be quiet, or should one place it before the society? When one has a small successful business in a supposedly also successful, happy Caribbean Island is it right to intervene in a community issue? What gives one the right to fight on behalf of community? People are doing a development at Vaucluse without Town Planning approval. For several years now I have led a campaign (quietly in our area) against the establishment of a race track in an area of Vaucluse Plantation, adjacent to Dukes, and close to the villages of Shop Hill, Christie Village, Dukes, Whitehall and Vaucluse. In the beginning it was due to the noise and the anti-social aspects of such a thing being established. A child was killed on the roadways by a truck, unlinked to the track. My family and I were nearly killed by a drunk driver in a line of traffic coming away from an event at the dirt track a couple of years ago. Now, with the mode of its development I observe a dangerous trend in Barbados, one that we should be extremely wary of.

At Christmas 2005 there was a Town Hall Meeting at Lester Vaughan School, where objections were voiced against retention of the dirt track, and further objections were voiced against a drag strip, and expansion, and paving, as proposed by the developer. Subsequently written objections were sent to Town Planning and the Minister. One of those who spoke out against this track being established was the Honourable Cynthia Forde, M.P. for St. Thomas. Ms. Forde has been a friend of those who are against the track, and has spoken out against it whenever we, the residents of the community, have asked. We mounted a petition, an unfinished petition, in our community and received 300+ signatures, covering half of Shop Hill and Dukes, which were delivered to the Prime Minister and to Town Planning: against establishment of this track, with grounds. Many of us wrote objections, which were never acknowledged, or responded to.

Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.

Thus we see a picture of (on one hand residents, Town Planning and the M.P. for the area Cynthia Forde) speaking out against; and on the other hand we see the owners and developers doing a development without Town Planning approval. Is this OK? Is it legal? Is it morally correct? Should owners be allowed to retain something that has gone against all rules and regulations? Just what kind of people do things this way? The evidence

Attached are 4 Google earth pictures from 2006, showing the area of the track in 2006. As you will observe when you open it and magnify, the track at this time was a dirt track. The track shown was subsequently paved, which you will see in the 2007 Google earth picture in the following link: but even more construction has proceeded in recent weeks. There has been no approval for any development of this track, and it has been at Town Planning for years as an application. Is it OK for people to develop without permission in Barbados? During the last 2 years the people making this track have really gone ahead, by paving, and just this last month they have brought in backhoes, bulldozers, rollers and trucks. They are making real roads on this site.



I called Town Planning’s enforcement division on October 3, 2007 when I saw the heavy machines working, and they sent an officer to stop them, but they did not stop. I called again a day later, and they sent an order for them to stop, but they did not. I called Ms. Forde, who called Town Planning. By this time everyone was telling them to stop, and do you know what they did? They did not stop. Yesterday, November 9 2007 I took photos of heavy equipment working at the site, and I took pictures of roads they have made during the past month. I am sending these in another email after this one. From these photos, and looking at the Google Earth images you can PROVE that work is being done, and you can PROVE the time when it was done, and you KNOW that they do not have Town Planning approval. The pictures of the machines working show roads that are NOT ON GOOGLE EARTH- they are brand new!!!




We the residents said ‘No’. Town Planning said, ‘No’. Minister Forde said, ‘No’. The only person left who can say ‘No’ is the Prime Minister. Will they listen to him and stop?
I have lived in Barbados for 40 years, requesting and being granted citizenship in this special island. I have always believed that Barbados, above all countries in the world, was a place where one was safe from victimisation, where one was protected by the upstanding legacy of our heritage. I thought that all were equal in Barbados under the law. Today I ask a simple question: Are we the special place I thought we were, or not?

Thank you


U. Goodenough

Related Article

Is The Town Planning Office Of Barbados Delivering Its Mandate?

207 thoughts on “The People Of Vaucluse Said No To Building A Race Track In Their Area, Member Of Parliament Cynthia Forde Said No & The Chief Town Planner Said No, But The Development Continues Anyway ~ Does Anyone Know Who Said YES!

  1. Frankology I am sorry you misled me and others with the intent of your message it appeared you had some knowledege of something relative to the matter that was negative to Goodenough but it appears it was only a rambling comment, I thought you were making a meaningful contribution on the subject.
    Seems to me that the purpose was to threaten in the hope he would shut up!!
    Round 1 to Goodenough.

  2. I am not a politician but merely a citizen that has had enough of this nonsense of stealing and corruption and fooling of the masses with razzmatazz, and fireworks, I have chosen to speak out about the state of affairs taking place in this island.
    I am just like you and so many others, simply a peaceful Bajan trying to own a piece of this rock for my children and their children’s children.
    Trying to avert further disaster coming to this lovely island by further stealing and further corruption.
    I would love to see what you have.

  3. OK
    I have now found a way. Check some pretty bad camera videos, but here’s preliminary evidence. Remember, the DVDs show a chronological sequence of events during the months of October and November.

    You’ll be surprised to see the extent of what is going on

    This is no tiny thing place for boys to play. This is a HUGE illegal development. Why are the authorities silent? It is not right.

  4. How can you be misled when I told the BU family I am awaiting concrete evidence with information regarding a feud/vendetta between these two wealthy St. Thomas residents? This I am still awaiting so WIV open your neutral brains and forget your political agenda and stop being sidetrack by pathetic writers. From the beginning of this post, your mind was made up that everything within is the gospel, although I asked questions up top of questions for facts regarding the issuing of orders by the TPD and received stupid excuses and up to now this writer failed to garnish this post with a copy although he made statement of copies in circulation. You must deal with the primary caused which is missing and stop dealing with someone taking pictures on a daily basis to substantiate his personal disapproval.
    I realise that you will be meeting this writer, and I hope you get the facts along with your observation of the location of Dukes on the North and Shop Hill on the south. While you are there, check with the people by the Sanitation Department depot west of Vaucluse and ask them if noise emits from the race course.

    Now to Ms Goodenough, your mind is so set in getting out your vendetta that you failed to see that I was submitting research after reading your posts. I am still adamant about those orders from the TPD, thus your statement from your post of “You’re chronologically challenged, but you are slowly learning. You aren’t disputing existence of the petition any more though? ”
    Read your 2006 letter to the Nation and tell me where in this letter is anything about “Stop Orders”. I await your answers.

    This is the first time I know of any injunction with this race course until you made your postings which I read and found many doubts regarding the validity of facts. All my research was done based on your statements.

  5. Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.

    So you are still waiting concrete evidence with information regarding a feud/vendetta between these two wealthy St. Thomas residents? This I am still awaiting.

    Nevertheless you opt to threaten the writer by stating Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.


    If you are still seeking or looking for this evidence how can you threaten to disclose something you do not have?

    That was simply my point you issued threats that were uncalled for!!!

  6. Goodenough, you could have substantiate your posting by taking videos of the houses in close proximity of the race tracks, not equipment and marl. You will have about twelve houses to the south of track and you are not a resident. The other houses are so far that you would be unable to to see one single house top. Deny those facts.

  7. Did BU state it have information regarding Operation Free Flow on October 21, 2007.

    We promised yesterday to deliver the latest decisions to be made regarding the 3S project. We have to reverse our decision because of the possibility that our sources maybe compromised. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the BU family.

    Only neutral and honest people would use this line. The others with agenda, will babble and include innuendos and deceit to get over a point. Not me, I wait and do research before I write simply, because I hate lies.

  8. Watch Barbadians break the law. They have no planning permission.
    Everyone in Barbados should go to this link and see for themselves. It is wrong!

  9. Thanks, Frankology. I guess that taking the time to research the Nation archives means that you do not have an agenda. I guess that 30 out of 109 contributions to this blog also do not indicate an agenda. Thanks for putting me straight.

  10. David, I must say that the BU based on my observation is a fairer player dealing with issues. You ensure that blogs and submissions are not too one-sided, and you ensure commenters published information that can be substantiated, we know some might fall thru the shoot. Keep up your good work.

  11. U.Goodenough please record your DVD footage on Google video. You will need to open a gmail account we think.

    When you are finish send us the links.

  12. Peltdownman, I always wanted to be a lawyer but due to financial constrains and being within a single parent, my ambitions went thru the door. This is the reason I do lots of research before writing in these blogs. Thanks for following my progress within this blog. This is the last time I will tell you, I have no agendas, political, religious or personal, I am simply, the devil’s advocate. Neutral and jus’ lovin’ it.

  13. We are hearing of Enforcement Orders being delivered, but people, we have a slight problem. When an enforcement order is being enforced, the TPD would have been accompanied by officer(s) of The Royal Barbados Police Force. Check with the Belle Zone 1 water issue.

  14. Once again i have to refer readers to where a lengthy discussion on Motorsports took place. I came to the conclusion then that a lot of the confusion and controversy surrounding motorsports, starts from a position of class and colour. This does not take away from some of the legitimate concerns raise by citizens from time time, the evidence in some case demonstrated the validity, of the complaints. What i notice on one occasion after there was several complaints made during a staging of an event, was a concerted effort by the motorsports organizers to address all those concerns. I have since then been of the view that they have demonstrated a willingness to come to the table with concern citizens to address differences and issues. This current controversy isn’t about motorsport, it is about constructing something without permission and as Frank, and noname and others are saying, it should be easy to prove if the construction is occuring without permission.

  15. The first link you sent from Barbados forum contained a blogger who said in 2004 that Vaucluse was told NO.

    No means NO.

    This blog is not solely about whether it is illegal or not, but this plays a huge part in showng up the way these things get forced down good and innocent peoples’ throats.

    1) We have objected to the plans as is our right, and we have not been answered. That is a valid point.

    2) They have developed a racetrack illegally, and by God they should not have done that because if allowed they have legalised crime in Barbados.

    All hail the newly indoctrinated 18,000 criminals, screaming and drinking at their illegally constructed venue on November 30!

    God bless our criminal heritage!

  16. Adrian Hinds

    it should be easy to prove if the construction is occuring without permission.
    It should be even easier to produce the permit, if permission has been granted. Let’s face it, it’s the developers who are being accused here. Once they produce the TCP permit to develop the land as a motor racing track, then everything we have been arguing about will be history. I suspect that it will be difficult to see a copy of any stop order, if it exists, as it will take a brave man in TCP to take the risk of producing it.

  17. Please let the public know if you above person. “Yes” is three letters and “No” is just two. We await your speedy reply.

    Remember you said you was dealing with this issue from 2000.

  18. The fact that it can only be dated after the work has been undertaken would then be the proof in the promise, would it not? Our leaders would never do this to us.

  19. Hi Frank
    Strange, I can’t seem to recall whether I have a middle name or not. Guess no might be the answer, but I’m not sure.

    I know there are lots of Goodenoughs around. We have a whole village at Dukes.

  20. U.G. You seems to be a stranger from the truth, possibly, this might be an evolutionary affair, thus, the difficulty in getting simple information from you, since you prefer to doctored vital information. I done with this issue for now. I am doing some research.

  21. Glad to hear it. The deeper you look, the more you will find.

    But while doiong research don’t forget to check these 2 links to show some of the illegal work presently being done at the site, these ones from Nov 10 I think, but recent work going back to Oct 3.

    Happy Independance in advance to one and all, criminals and lawfuls.

  22. What do these videos have to do with anything? You have been repeatedly asked for some kind of proof as to the existence of a stop order, and so far none has been forthcoming.

    All these videos show is construction work being carried out. This work – without the confirmation of a stop order being given – could VERY well be 100% LEGAL!

  23. U. Goodenough we are afraid that we agree with 4more and others. Unless you introduce the stop order or some official document which supports your claim this story may well end up in the toilet. Just showing the videos and talking about illegal construction going on may not be good enough.

  24. David, I am asking you, Frankology, Adrian Hinds et al to let us know how you would go about obtaining a copy of the stop order. Better still, if it’s that easy, why don’t you try and get a copy yourselves?

  25. peltdownman there is the obvious reason why we cannot pursue your request.

    There is also the answer that the onus is always on the person bringing the charge to produce the overwhelming evidence.

    We have provided a voice for U.Goodenough

    We think we have done our part. We can go further and say we called the T&C tel# 246 467 3000 and asked to be transferred to a Town Planner but the phone rang and rang and rang.

    We called back to ask the receptionist about the stop order but she again firmly directed us to one of the ringing phones at the T&C department. It would be good if one of our many readers with the contacts can call and put this matter to bed.

  26. David this was my suggestion from the very start that Frankology who is renowned for his research work may have taken the bull by the horns and contacted the TCP department and gotten to the bottom of this.

  27. Does Anyone Know Who Said YES!

    David, this is your headline. It doesn’t ask “Who said NO?”

  28. As far as I’m concerned, whoever levels the charges must also obtain the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty my friend.

  29. The facts:

    Stop order/stop orders have been delivered to the owner of said area.

    Enforcement order/ enforcement orders have been delivered to owner of area.

    As far back as 2000.

    Residents have submitted objections.

    Owner has developed without Town Planning permission.

    Let the owner come forward and explain the rationale as to the development activity in October and November; the development in the year before 906/07) of paving the track.

    In the Utube links I have proven to you that development is going on. That’s your elephant. No amount of smoke or mirrors can make it disappear now.

    It’s ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!

    If this project is allowed anyone can do anything in Barbados. Lawyers may use obfuscation, but the facts are the facts.

    And those are the facts. You can try and bring some ‘false facts’ but Illegal is Illegal is illegal. I’ll continue to speak the truth for as long as I live.

    Come and beat me now. I will never stop fighting for right in Barbados for as long as I live. Let Bajans decide where Barbados is going, and choose who is right, we or you.

    And let Bajans decide what kind of Island we will be going forward into the future, wicked and lawless as against upstanding and lawful.

  30. Not sure what you are talking about. Do you know something? An ‘enforcement’ order or a ‘stop’ order? Also which ones do we refer to? In which of the years?

    Speaking of police officers though, we understand that the Royal Barbados Police Force is required to police any events held in Public. And the Chief Magistrate is required to grant a licence to sell alcohol.

    If anyone is saying that instructions by Town and Country Planning can been disregarded, and that they may be using some kind of technicality to do so, then we call upon these institutions to DENY any APPLICATIONS by evaders of the law, and invaders of our residential area.


  31. Jeff,

    Maybe we need a race track.

    Maybe it is a great place to go.

    But, tell us:

    How much money it brings?

    How it brings the money?

  32. Professor U. W. Goodenough, you are trying to pretend that you are one of our sisters with lesser educational trying to gain empathy from the public , thus, your behaviour of not understanding what is an ‘enforcement order’. This is not a bajan legal jargon, it is a universal legal instrument used to retard any activity that is illegal. A uniformed police officer usually accompany officers of the TPD whilst issuing these said orders.

    One week gone and you fail to present one single copy of the enforcement order, although you said copies were circulated.

  33. You can quote smoke and mirrors all you want… The only smoke around here is the smoke you are trying to blow up everyone’s – – –

  34. it if the track owners do the right thing
    it will bring RACER FROM all over

    the country to the area they need a hotel to stay at a gas station a resterant

    and all that good stuff no including

    the estimated 8.000 or so fans in the seats

    all that together will be way over the millon doller mark

  35. With regards to the money brought into the country by motorsport: Rally Barbados sees ~30 foreign competitors arrive every year to the island. Each competitor ships a car, a crew, family, friends and equipment. They stay in hotels and rent local houses, they eat at restuarants in the area, they go on trips and typically stay for a fortnight or more making the most of the island’s facilities. All in a typically quiet time of year for tourism. Similarly, the event brings in thousands of fans who further utilise local facilities puring more money into the economy.

    Last year Vaucluse Raceway held an international event for RallyCross and this had a similar effect with a full compliment of the world’s finest machinery being shipped across the Atlantic.

    The money being brought in is of no question and is a documented, acknolwedged benefit to the ecomomy.

    While motorsport has some detractors who see it as elitist or encouraging problems on the roads, this is always a myth perpetuated by those who have never taken the time to look at it any more closely than a passing glance at a loud modified car on the road.

    The sport is followed by, supported by, entered by and maintained by all levels of class, color and creed. In fact, it’s one of the wonderful few places where class, color and creed are completely irrelevant as the only things people really care about are skill and talent.

    Similarly, the problems on Bajan roads are not brought about by those who compete in motorsport. They are brought about by generic idiots who would be doing what they are doing regardless of background activities.

    The ‘international’ racing events held at Bushy Park are immensely popular with the fans, but only at a more regional level with competitors, as the facility is nowhere near the standard required to attract geniune international competitors.

    If Barbados had a high grade motorsport facility (be it at Bushy Park or Vaucluse, or both) it would attract futher foreign competitors, further foreign money, further tourism income and help further nurture the island’s own innate motorsport talent which has had to make do with canefields, broken race tracks and minor intermittment investment.

    And no, I am not an investor at Vaucluse or in anyway associated with the facility. I am a motorsport fan who would like to see the island and the island’s God-given talent get the facilities and coverage it deserves.


  36. Hello
    Not sure if I’m educated or uneducated. Some and some maybe. Hello, ,and happy Monday.

    Over the weekend the areas of the track were rolled by a steamroller. I have pictures of the steam roller, the track, and I shall send them to Barbados Underground and Barbados Freepress after posting this.

    This arrogant and high-handed behaviour is just another signal that our democracy in Barbados is under threat. These peole think they can do anything they want. And still we see the posters of the friends and supporters who cannot seem to understand:

    It’s ILLEGAL.

  37. I’ve read this all with some interest, and though it really doesn’t matter to me either way whether vaucluse is expanded or not, simply in the interest of a good logical debate I must say that U. Goodenough seems to be intentionally ignoring the fundamentals; either that or they are quite dense. No one has disputed that flouting laws of the land cannot be condoned. Not a single person, not even Frankology. Forgive the caps, but UG seems unable after so many posts to understand this basic concept, so I’m hoping to make it clearer: PICTURES OF CONSTRUCTION DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS ILLEGAL. A roller being illegally used looks… well… the same way it would if it were being used for a legal purpose. Reading their myriad cries of “I have DVDs of contruction” and “Look! Look! A bulldozer bulldozing!” was only slightly less painful than being kicked in the nuts.

  38. No, from burning the DVDs of your illegal activities and delivering them to the PM, Town Planning, Hon Cynthis Forde, and the media!

    It’s a job bringing out the truth to Barbados.

  39. What are you burning DVDs for? The activity – legal of otherwise – is not being hidden. It’s not to say they’re doing it under the cover of darkness, with armed security to keep out ‘prying eyes’.

    If everything is illegal then CBC, TCP, and Cynthia Forde can go at any time and see for themselves! You are making it out to be a huge job, when in reality it isn’t.

    And by the way… MY illegal activities? I’ll tell you one thing – if I had anything to do with Vaucluse I would have provided the proof needed to shut you up a LONG time ago!

  40. 4 DVDs of construction activity at Vaucluse have now been delivered to Town Planning, To the Minister responsible, to Hon Cynthia Forde, MP for St. Thomas, and to the media.

    These DVDs are absolutely definitive. There is absolutely no doubt as to the location of the site as one blogger suggests, because you can easily see if you look at the site. Similarly, the pictures of the roller on this blog show the flag poles at the gate of the area, and the roller going out of it. They define the location and ther extent of the works undertaken.

    What we see on the DVDs starts and is dated October 3 2007. The most recent submission is November 19, 2007 with the exit of the roller. We see the most recent start of the most recently undertaken work, with the backhoes and excavators digging into soil, removing it. Then the backhoe changes to a large rock cutting excavator and cuts into the rock underneath. After this we see trucks delivering marl to the site, backhoes loading trucks, dumping it into the areas worked on. Then we view bulldozers pushing and making marl into the cut areas, and lastly we see the roller leveling and compacting the surface.

    This work started on October 3, 2007 and has spanned the last month and a half up until the present.

    They have no planning permission still

    We have been blogging about this, and I wish to reiterate that these DVDs are definitive. What is most depressing is that instead of highlighting this illegal activity, the Barbados news media has chosen to highlight in a different fashion:

    Barbados Advocate Sunday Nov 11, 2007:

    “Weather Proofing for Rallysprint track at Vaucluse, by Cory Greaves”

    No more mud and clay will be on the racing surface at the Vaucluse Raceway when the 2008 Rallysprint Cup rolls off next year. That is what chairman of the Vaucluse Raceway Motorsports Club (VRMSC); Greg Cozier said they have planned at the prize-giving ceremony at the Barbados Clay Target Shooting Association’s (BCTSA) Clubhouse at Searles recently.
    “The surface will be compacted and semi-sealed with the secret Rally sprint formula”, said Cozier in the closing remarks
    “Cozier said that there are plans to also have motorcross, which is circuit racing for rally cars, once again at the facility”
    “There are plans to upgrade the surroundings of the facility, but expansion of the track is not one of them…”

  41. Well, we have DVDs proving the expansion of the track, the widening of the track, the digging and marling and rolling; and we therefore question this and ask, “Is it true, the above?”

    Residents of the area again note the illegality of what has been transpiring, and again want the general public to know. We came to the Barbados Underground, and the Barbados Freepress not because they are political affiliates, but because our efforts to tell the public the truth are being suppressed.

    We again thank these two blogs for supporting freedom of expression in Barbados. We are strongly supportive of democracy, of legality, of righteousness and truth.

    We have been unable to unable to source justice in our cause, voices in the wilderness. We note the tendency of affairs in Barbados towards the backroom, at the expense (in this case) of the vested residents of the area, and we are trying fervently to make the powers at large realize that big money is not always where it is at. There is more to Barbados than bulldozing and steam-rolling the common citizen. We support a cause of righteousness.

    Let the truth be known, and let Barbados compare our cause with the affairs of their own experience in Barbados, and within their own neighbourhoods. One would never ever call for disobedience, even in the case of such a vexatious stain on our community, and so we only ask Bajans to compare: compare to the hundreds of community issues we all have going in our villages and in our newspapers.

    Compare and learn how it is for the lower form of life in Barbados. Is this how Bajan democracy functions? If so, is this really democracy, when selected individuals are allowed to blatantly break our laws, and the instructions of our institutions, and be ratified at some later date? They have no permission to do these things. Why should any of us obey the law anymore…they don’t. And this is what THEY teach you today, not I. They show all of us why we may now be justified to break the laws…and THEY show us the motivation that could conceivably justify each and every crime committed by anyone, and can conceivably be utilized as a precedent in a defense case, and why it should be exonerated and dismissed. It is because our role models have taught us to be so, from bottom right up to the top.

    More facts to come.

  42. And don’t forget
    There is still the issue of the flood on the road created years ago, making Dukes road impassible. That is to prevent to road being used and to make it easier to justify the plan for closing it off for a drag strip.

    They have refused to rectify it, even though THEY created it.

    Justice, who will bring us justice? They do wickedness…

  43. You have three posts one after the other, and none of them contains any substance regarding ‘enforcement orders’. This is the crux of the matter, we are not dealing with a progress report, we are dealing with the subject matter; Did TCP actually delivered, or posted on the property, or circulate any ‘enforcement orders’ to the developer?
    I think this discussion needs closing, since the writer deliberately avoiding questions of the validity of his statements.

  44. In a word, the answer to this is ‘yes’. They were issued in August 2000.

    I made a point to contact Town Planning and was told that these are not available to the general public, but that they exist.

    I am working on bringing the general public more facts that are attainable. May I suggest you confirm these things if you doubt my word. The application number is 2363/10/2000C

  45. The writer is clearly an uneducated human who doesn’t seem to understand the arguments put forward to him.


    All the DVDs you seem to be able to record so well are doing nothing to help your case on this forum. We still demand proof. Some modicum of proof as to your allegations of the existence of a TCP stop order.

  46. The writer is clearly an uneducated human who doesn’t seem to understand the arguments put forward to him.
    Don’t be fooled, this writer U.G. is no fool, she is highly educated and wealthy individual, using psychology to play on the minds of the unsuspected reader.

  47. You have asked what I am, but I cannot allow you to say that I am manipulating. Why don’t you call Town Planning, as a popular blogger recommended to you?

  48. August 2000 is over SEVEN YEARS ago!

    Stop orders can be given for any infraction, large or small. Paperwork not filed properly, not enough parking designated, unsatisfactory public bathroom facilities, etc, etc, etc.

    IF such an order exists, we need to see it to know what it was issued for. And a seven year old stop order does not constitute ‘proof’ to me. We need to see something more up-to-date.

  49. The proper protcol for a town planning apllication is to wait on the consideration and approval.

    While waiting maybe it would be nice if you went and helped clear the cow itch, and get rid of that water that stops traffic next to the track.

    You have the application number, go check for yourself. You are fast to berate people, and to call me a liar. We both know who is lying, however.

  50. I don’t need to check. I’m not the one whose panties are in a bunch about it.

    I’m still not accepting that a SEVEN YEAR OLD application number that YOU SAY is connected with the facility in question, is proof!

    Silly question, but, have you ever tried speaking to anyone in connection with the facility regarding your concerns?

  51. Wow, you come on mad for someone who presses their panties.

    2363/10/2000C is the application under consideration. Indeed, that’s the one. There can be no excuse for breaking the law.

  52. UG. Did you meet with the popular blogger with the 8 o’clock meeting, and did you show him the ‘enforcement order?

  53. The meeting was to share DVDs. I though you were the invitee. Unfortunately no one showed up. Wish you had though. Anytime you may request this you can have copies.

    Another thing is puzzling me about this application, and I hope you may be in a position, or maybe someone else who is reading on Barbados Underground.

    2363/10/2000C is a year 2000 application for “retention of existing track”.

    Since there have been numerous documented developments, roadworks and improvements, after the (disputed by yourself, but existing) stop and enforcement orders, I want to ask the question:

    Can a developer apply for a retention in 2000 and go on to do huge improvements 2001-2007?

    I’m really not sure about this and want to ask a question to informed readers.

    Can anyone out there elaborate?

  54. I just sat here and read every comment. I came to a few conclusions. One- Frankology can rival David Ellis of Brasstacks fame. (I love David Ellis so you can take it as a compliment) Two-Who or what U. Goodenough is, is irrelevant, the person is just not understanding what is being asked for here. Three- You are all typical Bajans- opinionated as hell. It would be real funny if it was not true.
    These blogs appear to me to be the cyberspace equivalent of Brasstacks, but a little worse since more intolerance comes through. I guess that is because they have to protect the Starcom station from lawsuits. These blogs on the other hand seem to have no such restraints.
    Nevertheless Frankology, I salute you. What a pity the society needs so much anonymity. What does that suggest about our supposed freedom? A joke eh?

  55. There are no fixed structures to knock down, thus the reason that no ‘enforcement order’ would be necessary. Even before this race course, rallies use these tracks which has been widen for over 40 years, so you don’t have any ‘change of use’. Having a plantation sounds good, but the thousands of dollars you have to pay in taxes, utilities, workers, rotation of crops, manure and other cost related items would bankrupt anyone within a flash. This is the reason the calypso song “I want a Plantation” sounds good, but in reality, Forget it.

    By the way, Vaucluse is on a Zone 4 area and not a Zone 1 area as contended by Polly on November 12. This is his quote “Secondly, the company hired by Vaucluse Raceway Project to conduct an Impact and Environmental study listed concerns about the impact of waste on our water given that Vaucluse is a Zone 1 for water collection.”

    Absolute lies, even if the race course is on a Zone 1, what about Mangrove Landfill just below it. This is the reason we must get our facts right.

  56. So all you claim to have knowledge about is an application for retention of the existing track?

    What about all the stop orders you initially preached about? What about the possibility that the organisers/owners have since received further permissions?

  57. Well, all this small voice can say is that it sometimes feels as if one is being thrown to the lions. The tactics of blogging/bloggers are new- it’s a new medium. Things like red herrings, personnal attcks, claims that your information is untrue all factor in, and a new reader is often mislead. I agree with comments made by a poster yesterday in part. I am not a professional blogger (IANAPB).

    The application being considered 2363/10/2000C is a year 2000 application for “retention of existing track”.

    There were stop orders and enforcement orders issued on it in August 2000.

    Additionally I asked the question yesterday, but as yet have received no response:
    Can a developer apply for a retention in 2000 and go on to do huge improvements 2001-2007? How?

    But as yet no one has addressed this. Come back please?

  58. A citizen went to Town and Country Planning to represent the residents.

    In order to receive copies of the ‘stop’ orders and ‘enforcement’ orders one has to write to the Chief Town Planner. Requesting a recipt for the letter will result in one’s being told that it will be posted.

    These orders exist, and calling me a liar is only a red herring.

    Anyway, there is more:

    When one goes to the desk and requests re applications, one is allowed to see the applications, who they are for, and whether or not a decision has been made.

    2363/10/2000C is a ‘retention’ as follows, and as truly bespoke by me:
    ” Retention of the following: exti9nguishing of approximately 1556M of dirt road, establishment of 1682M of dirt road, with berms, upgrading of existing bridge to facilitate agricultural and motorsport activity.”

    Decision— “blank”
    I was informed that a blank decision section means no decision has been made.

    But there is more, because you are there, and the staff at TCP is very efficicient and helpful. We discovered that there was another application
    “Change of use from agricultural to recreational.”
    Decision— “blank” (no decision)

    I do not enjoy pointing out that there have been untruths purveyed. I would, however, like to point out that the “big lies” referred to above seem to be contained within the same body of a certain bloggers research.

    Anyone can go to Town Planning, quote these numbers, and be shown the same things.

    I want to comment further on the description of these applications, but this is already getting too long.

  59. Come on Miss, you are looking back 6 years ago, this is 2007. You have not identify any ‘enforcement orders’ within your above statement. The same way the person was shown applications, the same way you would have seen ‘enforcement orders’.
    You are the one who is affected, and it should be you to do the submission for those difficult to locate orders.

  60. May I remind you that you are dealing here with residents whose lives have been damaged and whose lives will continue to be damaged; their land values will be lost. Who will compensate them for this and the loss of their rights to enjoy the peace and quiet? I pray to God that someone somewhere, someone who will help us, is listening and understanding.

    Listen up for a minute:

    1) You said yesterday at 7PM, “There are no fixed structures to knock down, thus the reason that no ‘enforcement order’ would be necessary”.

    An enforcement order and stop order have been issued, and the developers did not respect it, they ignored it and went their own way, against the law.

    2)You said, “Even before this race course, rallies use these tracks which has been widen for over 40 years, so you don’t have any ‘change of use’ “.
    The description of application 2264/09/01C is evidence that a change of use is in fact mandatory. Otherwise it would not be on the books. Were the 7PM words true?

    Furthermore, in saying ‘has been widened over 40 years’ your words contradict the application 2363/10/2000C which describes itself as extinguishing of the cart roads and establishment of separate DIRT roads. I note you and probably others have said this many times. Tell a lie 100 times and it turns into the truth? DIRT, not marl and bulldozers!

    3) You say the water runoff from the area is the same as Mangrove Pond. Well let me tell you a little something about this area, speaking as someone who has lived in it for a lifetime: The water runoff from Mangrove Pond, the surface water, goes west. The water runoff from the site goes down the hill south, and ends up in our water catchment area. They turn off Bowmanston when it rains because of the surface water turbidity. Please don’t tell me or Polly, we know, we live here.

    Forgive me, I am angry. We are human people, and this is our home.

  61. By the way, Vaucluse is on a Zone 4 area and not a Zone 1 area as contended by Polly on November 12. This is his quote “Secondly, the company hired by Vaucluse Raceway Project to conduct an Impact and Environmental study listed concerns about the impact of waste on our water given that Vaucluse is a Zone 1 for water collection.”
    Which part in this statement is dealing with water runoff. My statement is and I will repeat. Vaucluse is within the Zone 4 area. Mangrove which is just below Vaucluse is also in the Zone 4 area. This comparison was to dismiss Polly’s claim in his November 12 post of Vaucluse situated on a Zone 1 table.

  62. You are repeating those weak points that not even your sympathisers who were backing you in the earlier posts, realise your weak submission. I was trying to get the real facts from you, but you refuse to let the commenters see the so-called ‘enforcement orders’ that you keep talking about, but fail to present.

  63. Frankology, 4morevalves, forget the enforcement orders and stop orders. Forget about the millions and millions of dollars in foreign exchange the so called Vaucluse Raceway has earned and will earn and on and on ad nauseum. All red herrings.

    The question is whether the developer has Town & Country Planning permission to carry out this development, plain and simple. If he is proceeding without it, he is breaking the law.

    Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.

    Contrary to your suggestion, Goodenough’s submissions are strong.

    Goodenough, you do know that the decision on this application lies with the prime minister and not the Town Planner? Once it is over 2 acres of agricultural land the decision is out of the Town Planners hand.

    Your Parliamentary representative should,be talking to the PM. The residents of the area should hold a Town Hall Meeting, invite the press, Parliamentary Representative, Town Planning Department etc. make sure you record everything at the meeting.

    The silly season is here and the time is right.

  64. Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
    A Town Meeting was held already and only a few people attended. All the above were present, so come again Waterboy. Deal with the statement of Zone 4, the ‘enforcement order’ that never was. Yes, applications are within the TCP. Not ‘enforcement orders’ because non were issued. So where are the strong submissions. You mean innuendos.

    Another thing Waterboy, you seems intelligent and you might have seen many instances involving the TCP with ‘enforcement orders’. Have you ever see an enforcement minus the presence of a Police Officer?

  65. This is a simple question to Ms. Goodenough. If the developer was building high-end villas, encompassing a well laid out golf course and who’s who purchase these homes. Would you be here dealing with ‘enforcement orders’ or ‘noise and the anti-social aspects’ base on your cries?

    Am I hearing a soft Yes! You and only you are against this race course and that is my observation. My case close. When I see the orders, I will apologise for my arrogance.

  66. This is a simple question to Mr. Frankology (again).

    Does the developer have Town & Country Planning permission to carry out this development, plain and simple? If he is proceeding without it, he is breaking the law.

    Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.

    Stop wasting time talking about enforcement orders, villas, golf courses, and how many people attended a town hall meeting etc. etc.

    Who cares about enforcement orders? Either they have permission to develop or they don’t!

    By your admission above “Yes, applications are within the TCP.” So what is the outcome? Have they started to develop without permission? Have they no regard for the rule of law?

    Once again go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.

  67. Ms. Goodenough, what about my question regarding anyone speaking to those in charge of the Vaucluse facility? Would that not be the first step to take if you had concerns regarding noise, water pollution, etc?

    More importantly, did you attend either of the two town hall meetings to do with the racetrack? If you, did you raise any of your questions, and were they properly answered?

    If the Prime Minister has to make decisions regarding land over 2 acres, might that not be why the information from TCP seems so vague?

  68. Abusive 4 valves: we were not asked.
    Abuse of the Barbados laws?
    Youo never talked to us. Shall we now come to beg you?

    Frankology, half a mind to go back and correct all te mistakes in every one of your posts, but showing up a simple 3 in one short post is probably sufficient.

    David, I think there may be a strange occurrence on this thread. I don’t believe that Wishing In Vain today at 6.10 AM post is real. I have a comment to make that is not reactive to the abuse, but is it possible to check the source, and if it is not a true post, please remove it? We support making points making real points, not fake ones. We reaffirm we are not at all politically partisan, but we do recognise cursing when we see it. We thank you yet again for the opportunity you are giving us to put our facts forward.

  69. 4morevalves, why does Goodenough have to speak to anyone in charge of Vaucluse?

    What is the relevance of whether he attended the Town Hall Meeting and his questions answered properly?

    There is no “if” about the PM having to make the decision about land over 2 acres. That is a fact. The information given by Goodenough that there has been no decision on the application and hence no approval is not “vague”.

    Either the Vaucluse Raceway developer has approval of their application or they do not. Right now I think we have to believe Goodenough that they do not have permission but they are proceeding illegally. If they had permission you can bet their apologists would have posted the information here.

    Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar. Let us settle this once and for all and stop all the rubbish talk about whether there were enforcement orders or not and whether police accompanied the Town Planning officials. This has no bearing on whether the developer has permission or not.

    By the way the people involved with Vaucluse are the same ones in a joint venture with COW Williams et al in trying to take over Barbados Farms Ltd and their 4000 acres of agricultural land? God help us all if they are in fact proceeding at Vaucluse without permission and they succeed in getting control of BFL.

  70. Wow, took me a while to understand that post. You been drinking this morning?

    I’m not quite sure why your keep saying ‘you’. I have nothing to do with the place. Believe me, if I did, I would have provided the evidence needed to refute your rubbish claims a long time ago!

    It is common knowledge that TWO Town Hall meetings were called. As far as I know notices were hand delivered to residents of the surrounding areas. Both notices were placed in the daily newspapers. I saw them. So just to get this straight, are you SURE you were not asked?

  71. You really figure that EVERYONE in this island knows about this blog? I’m willing to bet that those in charge of the racetrack DON’T know about it.

    And how do you know that those involved with Vaucluse are also involved with ‘COW Williams et all’?

    Another question. IF TCP denied permission for ANY further development, how then were there TWO Town Hall meetings called?

  72. 4morevalves,

    The point is not that they have been denied permission but from what Goodenough has said they do not have permission. They are proceeding unlawfully. Neither you nor Frankology have been able to deny that. And believe it or not I sincerely hope they have permission to develop and Goodenough is wrong. All I am interested in is that it is lawful. It will be another sad day for this country if the law is being breached by brazen acts.

    Town Hall Meetings are part of a process in determining whether the application will be approved, plain and simple. The fact that these meetings were held indicates that up to then they had no permission. Stop bringing in the red herring of “enforcement notices”. Either they have planning permission to develop or they do not.

  73. Once again go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
    I don’t know which submissions you get this information from, but the language based on my checking of the statement from UG is, ‘a resident’ who visited the department.

    Your Parliamentary representative should, be talking to the PM. The residents of the area should hold a Town Hall Meeting, invite the press, Parliamentary Representative, Town Planning Department etc. make sure you record everything at the meeting.
    You write one think and come back and strip up yourself.
    “What is the relevance of whether he attended the Town Hall Meeting and his questions answered properly?”

    Based on 4morevalves statement of two Town Hall Meetings, yet people failed to turn up and ask questions, then tell me. What is the real issue?

    WIV, Waterboy and UG. These are facts, I love research and I love breaking down statements to get facts. I check and here are my findings.

    Under Barbados Law. Anytime an enforcement Order is issued, it is valid for 28 days, that enforcement order must have a police officer present. If an application has been submitted by someone, before or after the fact, an enforcement order becomes null and void. In UG’s argument, the person saw two applications at TCP in 2000 and 2001. He could not see any enforcement orders, because non were issued.

    This is over seven years and not one solid structure is on the compound, improving the land, (remember, there are no structures) is quite legal, because you are abiding by the law.

    I am asking again, UG, let the public know why you are against the racecourse?

    No enforcement delivered, no problem with the Zone 4 water, Two Town Hall meeting and residents failed to turn up, 30 days of tekkin’ pictures. And most of all…NO FACTS!.

    I made my point and dunn wid dat.

  74. We have not been able to deny Goodenough’s allegation that they do not have permission.

    As I’ve said before, I have nothing to do with Vaucluse. I simply know people who compete and help organise some of the events held there.

    If I had something to do with the place, I WOULD prove that permission was granted.

    And we haven’t brought in any ‘red herrings’. The enforcement notices were first brought up by none other than Ms. Goodenough. As she quoted in her OPENING post – “Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.” We simply have repeatedly asked that if they exist, prove it.

    I would sincerely doubt that the reputable companies you all claim are involved would risk moving ahead on such a large venture without some kind of go-ahead being granted.

  75. Water boy, I am aware that the Minister must preside over land more than 2 acres. Also beachland. Yes, thank you for being interested. I’m very sorry that it has no approval- we residents are scared of being swept away by the tide.

    Establishing roads by retention signifies that TCP approval IS required. Asking for a change of use via a second TCP application is evidence that a change of use IS required.

    Bloggers above are working hard to put up a smokescreen but the big brown books at Town and Country Planning tell everyone one the truth. The kind gentleman also told us that all one is able to do is to look at the entries, but that is all you can get- no copies, no confirmations in writing unless you write to the Chief Town Planner.

    2363/10/2000C “Retention of the following: exti9nguishing of approximately 1556M of dirt road, establishment of 1682M of dirt road, with berms, upgrading of existing bridge to facilitate agricultural and motorsport activity.”

    “Change of use from agricultural to recreational (motorsport).”

    Now, onwards.

    Establishing and “extinguishing’ roads by retention is indicative that development occurred without request to TCP in the first place- illegally. Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed. We sarted to complain as the noise and traffic escalated, and we became more aware that this was not recreational.

    That is illegal in the very first place, and that is why we are coming forward to the present in chronological order. To try to show Barbados what has happened and why it is illegal, and why our request is so valid for being upheld.

    We do not wish to destroy anyone. A nearby separate development to Dukes “extinguished” our long established right of passage to Holy Innocents. We would welcome a development close to us, but on the following terms:

    Firstly, the requirements of Town Planning be upheld and respected. In this case namely that St. Thomas is a designated high rainfall agricultural area, and is designated to be conserved for agriculture. That is agricultural policy in Barbados and Town Planning. So this would need to be addressed.

    Secondly, when a development is conceived, the residents’ lands would be considered and integrated as an ASSET to a development. Our villages are proud to have been existing for hundreds of years, and we are good citizens, better neighboursn than many recent immigrants. Rather than making walls and shutting us out as undesireable, we should be empowered by way of additional roads that link us to and within, and through, any site, such that our property values are enhanced and our dignity is increased. Is this wrong conceptually?

    Also, any form of development that policy is changed to facilitate from agriculture should not disturb the enjoyment and peace of the existing resident communities, as this one has done, and wil do. That is important. If there is one point that my learned friend Frank is making that I wish to address it is this one.

    And lastly for this post the change of use. Agriculture to Recreational.

    Is this against policy or not? also, should this not be ‘commercial’? Is this recreational for sport or is it a serious financial escapade being bulldozed across the fields?

    All ‘commercial’, while the big losers are the original residents. Is this OK to approve on the basis of this logic?

  76. ***”Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed.”***
    How many more times must I mention TWO (2) Town Hall meetings being held before you stop writing bold-faced lies?!?
    ***”The kind gentleman also told us that all one is able to do is to look at the entries, but that is all you can get- no copies, no confirmations in writing unless you write to the Chief Town Planner.”***
    When can we expect that you’ll be writing to him then?

  77. Our citizen rep did just that.

    When will you go down there, now that I have obeyed one of your condescending commands?

  78. I’ve told you already, I don’t need to. I’m not the one drawing the complaint.

    If you accuse me of breaking into your house and stealing from you, the onus is on you to prove that I did. I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this.

    And please don’t confuse my knowledge of the use of the English language to be condescension.

  79. Have another photo of continuing illegal work going on at the site TODAY NOV 23 2007- a big truck dumping marl, bobcat, road-levelling large yellow machine thing. I’ll try and post it at the myspace this evening, and work on getting more concrete evidence for the blogs to show.

    This is hard to take- really overt, arrogant and oppressive behaviour.

    And it’s ILLEGAL.

  80. I’m still unsure why you’re taking so many pictures. Up to now, no one on the forum has suggested that construction work of some sort hasn’t been ongoing at Vaucluse. It’s not like it’s being hidden.

  81. Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed. We sarted to complain as the noise and traffic escalated, and we became more aware that this was not recreational.
    Those are questions that should have been asked at any of the Town Hall Meetings.

    The two applications you are speaking about do not have ‘No Approval”. If it was ‘no approval’ the next step would have been ‘enforcement’, that did not occur, Why?, because none were ever issued.

    Ms. Goodenough, I am giving you the opportunity to write to the Chief Town Planner, copies to the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and the two representatives for the area, and state your concerns. Demand another Town Hall Meeting, rally all your supporters and all of us will come to the meeting base on anonymity and we will hear the concerns of the residents. I look forward for a positive solution.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.