Cascade lands intended for residence only

THE EDITOR: As a resident of peaceful Cascade for the past 31 years, having read the recent articles in the newspapers about the intended school between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue on the Cascade Main Road (presently being fast tracked), I must express another word of concern. Firstly, the lands on the north side of the road represent the sub-divisions of the St Rose Estate in 1935 formerly owned by Ivy and Adeleine Todd, while those on the south side represent the sub-division of the Huggins Estate in 1941. All of the deeds of the St Rose Estate were prepared by TM Kelshall and Co between 1935 and 1942 and have specified on the Second Schedule that the lands are for strictly residential purposes. I am almost sure that the same applies to the Huggins Estate sub-division during the same period.

This means that all of the tenants of these lands have an honourable and decent obligation to each other to restrict their properties to residential use as originally intended by Todd and Todd, including the leasing of these lands for business which is illegal because of the convenant. Tenants should therefore not solicit the State to change the use which is ultra vires the intended use of the lands. Therefore, I believe that any land owner who therefore goes privately and behind the backs of his neighbours to solicit the State for approval and seeks the rubber stamp of a Minister through the auspicies of a special clause of a the Town and Country Act 1969 (explained later) for a change of use to business is back stabbing his neighbours. That person is unfair and perhaps hostile to the rest of the neighbourhood who have maintained their obligations to ensure that the lands are peacefully occupied for the original purpose which they were sold.

It would therefore seem that a responsible Town and Country Authority would ensure the common good of all and seek counsel of the other landowners to obtain some type of common consent and most of all to ensure that this relatively untarnished environment, a last bastion of residential use in the city environs, does not walk in the same tracks of Woodbrook, St James and Newtown in the future. The Authority should also take note that the constitution of our country demands equitable treatment for all so that if you approve one exception of the Covenant by a special favour, then they will have to  approve all other applicants for business in Cascade, for business is business whether it be a school or a parts place and a precedent would have been set by the installation of the school.

I must also question the powers allocated to a minister to grant special approvals for land use when the use is restricted by covenant established by the original seller of the lands. I believe that although such a provision was established in the Act in 1969 so as to render back to the State an overriding interest on land, for example if there was a grave need for an essential service — like the TTEC transfer station almost opposite the school which belongs to a business enterprise. For a minister, therefore, to approve a special privilege to one person while the rest of the community has observed the covenant and would like their peaceful existence to continue will constitute an abuse of the Act to do a favour for someone. I do not think that this is proper or wise. Moreover, it sets a bad precedent to trigger a future conversion of all the lands and increases the potential for further discrimination by the State.

I may mention that just a few places before the intended school and on the main road opposite side, I am also aware that there is a business that performs the painting and fixing of cars that operate quite unobtrusively behind closed doors. This business is not on St Rose lands but just next door. Should the school be approved, I would guess that this business would now be entitled to come out in the open now so that Cascade will have its first car repair garage on its doorway. You change the area for one, you do it for all and there could also be a constitutional issue of unfair and equal treatment, for a business is a business in law whether it be a school or anything else. Unfortunately, the law does not discriminate. The Cascade Road is only 21 feet wide and constructed before the Road Act was revised in 1929 to increase the statutory width from 21 to 25 feet.

It is a very narrow main road that is now becoming busier each day with more and more hired cars, maxis etc as the area becomes more and more occupied for residential use deep inside. There is also a build up of traffic at peak hours in the morning at the exit point and now around 3 pm. Will we now see the “recently removed” road humps re-established so as to damage our cars and inconvenience citizens — “for the school” notwithstanding traffic lights for children to cross the road that must become necessary? Finally, there is the intrusion of other vehicles from non-Cascade areas into the area for the school which I have “heard” will enroll 300 pupils. This is unfair to us as the morning traffic will be unbearable now. Maybe the President and the Prime Minister will have a say on this.

After Woodbrook, Newtown, St James, maybe here comes Cascade next, maybe not. The peaceful residential and aesthetic environment of Cascade is now under siege and must be nipped in the bud. The car park is a terrible environmental imagery and that area, the beginning of the residential area should have been beautifully shrubbed instead. We must pray for ministerial wisdom. I for one, if I had applied for permission for the school I would wait patiently for a response. However, the project is going ahead at maximum speed so some body up high seems to have given the green light although Town and Country has said that they are looking at the project. If this is so this is wrong and they are testing the waters. I would urge the other Cascade residents to say their piece before it is too late. Good bye to peace in Cascade.

PETER FONDUE
Cascade