The Department of Planning's Development Applications Board has twice in two months admonished local developer Sanz Pearman for starting his construction projects without first getting the necessary Government approval.

Mr. Pearman's two planning files, however, show no record of fine or penalty for violating the rules.

The Pearman example strengthens recent criticism that the Environment Ministry is weak on enforcement.

George Smith, 64, has been trying to blow the whistle on Mr. Pearman for months and was dumbfounded yesterday to learn the Harmony Gardens construction project next door to his property had been approved.

After looking at an approval notice Mr. Smith said: "How can it be? How can it be?"

Mr. Pearman's company Overnight Construction recently built condominiums at the Harmony Gardens site at 92 Middle Road in Paget.

And in a Planning application first submitted in April 2006, and revised several times, he sought alterations which included: a retaining wall, a new driveway, new parking area, a garbage facility, a propane cylinder, among other things.

Mr. Smith had no objections to the original alteration plans, but says the retroactive application submitted by Mr. Pearman had a slew of changes which brought the project too close to his property at 90 Middle Road.

At one point last year Mr. Smith's stone retaining wall came crumbling down, allegedly after work not properly approved.

Mr. Smith said: "It was all done illegally.

"And now they give him approval? You've got to be joking.

"There is no Planning Department. It might as well not be there, it's useless. It is absolutely useless."

Although The Royal Gazette could not find any fine or penalty levelled against Mr. Pearman for his two recent projects, the Board did reprimand him in writing.

The Board's minutes say: "The Board wishes to express concern that the applicant has shown blatant disregard to the Planning process in that development was commenced prior to Planning approval."

The Board has had to write those words fairly often of late.

At the past five Board meetings it has written those same words five times — twice to Mr. Pearman.

In one case, involving Mr. and Mrs. Wilson of South Road in Southampton, the board requested the Minister of Environment to investigate.

The Board said: "The Board wishes to advise the Minister to institute appropriate enforcement action."

A Ministry spokesperson was asked whether Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield had instituted any kind of action on the Wilson case.

No response was received by press time.

The Chairman of the Applications Board did not return a call for comment.

Meantime, Acting Director of Planning Larry Williams suggested there was no reason for alarm because he said Board notes like the ones outlined above are not rare.

He said: "When you see those advice notes they are standard advice notes that have been in place for a number of years."

The conversation with Mr. Williams also revealed that retroactive applications like the ones submitted by Mr. Pearman are subject to a higher fee.

The normal application fee is $200.

The retroactive application fee is an additional $420.

So at minimum, Mr. Pearman would have paid at least three times as much as an applicant who follows the rules to the letter of the law.

Near the beginning of the Planning process applicants are sent a form letter which advises them on the importance of following the rules.

A sample letter seen by The Royal Gazette says: "You must not begin work until an approved permit has been issued, the number properly posted and a copy of the approved construction drawing is available at the site. Contravention of the above is liable to fines up to $25,000."

On a Government-sponsored radio programme yesterday, planner Anna Eatherley said increased fines for Planning abuses were being discussed and new enforcement legislation could be on the way.

Mr. Smith believes if Planning officials would better enforce the rules already on the books, his property would be better off.

He said: "They've done nothing. It boggles my mind. Is it because he's Mr. Pearman? I don't care if he's the Governor, he still has no more rights than me."

When contacted yesterday about the 'blatant disregard' charges Mr. Pearman said: "I'm the wrong person for you to speak to.

"You need to speak to Charlita Saltus at Conyers and Associates."

Ms. Saltus said: "I'm an agent, not a developer, and certainly not the Department of Planning.

"I think your question needs to go to one of the decision makers. My job is to design buildings."

The dispute between Mr. Smith and Mr. Pearman has lasted for so long and has become so contentious the two don't even talk anymore.

Mr. Smith called authorities when he discovered, what he believes, was someone living inside the condo complex before an occupancy permit was issued.

He also called Police and sought trespassing charges when he saw, what he believes, was one of Mr. Pearman's construction labourers on his side of the boundary line.

Earlier this month Mr. Pearman contacted the Board and appeased to Mr. Smith's demand that the garbage facility near his property be moved.

Days later the project was given approval with the admonishing advice note.

Mr. Smith though maintains a written reprimand isn't enough.

He believes the law was broken and has threatened to sue.

Developer rapped for ‘blatant disregard’ of planning process