A Chase Village pensioner has received the court’s permission to challenge the decision of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) to permit the continued operation of a concrete batching plant in his area.
On February 2, Justice Nadia Kangaloo gave Everton Phillip permission to pursue his judicial review claim against the EMA.
He is challenging a decision – relayed to him by letter dated November 30, 2023 – permitting a company based in central Trinidad to operate the plant without a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC).
Phillip is also challenging the EMA’s refusal to enforce the law by forcing the plant to stop work immediately until it applies for and receives a CEC.
He wants the court to order the EMA to shut down the plant until it gets a CEC.
In his application, Phillip said he lives on Derrick Road, Chase Village, close to the plant and since 2003, he has been affected by noise and dust coming from it.
His application said there were two cement-batching plants on the site, the first established in 2003 and the other in 2013.
Phillip’s application, filed by attorneys Kingsley Walesby and Stephanie Rajkumar, said the area is zoned as residential/commercial, but the plant, he contends, has not applied to the Town and Country Planning Division (TCPD) for permission to establish and run a concrete plant to carry out industrial activity in a residential area.
Phillip’s application said in June 2004, he submitted a complaint to the TCPD. His complaint was investigated but was told the division was unable to take any enforcement steps, since work there had begun in 1999.
By December 2005, Phillip said he was told the TCPD had referred the matter to the EMA to pursue under EMA Act regulations and the Chaguanas Borough Corporation. Phillip also complained to the Ombudsman.
In October 2014, he again complained to the TCPD, which again referred it to the EMA.
Phillip said the EMA investigating officer recommended legal steps should be taken over the company's starting the concrete batching plant before getting a CEC. A notice of violation was issued and served in November 2014.
However, Phillip said, the EMA entered into a consent agreement with the company.
“None of the express measures contained in the said consent agreement required the violator to apply for and obtain a CEC for the continued operations of the said facility," he said. “Furthermore, nothing in the said consent agreement called upon the violator to cease its operations with immediate effect until such time as the violator applied for and obtained a CEC.”
Phillip’s application to the court said at all times, the EMA had a continuing statutory duty to enforce the law and have work at the plant stopped until it got a CEC.
“The operations of the violator continue to adversely affect me and other residents in the area notwithstanding attempts that have been made by the defendant to implement various measures to mitigate the effects of the said concrete batching plants to the surrounding area.”
Phillip said oth
