Dear Editor,
Notwithstanding four letters published by SN during the preceding month regarding a large, smelly (95ft x 20ft approx) chicken pen, and the concomitant nuisance of swarms of disgusting, annoying flies and disease-carrying rodents, the unflinching owners of that illegal establishment continue to defy all benign and legal means, to cease their illegal unhealthy unsanitary operation of rearing chickens in Chateau Margot, which is legally recognized residential community.
And in addition, the Central Housing and Planning Authority is equivocal about whether it did serve a court order issued by a judge two years ago for the owners of the chicken pen to cease operations.
The initial letter was published on May 19, 2012, captioned ‘Chicken pen continues in defiance of court order.’
The second one came from Dr Ramdass, Director of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and was captioned ‘CH&PA has to enforce injunction and not EPA’ and was dated May 23, 2012.
In his lucid epistle Dr Ramdass stated, inter alia, that “the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA)… issued an injunction on April 14, 2010, through the Supreme Court of Judicature against Mr Nigel Ramah and Mrs Lorine Ramah of 18, Second Street, Area M Chateau Margot, East Coast Demerara, to cease a poultry rearing operation within twenty-eight days upon receipt of that injunction… Based on the foregone, it is the responsibility of the CH&PA to enforce this injunction and not the Environmental Protection Agency.”
In addition you published a letter on the same day penned by Mr Nigel Ramah, captioned ‘Misinformation about chicken pen,’ which I would refrain from commenting upon.
Another letter dated May 25, was published about the “royal runaround” that was received when trying at the CH&P to get someone to enforce that order made over two years ago (CH&PA gives the royal runaround… ’). At that time, ie, two weeks ago, it seems that the person who was charged at CH&PA to deliver the order was on annual leave.
That officer was back in the office last week and when contacted via telephone then, stated that “I have to contact a lawyer [and] that may be done on Monday.”
On Tuesday again the official was contacted and was not quite lucid in her replies to several queries about whether the court order had been served or when it would be served, if not served already.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address
provided)
Editor’s note
We are sending a copy of this letter to the Central Housing & Planning Authority for any comment they might wish to make.
