The following post is being shared on WhatsApp groups and I think it's worth having a read to see how the issue of Jolly Harbour Beach access has come to pass and why there's a petition to the county's Prime Minister.
What the Available Documentary Record Appears to Show About Public Access and South Finger Parking
A note about the documents
This chronology has been assembled from a mixture of publicly available records, historical material and copies of documents that have circulated among Jolly Harbour homeowners and other interested persons.
Where a document is an official or publicly available record, it is described accordingly.
Where a document has circulated privately and its original source or provenance has not been independently verified, it is referred to only as a document that purports to be what it appears on its face to be.
Nothing in this article should therefore be taken as authenticating any privately circulated document, establishing its completeness, or suggesting how or from whom any particular copy was originally obtained.
Nor does this article seek to determine questions of land ownership, private legal rights, contractual obligations or the motives of any individual, company or public authority.
Its purpose is much simpler:
to place the presently available material in chronological order and identify the questions that appear to arise from it.
The central question
The present controversy over access and parking at Jolly Harbour Beach is sometimes presented as though residents are simply objecting to the loss of somewhere they became accustomed to parking.
The material presently available suggests that the history may be considerably more substantial.
Read chronologically, the historical masterplan, Government records, contemporary communications, material relating to South Finger and the Nikki Beach Environmental and Social Impact Assessment appear to describe a longstanding pattern of access and parking associated with Jolly Harbour Beach.
That does not necessarily establish a legal right to continue parking on any particular parcel of privately owned land.
It does, however, raise a legitimate planning and historical question:
If a longstanding parking facility serving existing users of Jolly Harbour Beach is no longer to be available in its previous form, what equivalent provision, if any, is being made for those users?
1. The original Jolly Harbour development
The logical starting point is the historical Jolly Harbour masterplan.
The plan depicts Jolly Harbour as an integrated development rather than simply a collection of individually owned houses.
Of particular relevance is the southern end of the development.
The historical plan appears to show a substantial route extending from within Jolly Harbour towards Jolly Harbour Beach and opening into a considerably wider area as it approaches the beach.
Whatever the precise legal status of the individual areas depicted on that plan, its physical layout provides useful historical context for the way in which Jolly Harbour subsequently developed.
For many years residents, visitors and members of the wider public were in practice able to travel through the southern part of Jolly Harbour and reach the beach.
Jolly Harbour subsequently grew to encompass more than 800 property owners, together with tenants, guests and visitors.
Members of the wider public, tourists, taxis and vendors also used the southern access.
The relevance of this history is not that long use automatically establishes ownership of somebody else's land or creates a private legal right.
It is simply that access to Jolly Harbour Beach formed part of the practical environment within which Jolly Harbour developed and hundreds of people purchased property.
The original Government transaction by which the development lands were made available to Dr Erhart and the original developers would therefore be useful historical material to locate.
There have been references to nominal consideration of $1.
Until the original Government documentation is obtained and verified, however, that figure should not be treated as established fact.
If the primary documentation ultimately confirms it, the terms and any accompanying development or public obligations could then be examined on their own merits.
2. The practical position over subsequent decades
Whatever the precise legal status of every part of the land, there appears to be little controversy about the practical position that developed over the following years.
Jolly Harbour homeowners used the southern route to reach Jolly Harbour Beach.
Members of the public also reached the beach through the area.
Tourists visited.
Taxis brought passengers.
Vendors operated.
Vehicles parked close to the beach.
The importance of this history is that the events of 2019 did not occur against a blank canvas.
By then there was an established pattern of actual use which provides the context in which the later documents should be read.
3. September 2019 a document referring to a “South Finger Parking Agreement”
Among material that has circulated is documentation referring to an agreement dated 13 September 2019 and describing it as the:
“South Finger Parking Agreement.”
The complete underlying agreement is not presently available for examination and its precise terms should therefore not be assumed.
Other material presently in circulation appears on its face to refer back to that agreement and to record substantial sums associated with it.
Those figures appear to be approximately:
US$550,000 already advanced, with approximately US$1.1 million remaining to be paid.
Until the underlying agreement and its provenance are independently confirmed, no conclusion should be drawn about precisely what rights or property were being acquired.
Nevertheless, the terminology appearing in the material is potentially significant.
If authentic, it would demonstrate that the expression “South Finger Parking Agreement” was being used contemporaneously in a substantial commercial context rather than being a description subsequently invented by homeowners.
Obtaining and verifying the complete agreement would therefore considerably assist in understanding the history.
4. November 2019 reference to the “South Finger parking lot”
Another document presently in circulation purports to be a contemporaneous email concerning a prospective purchaser's plans for the South Finger.
On its face, the email refers to:
“the draft plan the prospective buyer of the South Finger parking lot has presented to us this week.”
The document also appears to state:
“We are happy with the plan as it solves the issues raised by the home owners as we see it.”
If authentic and complete, the terminology is noteworthy.
The area is expressly described as the “South Finger parking lot”, and the proposed plan appears to have been considered in the context of issues previously raised by homeowners.
The document should not be taken further than that without verification.
It does, however, identify another obvious piece of material worth obtaining in original form: the draft plan to which the email apparently refers.
5. 26 November 2019
communication concerning South Finger parking
A further communication that has circulated among homeowners appears to date from 26 November 2019.
On its face, it refers expressly to:
“an area that exists that we call the south finger parking which is where much of this traffic is to be funnelled.”
The communication appears to discuss seasonal traffic associated with cruise-ship guests, taxis and buses.
It also refers to the possibility of additional housing on the property and states that the contemplated plan would:
“construct a substantial amount of added parking on properly constructed parking lots.”
If the document is authentic and complete, its significance is straightforward.
It would indicate that homeowners were being informed at that time that development of South Finger was contemplated but that substantial additional parking was also contemplated as part of that redevelopment.
That naturally raises a question:
What became of that proposed additional parking?
6. November 2019 the Government compulsory acquisition process
Here the chronology moves onto firmer public documentary ground.
Government records concerning South West Registration Section, Block 55 1186A, Parcel 836, approximately 0.19 acres, record a proposed compulsory acquisition.
The stated purpose recorded in the relevant Government documentation was:
“for a public purpose, namely for use as a recreational ground by members of the public.”
Parliament subsequently considered and approved the proposed acquisition.
Contemporary public reporting also discussed the issue in the context of access to Jolly Harbour Beach.
Care is required in interpreting this.
The proposed compulsory acquisition does not, by itself, establish private parking or access rights over other parcels.
Nor does it determine the legal status of the South Finger parking area.
What it does demonstrate is that Government formally commenced a compulsory acquisition process involving land in the area for an expressly stated public recreational purpose.
That provides important contemporary context.
7. December 2019 contemporary discussion of public beach access
Contemporary public reporting around the same period records Government representatives discussing public access to beaches.
The Attorney General was reported as referring to the importance of free and easy beach access.
There were also reports of DCA involvement concerning access arrangements at Jolly Harbour.
Those reports should be treated according to their precise wording.
They do not establish private rights over individual parcels of land.
They do, however, provide further context for the Government's decision to pursue compulsory acquisition for the expressly stated public recreational purpose.
8. 2020 a document purporting to be a Non-Binding Letter of Intent concerning CDAL
Another document presently circulating among homeowners and interested persons purports to be a 2020 Non-Binding Letter of Intent concerning the proposed acquisition of CDAL.
Its provenance and completeness have not been independently verified for the purposes of this article.
It should therefore be considered only for what it appears on its face to record.
The document appears to refer to a proposed share purchase price of approximately US$29.35 million.
Separately, it contains a section apparently headed:
“Concurrent Closing of South Finger Parking”
It also appears expressly to refer back to a 13 September 2019 South Finger Parking Agreement.
The document records figures of approximately US$550,000 already advanced and approximately US$1.1 million remaining to be paid.
If authentic, this would appear to show that South Finger parking was being dealt with separately within the documentation surrounding a much larger proposed corporate acquisition.
But without the complete underlying agreement and confirmation of the provenance of the documents, it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about precisely what was being bought, sold or promised.
The proper course is to obtain the underlying documentation and establish the facts.
9. 2020 Government abandons the proposed acquisition
The Government's subsequent decision is again recorded in an official public document.
An Official Gazette notice records the abandonment, under section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, of the intended acquisition of Parcel 836.
Importantly, the Gazette refers back to the original declaration and repeats that the intended acquisition had been:
“for a public purpose, namely for use as a recreational ground by members of the public.”
The proposed acquisition therefore did not proceed.
The documentary record presently available does not appear to explain why.
It would be inappropriate to speculate that the abandonment was connected with any particular private transaction unless and until documents demonstrate that connection.
Instead, the chronology raises a straightforward question:
Why was the compulsory acquisition abandoned, and was any alternative arrangement, assurance, easement or other provision put in place concerning public recreational access?
The relevant Cabinet papers, Government correspondence or other contemporary records may provide the answer.
Until they are obtained, it remains an unanswered question.
10. What happened after the acquisition was abandoned?
This appears to be one of the most important gaps in the chronology.
Government had commenced an acquisition for a stated public recreational purpose.
Parliament had approved it.
Government subsequently abandoned it.
Yet in practical terms, Jolly Harbour Beach continued to be accessed through the area and the South Finger car park continued operating.
That sequence naturally raises the question:
Was some alternative arrangement considered sufficient at the time to accommodate continued public access and/or parking?
There may have been an easement.
There may have been an undertaking.
There may have been a planning arrangement.
There may have been some other agreement.
Equally, there may have been no such arrangement.
Without the relevant documentation, nobody should assume the answer.
Finding those documents should therefore be a priority.
11. December 2023 and January 2024 the EIA records what was actually happening
The chronology then moves forward more than three years.
The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment prepared in connection with the Nikki Beach development records baseline observations undertaken on:
12 December 2023, and
10 January 2024.
Unlike recollections about what happened decades earlier, these are contemporary recorded observations of conditions shortly before the proposed redevelopment.
The assessment records activity associated with the beach access area, including vendors, tourists, taxis, deliveries and beach businesses.
Most importantly for the parking issue, it records the car park in actual use.
The assessment states that by 10:00am:
“the carpark had mostly filled up with cars.”
That observation is important without needing to add anything to it.
It demonstrates that, at the time of the baseline observations, a car park in the area was actively being used.
It therefore provides a useful factual baseline against which the parking implications of the proposed development can be considered.
12. The proposed Nikki Beach development
The EIA describes a substantial proposed development comprising approximately:
- 184 residential units;
- 82 hotel rooms;
- a beach club;
- restaurants;
- a spa; and
- associated facilities.
The material identifies approximately 150 parking spaces.
Those spaces will necessarily have to accommodate at least some of the parking demand generated by the development itself, including residents, hotel guests, customers, employees, servicing and deliveries.
But the EIA's own baseline observations also record parking demand that existed before the proposed development.
The car park was already being used by people accessing the area.
That creates an obvious planning question:
How has that pre-existing parking demand been taken into account?
13. The apparent gap in the EIA
An environmental and social assessment records baseline conditions so that the potential effects of a proposed development can be considered against what existed beforehand.
Here, the baseline records an actively used car park.
The proposed development will itself generate additional traffic and parking demand.
If some or all of the parking previously available to beach users is no longer to remain available in its previous form, the question becomes what happens to that existing demand.
From the material presently available, it is difficult to identify a detailed assessment addressing:
- where vehicles previously using the area are expected to park;
- whether equivalent replacement parking is proposed;
- the consequences of displacement onto other parts of Jolly Harbour;
- accessibility for elderly or mobility-impaired beach users;
- the effect upon Jolly Harbour homeowners and their guests;
- the effect upon members of the wider public;
- the effect upon taxis, vendors and tourists; and
- the location and capacity of any replacement parking intended for existing beach users.
There may be further planning documents that address these matters.
If so, they should form part of the discussion.
If not, the absence of an identifiable answer appears to be a legitimate planning question.
14. The modern planning context
Recent environmental and planning material in Antigua appears to recognise the importance of public beach access and the relevance of existing or traditional patterns of use when assessing development proposals.
The precise legal and planning consequences for Jolly Harbour Beach are matters for the appropriate authorities and, where necessary, legal advice.
Nothing in this chronology suggests that historical use automatically gives every homeowner or member of the public a private legal right to park on a particular parcel.
That is not the point.
The narrower question is whether existing patterns of access and parking should have been identified, assessed and appropriately accommodated when considering a major redevelopment.
At Jolly Harbour Beach, the historical and contemporary material appears to provide unusually substantial evidence that such use existed.
15. What the chronology presently appears to show
Subject always to verification of privately circulated material, the available documentary picture can be summarised as follows.
Original development
The historical masterplan provides the physical context of an integrated Jolly Harbour development with substantial access towards Jolly Harbour Beach.
Following decades
Residents, visitors, members of the public, tourists, taxis and vendors use the southern area to reach the beach, with vehicles parking close to it.
September 2019
Material subsequently circulated refers to an agreement dated 13 September 2019 described as the “South Finger Parking Agreement.”
November 2019
A circulated document purporting to be a contemporary email refers to the “South Finger parking lot” and a prospective purchaser's plan said to address issues raised by homeowners.
26 November 2019
Another circulated communication appears to refer expressly to “south finger parking” and to plans for a “substantial amount of added parking.”
27 November 2019
Government commences a compulsory acquisition process concerning Parcel 836 for an expressly stated public recreational purpose.
December 2019
Parliament approves the proposed acquisition against a background of public discussion concerning beach access.
2020
A document circulating among interested persons, purporting to be a Non-Binding Letter of Intent concerning the proposed acquisition of CDAL, appears separately to recognise the South Finger Parking Agreement and substantial sums associated with it.
2020
Government subsequently abandons the proposed compulsory acquisition.
The reason, and whether any alternative access arrangement was contemplated, remain matters requiring documentary clarification.
December 2023 / January 2024
The EIA baseline observations record the car park operating and state that by 10:00am it had “mostly filled up with cars.”
Proposed development
A substantial residential, hotel and hospitality development is proposed with approximately 150 parking spaces.
The question remains whether and where equivalent provision is being made for the pre-existing parking demand recorded in the EIA baseline.
The issue in plain English
Nobody needs to claim ownership of somebody else's land to ask these questions.
Nobody needs to argue that Jolly Harbour can never change.
Nobody needs to attribute improper motives to Government, CDAL, a purchaser or the Nikki Beach developer.
And none of this requires opposition to Nikki Beach.
The documentary history can simply be allowed to speak for itself.
For many years people accessed Jolly Harbour Beach through this area and parked close to the beach.
Documents presently in circulation appear to show that the expressions “South Finger parking,” “South Finger parking lot” and “South Finger Parking Agreement” were being used in 2019 and 2020.
Government's own public records show that it commenced compulsory acquisition of nearby land for an expressly stated public recreational purpose and subsequently abandoned that acquisition.
And the EIA provides contemporary recorded evidence that the car park was still operating in December 2023 and January 2024, including the observation that it had “mostly filled up with cars” by 10:00am.
Those facts and documents may ultimately have explanations that are not presently available.
That is precisely why the questions should be asked rather than conclusions assumed.
The central question is therefore a simple one:
If parking documented as serving existing users of Jolly Harbour Beach before the proposed development is no longer to be available in its previous form, what equivalent provision, if any, is being made for those existing beach users?
And alongside it sits an equally important historical question:
When Government abandoned its proposed compulsory acquisition for a stated public recreational purpose in 2020, was any alternative arrangement made to preserve or accommodate that public use?
If the relevant documents exist, producing them could answer much of the present controversy.
This is not an argument against development.
It is a request to understand the documentary history, fill the gaps in that history, and ensure that new development properly considers what was already there.
