Residents question approval of previously rejected development

Lautoka residents are demanding answers over the approval of a proposed development at Lot 32 DP.4289, Cavoli Street, Simla, after the project was previously rejected following opposition from residents and the Lautoka City Council.

Lautoka Ratepayers Association president Narayan Reddy said residents were surprised to see the development advertised in the newspaper as approved despite the earlier rejection.

He questioned the transparency of the planning process and said residents had not been informed of any appeal, reconsideration or subsequent process that may have led to the approval.

“We are concerned because this was previously rejected, yet suddenly we see it listed as approved,” Mr Reddy said.

He said the development was in a residential area where residents valued the peaceful character of the neighbourhood and had previously opposed projects they believed could disrupt the area.

Mr Reddy said residents and the association had raised their concerns with the council but had yet to receive a satisfactory response.

He said the lack of communication had fuelled frustration and raised questions about whether proper procedures had been followed.

Mr Reddy said residents were not against development but wanted planning decisions to be transparent and properly communicated, particularly when a proposal that had previously been rejected was later approved.

Meanwhile, acting chief executive officer and chair of the Board of Special Administrators for the Lautoka City Council, Taitusi Rasoki, clarified that the council did not grant final approval for such developments.

Mr Rasoki said the council’s role was to process building and rezoning applications and ensure they complied with relevant engineering and building requirements.

He said final approval authority rested with the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), rather than the Lautoka City Council.

Mr Rasoki said the council was not at liberty to comment further on the approval decision and advised that further questions be directed to DTCP.

The issue has left residents seeking clarity on how the previously rejected proposal progressed to approval and whether the appropriate planning and consultation processes were followed.