By Mark DaCosta- The ongoing dispute between the owner of Mae’s School, David Sugrim, and various government authorities raises pressing questions about the permissions required for construction and the implications of unauthorised building activities in Subryanville.
In a tumultuous turn of events, Sugrim has been ordered by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) to immediately cease all construction on the Farnum Ground, a matter which has ignited significant debate. The CH&PA alleges that Sugrim, who completed the prefabricated structure before receiving a formal notice on 6th October 2025, undertook the work without the necessary permissions. “The Central Housing and Planning Authority has not granted planning permission for such development and is neither in receipt of an application,” stated CH&PA Secretary Rajesh Ramgolam in his notice to Sugrim.
While Ramgolam’s warning outlined the potential for legal repercussions if the construction continued, Sugrim counters that he was completely unaware of the notice, claiming he never received it as it was sent to an address at Golden Grove on the East Coast. “By the time that had reached, we would have already done our work. We finished that work in a couple of months,” he remarked, implying that authorities were lagging in their communication.
The predicament escalated further when Education Minister Sonia Parag confirmed, “Being the former Minister of Local Government, no permission was given. Being the Minister of Education, no permission was given.” This unequivocal stance reflected the government’s position regarding the alleged unlawful construction. Insider reports suggest growing discontent within sections of the community who believe that these edifices reflect a broader issue of governance and oversight in the country.
Bonita Bone-Harris, a veteran educator residing in Subryanville, voiced her concerns at a recent multi-sectoral consultation about the encroachment of Farnum Ground by Mae’s School, labelling it a violation of building codes. “That is bullying because we have written letters to all including the Ministry of Education, to all of the parties concerned,” she expressed to the media.
Although Mayor and City Council officials earlier informed Sugrim that he could operate the prefab structure temporarily, there remains an underlying acknowledgment that no legal permissions underpin its presence. Community representatives have repeatedly urged both the City Council and the CH&PA to consider a resolution to the issue but have so far refrained from pursuing any legal recourse.
As the disagreement unfolds, Sugrim asserted his commitment to complying with any forthcoming requirements. He confirmed to the media that plans are underway for a new school building following the destruction of the previous structure by fire earlier in the year. Sugrim acknowledged that an agreement with City Hall existed to vacate the playground once the new construction was completed, maintaining goodwill amidst growing tensions.
Educators such as Bone-Harris are questioning the government’s overall strategy, pointing out the hypocrisy in attempting to prevent bullying in schools while simultaneous building disputes unfold.
Thus, as the dust settles from this contentious dispute, the concerns over Mae’s School and the handling of its construction reflect broader disquiet with governance structures in our nation. In this climate of uncertainty, how these issues are navigated will undoubtedly have lasting implications for both the education sector and community trust in government authorities. The fate of Mae’s School now hangs in balance amid an intricate web of legal, ethical, and community responsibilities, as residents await clear and decisive action from their leaders.
