The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

and FAY SIMMONS

Tribune Business Reporters

THE parties warring over the $200m Rosewood Exuma project yesterday resumed battle with a dispute over whether new environmental evidence can be presented at an appeal hearing challenging the development’s preliminary site plan approval.

The procedural showdown before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) resulted in the neighbouring Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club project receiving permission to proceed with submittting six expert reports in its challenge to Rosewood Exuma’s planning related approvals. However, the latter’s developer, Miami-based Yntegra Group, will be given the chance to respond to this new evidence before the appeal proceeds to a substantive hearing.

Both sides were quick to provide their views on yesterday’s developments, with a Turtlegrass spokesman accusing the Rosewood Exuma developer and its Delaney Partners attorneys of “attempting to gag us” by filing submissions with the Board just 24 hours prior to the hearing arguing that no fresh evidence was admissible or can be presented.

Yntegra, though, countered that its major opponent was seeking to misleadingly present “a procedural matter as a major legal victory”, and branded the outcome of yesterday’s events as nothing more than “a tempest in a tea cup”. However, the Turtlegrass spokesman asserted: “We are very pleased that the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) has admitted our expert evidence…, rejecting their lawyers’ attempt to gag us.

“At the preliminary hearing on May 11, 2026, Yntegra’s lawyers reserved the right to review the reports before objecting. Apparently they didn’t need to. [Monday] afternoon, less than one working day before today’s hearing, Yntegra delivered a 53-page submission arguing the Appeal Board cannot consider any evidence beyond the original record in the Town Planning Committee hearing, full stop. Content irrelevant.”

Accusing Yntegra and its attorneys of waiting “until the eve of the hearing” to voice these arguments “without ever engaging with the substance of reports Turtlegrass believes are of real merit and direct relevance to this appeal”, they added: “One has to ask why a party confident in its position would fight so hard to keep credible expert evidence out of the room entirely, rather than simply contest it on the merits.

“This is a significant question - not just for this case, but for how planning appeals are conducted generally - and Turtlegrass will not be ambushed into responding without proper time to prepare. As a result of today’s decision to admit our evidence, the matter has been adjourned. Turtlegrass is confident in the merits of its position and the contents of its expert evidence.”

Yntegra, not surprisinhgly, vehemently rejected and disagreed with this interpretation of events. It said: “Today’s hearing did not address the merits of the appeal, make findings on environmental issues or overturn any approvals. It was a routine procedural matter concerning how the appeal will proceed. Turtlegrass has sought to portray the Board’s decision to admit additional ‘expert’ reports as a substantive legal victory. It is nothing of the sort.

“Yntegra’s objection was based on a straightforward procedural issue and previous Appeal Board decisions concerning the proper scope of material that may be considered on appeal. The additional reports were created after the Town Planning Committee made its decision, and were therefore never before the Committee when it granted preliminary site plan approval.

“Our position was that such material should not ordinarily be introduced for the first time during the appeal process. That objection had nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the additional reports,” the Miami-based developer added.

“The Board’s decision to permit Turtlegrass to rely on those reports was a procedural one. It does not speak to the credibility, accuracy or weight of the reports, all of which remain to be tested during the appeal.

“Environmental assessments were conducted by the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection, which subsequently issued four certificates of environmental clearance for the project. Yntegra remains confident that the Appeal Board will give appropriate weight to the Department’s evaluations as it considers the appeal.

“Attempting to portray today’s routine procedural ruling as a major legal victory is little more than a tempest in a teapot. Yntegra remains confident that the appeal is without merit, and looks forward to addressing it before the Appeal Board through the evidence and the applicable law - not through competing press releases.”

The Appeal Board’s evidence decision followed hours of arguments over whether it could consider the six reports that were not before the Town Planning Committee (TPC) when it granted the approvals now under appeal.

Robert Adams KC, appearing for Yntegra, urged the Board to reject the reports, arguing it would be "unfair" for Turtlegrass to criticise the Town Planning Committe’s decision using evidence the committee "never had an opportunity to consider”.

He argued the appeal should be confined to the existing record before the Town Planning Committe, telling the Board there was "no rational basis" to depart from previous decisions refusing to consider material that had not been submitted to the Committee.

Fred Smith KC and Peter Village KC, representing Turtlegrass, argued the Board has broad powers to consider additional evidence and should not restrict itself to the Town Planning Committe record.

Mr Village said excluding the reports would leave Turtlegrass "gagged" and unable to properly challenge the approvals, arguing the expert evidence goes directly to environmental issues that should be considered as part of the appeal.

After a brief recess, the Board said it would allow the reports to proceed and invited Yntegra’s attorneys to indicate how much time they would need to respond. The chairman also made clear the Board had not yet determined whether it will ultimately rely on the reports in reaching its decision.

The ruling means the substantive appeal hearing, previously scheduled for July 6 and 7, will now be delayed pending further directions from the Board.

Turtlegrass is appealing permits granted by the Town Planning Committee for Yntegra's proposed development earlier this year after developers  submitted a revised site plan due to “significant concerns” over the service dock’s location.

Much of yesterday’s hearing centred on whether the Appeal Board is limited to reviewing the material considered by the Town Planning Committe or whether it has discretion to receive fresh evidence.

Mr Adams maintained that allowing new expert reports would effectively permit parties to rebuild their cases on appeal.v"The record of appeal... is not a free-for-all," he argued, adding that the regulations clearly limit the record to material that was "submitted to and considered by the committee”.

Mr Village disagreed, telling the Board the appeal is more than a review of the Town Planning Committe’s decision and that it has the authority to consider the merits of the case.

He argued the reports identify deficiencies in the environmental assessments underpinning the project, and said the Board should have regard to them before determining the appeal. "Don't you think it's appropriate that you should have regard to the expert evidence?" Mr Village asked Board members.

The hearing also featured discussion over the Board's ability to assess technical environmental issues. During one exchange, a Board member acknowledged the panel did not possess expertise in areas such as hydrology, prompting Mr Village to argue that was precisely why expert evidence should be heard.