The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE chief opponent of the $200m Rosewood Exuma project has launched a second legal challenge over whether the project’s key environmental approval could be “revived” after it expired.

Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club, and its principal, Bob Coughlin, in Judicial Review filings that have only just emerged are arguing that the issue raised is “not a technical or arid point” given that the renewal of Yntegra Group’s certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) 2400A occurred almost two months after it expired on October 8, 2025.

They are asserting that the Environmental Planning and Protection Act 2019 gives government regulators no power or authority to extend an expired CEC. And, if that is the case, then the Rosewood Exuma project would have been forced to apply for a fresh permit, potentially triggering another round of public consultation on the controversial East Sampson Cay development

The second Judicial Review challenge, which was filed on April 2, 2026, has yet to receive the Supreme Court’s permission to proceed. A spokesman for Miami-based Yntegra Group, which is headed by Felipe MacLean, declined to comment on the action or Turtlegrass’s latest line of legal attack against its neighbouring development.

However, sources close to the Rosewood Exuma project, speaking on condition of anonymity, told this newspaper that the second Judicial Review is a further bid by Turtlegrass and its attorneys, Callenders & Company, to tie the development’s progress up in legal knots via multiple court actions designed to delay, frustrate and impose extra costs on Yntegra and its partners.

And they also accused Turtlegrass of hypocrisy by asserting that it, too, had obtained an extension to its own CEC after it had expired. This sparked an immediate denial from a Turtlegrass spokesman, who asserted that its extension application had been made and granted prior to their CEC’s expiration.

“Any suggestion that Turtlegrass’s CEC extension is comparable to Yntegra’s situation is totally incorrect. Turtlegrass applied for and obtained its extension while its Certificate of Environmental Clearance was still valid and in effect - a wholly lawful process,” the spokesman said.

“Yntegra’s case is entirely different. Its CEC expired on October 8, 2025. It did not apply for an extension until after its CEC had expired, and the director did not purport to ‘extend’ it until over two months after expiry on December 15, 2025. 

“There is no power to revive an expired CEC - once expired, it ceases to have legal effect. It cannot be resurrected by ‘extension’. A fresh CEC is required. Yntegra bypassed that requirement. Conflating the two situations is a basic factual error.” The director referred to is Dr Rhianna Neely-Murphy, head of the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP).

However, contacts close to Yntegra asserted that the second Judicial Review by Turtlegrass and its attorneys is founded on a premise that is “null and void” because there is nothing in the Environmental Planning and Protection Act 2019 that mandates a CEC must be extended before it expires.

“There’s nothing in the Act that stipulates an extension of time before the expiration date,” one source said. “There is no provision. Show the provision where that exists - that you have to apply to extend the CEC before the expiration date. It doesn’t exist. There is no provision in the Act. They are trying to win on something that is not there.

“There’s nothing in the law that says it must be done before it expires. There’s no time provision. The whole basis of their argument is null and void. Nothing in the Act said otherwise.”

Turtlegrass, though, begs to differ. “This application concerns a narrow but critically important question: Whether the respondent, the director [of DEPP], had any statutory power to extend or revive a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) after it had expired,” it argued.

“CEC 2400A expired on October 8, 2025. Nearly two months later, on December 15, 2025, the director purported to ’extend’ CEC 2400A. The Environmental Planning and Protection Act 2019 (EPPA) contains no power to revive or extend an expired CEC. Once expired, a CEC ceases to have legal effect and cannot be resurrected by administrative letter. A fresh CEC application is required.

“This is not a technical or arid point. A decision to grant a fresh CEC engages the relevant provisions of the EPPA and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2020, and requires the Director to decide, on the basis of the facts known at that time, whether an Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management Plan and consultation are required,” Turtlegrass added.

“It also requires the director to consider the substantive factors relevant to whether the grant of a CEC is appropriate. That, in turn, would have given Turtlegrass and other stakeholders the opportunity to participate in a bona fide consultation process and, if their rights were breached, to seek Judicial Review of each of those decisions.

“The procedure adopted by the director had the effect of depriving Turtlegrass and other stakeholders to be consulted, and of crucial rights to challenge her decisions. This was to Turtlegrass’s disadvantage and to the advantage of Sampson Cay Bahamas/Yntegra LLC.

“This was vitally important because of the profound effect of the work approved in CEC 2400A on the environment of East Sampson Cay and on Turtlegrass’s interests…” The Rosewood Exuma neighbour also argued that the issue’s importance was magnified by the fact the plans for Rosewood Exuma had changed significantly by the time the revised CEC approval was issued.

“Furthermore, by the time of the purported renewal of CEC 2400A on December 15, 2025, the developers’ plans for the proposed development had materially changed, including new iterations of a breakwater/seawall, expanded dredging and revised marina footprints,” Turtlegrass alleged.

“These works required fresh environmental assessment, public consultation and separate statutory permits under, among others, the Building Regulations Act, the Coast Protection Act, the Conservation and Protection of the Physical Landscape of The Bahamas Act, the Forestry Act and Port Authorities legislation.

“By purporting to extend an expired CEC and to do so without consultation, without reasons, without disclosure and during active litigation, the director deprived the applicant [Turtlegrass] of its statutory rights and enabled the continuation of works that were environmentally significant, legally unapproved and materially different from those originally assessed,” the rival developer added.

“The extension decision was ultra vires, procedurally improper, irrational and an abuse of power. Leave and a statutory stay are necessary to preserve the status quo and uphold the rule of law.”