The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has halted a controversial development’s construction to prevent “potential irremediable damage to the environment” as Green Turtle Cay residents bid to overturn its approvals.

Justice Franklyn Williams KC, in a November 11, 2026, verdict temporarily banned all work by Reginald Curry, developer of the Seashells at Gillam Bay project, until the Supreme Court hears and determines the Judicial Review challenge launched against its permits by a local advocacy group featuring Green Turtle Cay and Abaco residents including second home owners.

The Save Gillam Bay Collective, in particular, is challenging the decision by Dr Rhiana Neely-Murphy, director of the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP), to grant Mr Curry and his project a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) on April 22, 2026, without requiring that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) be performed.

Dr Neely-Murphy’s position was that Seashells would produce “low or minimal impact”, which meant no EIA was necessary, although she gave no reasons to explain how this decision - which the DEPP director is empowered to make by the Environmental Planning and Protection Act - was reached.

The Save Gillam Bay Collective, unconvinced by her verdict that an environmental baseline assessment (EBA) and environmental management plan (EMP) would be sufficient for Mr Curry and Seashells, also complained the CEC was granted three months’ before public consultation on the project occurred at a July 22, 2026, Town Hall meeting.

The group then launched its Judicial Review challenge to the CEC and other environmental approvals granted by DEPP, also citing the regulator’s alleged failure “to make provision for mandatory public consultation, the failure to publish the approved EMP, and the failure to publish and make available for inspection any and all attendant statutorily required certificates”.

It also sought a temporary injunction to bar Mr Curry and Seashells from performing any construction work at Gillam Bay, which Justice Williams granted on Wednesday. His ruling revealed that the substantive Judicial Review started before him the very same day, and was unlikely to be “lengthy”, signalling the cost and delay for the developer will be relatively minimal if it and Dr Neely-Murphy/DEPP prevail.

The verdict also disclosed that Mr Curry and Seashells did not appear before the Supreme Court to contest the injunction hearing on September 28, 2026, even though Justice Williams was “satisfied” both they and their attorney, Geoffrey Farquharson, were fully informed of the date. As a result, the judge said it was impossible to determine the injunction’s financial impact on the developer.

“I am satisfied that every effort was made to inform, advise and secure the attendance of the second respondent [Mr Curry] and his participation herein,” Justice Williams wrote. “Mr Farquharson, counsel for the second respondent on several occasions before the hearing of this application on the papers, was given the opportunity to participate in and make submissions.

“Twice, the court adjourned the proceedings for that purpose. Severally, by telephone, e-mail and in person, Mr Farquharson acknowledged dates, times and mode of hearing of these proceedings. As late as 4 November, 2026, before the completion of penning of this decision, in open court before me, Mr Farquharson acknowledged the pendency of this application… Regrettably, he has failed and or declined to participate.”

The Gillam Bay controversy has been brewing for months, with Tribune Business reporting in July 2026 that all five members of the Green Turtle Cay District Council voted against the project. Former prime minister Hubert Ingraham, who was the area’s former MP as representative for North Abaco, urged than an EIA be done and regulators take “a deeper dive” given that the development appears “excessive” for the intended location.

Justice Williams, in his verdict, noted that the Seashells project is “to include nine villas measuring approximately 1,900 square feet each, a club house incorporating a restaurant and bar, an administrative office and a back-of-house facility. Also referred to are access works, moorings, a dock and ‘other marine or shoreline components’.”

He reiterated that DEPP issued the project’s CEC on April 22, 2026, “before public consultation, and which certificate was not made available for inspection to any concerned persons and or residents of Gillam Bay”. The approval’s issuance before public consultation, and the “legally misdirected and irrational” decision not to require an EIA, are the key issues being challenged by the Save Gillam Bay Collective.

It was at the eventual Town Hall meeting, which was delayed by six days from July 16 to July 22, 2026, where “attendees were informed that it had been determined that a full EIA was not required, and that the ‘project’ required only an Environmental Baseline Assessment (EBA) and EMP, neither of which - nor the 22 April, 2026, CEC - were supplied to attendees”.

The Save Gillam Bay Collective’s Judicial Review challenge is also founded on assertions that DEPP failed to assess the whole project’s impact and also withheld “the environmental record”. It alleged that the latter means it, and Green Turtle Cay residents, cannot determine “the exact works authorised” plus “the approved footprint of the project”, its duration, its conditions, and if “any dock, mooring, marine, access or ancillary works are authorised”.

Dr Neely-Murphy, in a September 11, 2026, letter disputed what happened when the Save Gillam Bay Collective met officials at DEPP on August 18, 2026, asserting that no documents on the Seashells project were made available for public viewing then.

“An EIA and public consultation is required in The Bahamas when the director determines that a proposed project poses a significant risk of adverse environmental impacts,” Justice Williams wrote of her letter. “The first respondent [Dr Neely-Murphy] determined the Seashells project to be of low or minimal impact, and therefore no EIA was required.

“Further, the project has/is low density; is to be built on stilts/pilings, reducing environmental impact; all upland, having no marine component; a more than 50-foot setback from the nearest dune or coastal area; [is] not located in or nearby any designated protected areas. No works are proposed to be done on the dunes.

“The sea oats and rail road vines identified in the EBA fall outside of the footprint of the property boundaries; the endangered species do not fall within the project site boundaries; protected species lie within the dune structure. There are no protected species slated for cutting, uproot or destruction. Therefore the Forestry Act is inapplicable.”

Justice Williams added that Dr Neely-Murphy, in confirming the CEC had been issued and approval for the Seashells project granted, also wrote: “DEPP did not assess any coastal features as no marine-related construction activities are proposed.

“No wetlands fall within the boundaries of the proposed development site. The director’s assertion that there is no marine component is contradicted by references in the EBA/EMP to ‘moorings, a dock ‘and other shoreline components’.”

However, Justice Williams recorded how a bird watcher documented 57 resident and migratory bird species at Gillam Bay in the eight-day period between February 27 and March 6, 2026. He added that Seashells’ EBA and EMP records concerns that its own bird assessment “does not adequately capture” this population, thereby “calling into question, if not undermining the developer’s ecological baseline”.

The judge, in his decision, found that Save Gillam Bay Collective had both established sufficient standing to bring Judicial Review proceedings and that there is a serious issue worthy of Supreme Court trial.

“The applicant alleges a number of missteps or failures in the process leading to the issuance of the CEC,” Justice Williams wrote. “The first respondent [Dr Neely-Murphy] states that she has a discretion to waive an EIA, and hence the requirement of public consultation in any particular circumstances. She determined, based on the developer’s EBA/EMP, that no EIA was necessary.

“The applicant says that given that the developer’s EMP/EBA is deficient and does not properly consider the full scope of the ecosystem of Gillam Bay, an EIA should have been mandated. The applicant points to the developer’s own recognition of the existence of seagrass beds, bonefish flats, dune stabilising native species of plants, the presence of protected species of animals and the fact that the habitat is relied on by native and migratory birds.

“The current works of clearing, excavation, boring of holes, pouring of concrete mooring blocks, pouring concrete columns preparatory to wall construction are being done in circumstances of ‘great ecological sensitivity’.” Justice Williams added that, while the project’s planned coastal setback was 50 metres, it did not consider storm surge and hurricane impacts. The Save Gillam Bay Collective also raised concerns about the use of a heribicide, Triclopyr.

Justice Williams found that Dr Neely-Murphy should have provided a more fulsome explanation for why DEPP waived the EIA requirement, even though this is not required by law, and issued the CEC. He described Gillam Bay as featuring “coastal wetlands, mangroves, seagrass beds and productive shallow marine waters, which provide habitat for marine and terrestrial species, each component altogether sustaining the other”.

“While the Environmental Planning and Protection Act does not mandate the giving of reasons in any event of the exercise of the first respondent’s discretion to waive the requirement of an EIA, the applicant says that in the attendant circumstances as it alleges, reasons therefore ought be provided,” Justice Williams wrote.

“In my view, while not required by statute, it would seem to me best practice recommends the giving of reasons for waiving an EIA in this case. In my view, given the attendant circumstances, while not statutorily mandated, some more fuller reasons other than what I refer to as the formulaic, circular and de minimis reason given by the first respondent should be provided. Best practice so requires.”

Justice Williams also noted that Dr Neely-Murphy, in her September 11, 2026, letter to the advocacy group, said Seashells’ plans to build a reverse osmosis plant, and “deep injection wells” for effluent and septic systems, would be referred to the Department of Environmental Health Services, the Water and Sewerage Corporation and the Ministry Works “for further review and the necessary permits and approvals”.

He found that this signalled “the grant or refusal of the necessary permits and approvals” by these agencies should have been considered by DEPP before it issued the CEC on April 22, 2026. “Effluent is raw sewage, and its disposal, if not properly managed, has the potential to adversely and irremediably impact the environment,” Justice Williams said.

The injunction was opposed by David Higgins, an attorney from the Attorney General’s office representing Dr Neely-Murphy and DEPP, who argued that “the proposed project will be of significant benefit to The Bahamas, and to the Abacos in particular”.

However, in deciding to grant the temporary injunction, Justice Williams ruled: “I apprehend that if interim relief is not granted, action on the impugned CEC will likely continue unabated during the substantive Judicial Review proceedings. This has the potential to result in irremediable damage to the environment of Gillam Bay.”

The injunction prohibits Mr Curry and Seashells from “undertaking any, or any further works or developments including building operations, construction, engineering and/or other operations in, on, over or under Gillam Bay and the foreshore, waters and seabed of and around Gillam Bay, to a distance of 300 feet from the mean high water mark”.

“The developer is prohibited from any or any further clearing, and the making of any or any further material change of use of the area - being a change in the use or character of the area - including by outdoor storage of mooring blocks or other material, components or accoutrements thereto related pending the determination of the substantive Judicial Review proceedings,” Justice Williams added.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the developer is prohibited from undertaking any or any further excavation including the digging of pits and trenches, the construction of foundations for buildings, walls or other structures, or any further excavation and/or digging or boring of holes.”