The Tribune

By FAY SIMMONS

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

jsimmons@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEYS for government regulators and the $200m Rosewood Exuma project’s developer yesterday rejected allegations of “salami slicing” to minimise the development’s effects and avoid full public scrutiny.

They arguing that separate certificates of environmental clearance (CEC) for specific works did not amount to a deliberate effort to carve up the project to hide its full impact, and asserted that extensions of such approvals are a normal part of regulatory oversight.

Edward Fitzgerald KC, the UK attorney representing the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) and other government defendants, told Justice Leif Farquharson KC that the various CECs issued for the Rosewood Exuma development did not remove individual components from environmental scrutiny because the wider project had already been subjected to an assessment.

He and attorneys for Yntegra Group, the Miami-based developer, took the position that the environmental approval process is capable of evolving as a development progresses, with regulators able to require additional studies, mitigation or revisions where circumstances warrant.

Mr Fitzgerald argued that the principle against “salami slicing” did not apply simply because separate certificates were issued for particular works. He pointed to the proposed service dock as an example, arguing that it had been identified and considered within the wider environmental assessment and was also the subject of public consultation.

The Government's position is that the service dock has not been hidden from the public and other stakeholders, and that the development plans were subsequently modified in response to concerns raised during the consultation process.

Mr Fitzgerald said the location of the dock had been reconsidered, alternative locations examined and additional marine habitat work undertaken before the revised proposal was advanced. The amount of dredging required was also reduced, the Supreme Court court hear in the Judicial Review trial seeking to overturn Rosewood Exuma’s environmental approvals.

The Government and Yntegra argued that these changes demonstrated an environmental approval process that was working as intended, with public concerns capable of influencing the development rather than a process designed simply to rubber stamp the original proposal.

Mr Fitzgerald described the environmental assessment as an “iterative process”, and said revisions to the development should not automatically be treated as evidence that the original consultation was defective.

The Government also pushed back against the argument that the expiration of a CEC necessarily means the developer must begin the entire environmental approval process again. The dispute centres in part on CEC 2400A, which Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club, Rosewood Exuma’s key opponent, has argued expired on October 8, 2025, before Dr Rhiana Neely-Murphy, DEPP’s director, extended it.

The Government’s position is that extensions are a normal feature of environmental regulation, particularly where there has been no material change to the works or the environmental circumstances. Its attorneys argued that the regulator retains discretion to determine whether an extension requires further environmental studies, a new environmental impact assessment (EIA) or additional public consultation.

It therefore rejected the suggestion that an extension of an existing approval automatically creates the need to restart the environmental assessment process from scratch.

Robert Adams KC, representing Yntegra Group, similarly argued that the relevant question was whether the regulator had sufficient information and legal authority to deal with the particular works before it, rather than whether every stage of the wider development had to be treated as a new application.

He argued that the environmental approval framework gives the regulator room to assess whether further environmental work is required as a project develops.

Mr Fitzgerald also argued that the existence of genuine environmental concerns does not, by itself, establish that the director acted unlawfully. “A genuine environmental concern does not, without more, establish an error having been made,” he told the court.

That argument goes to the distinction between challenging the environmental merits of a development and demonstrating that the decision-making process was unlawful, which is central to the Judicial Review proceedings.

The respondents' submissions also sought to keep the court's focus on whether the regulator acted within the powers provided under the Environmental Planning and Protection Act and its regulations, rather than having the court substitute its own assessment of the project's environmental merits.