The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE $200M Rosewood Exuma project’s key opponent yesterday pledged “this is not the end of the matter” after a Supreme Court judge refused to admit all six specialist reports it had commissioned as evidence supporting its Judicial Review legal challenge.

Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club, in a statement to Tribune Business, asserted that the findings contained in the reports - each of which deals with separate potential environmental impacts from the resort development on East Sampson Cay - will “come to light one way or another” after Justice Leif Farquharson refused to admit their 11th hour introduction into the proceedings.

Noting that the Supreme Court’s civil procedure rules require Judicial Review applications to be made “promptly”, and no later than six months from the date when the grounds giving cause for the action arose, Justice Farquharson ruled that Turtlegrass’s application for the reports to be admitted as evidence was “exceedingly late by any possible standard”.

He noted that they were only served on the court in June 2026, some ten months after Rosewood Exuma’s neighbouring resort had launched the Judicial Review claim, and just weeks before the substantive trial over its bid to overturn the project’s environmental approvals was due to be heard on July 20-22, 2026, which caused the date to be postponed to end-September 2026.

Justice Farquharson also agreed with the arguments by Rosewood’s developer, Miami-based Yntegra Group, and the Government in asserting that he was “not satisfied that the reports are necessary” because Turtlegrass had already made “extensive representations of a scientific or technical nature during the public consultation on the project.

And, asserting that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) will not satisfy every professional analyst, Justice Farquharson found favour with the comment by Edward Fitzgerald KC, the London-based attorney representing the Government, that “descent into the minutia” is not appropriate on Judicial Reviews dealing with questions over whether such a study is adequate.

Turtlegrass, in response, said it is now exploring “all options available to us” to ensure the reports are “properly heard” including a possible legal appeal as well as their use “in other forthcoming proceedings”. The latter phrase is likely a reference to the upcoming Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearing, where Turtlegrass and fellow developer, Over Yonder Cay Holdings, are seeking to overturn the Rosewood Exuma’s preliminary site plan approval from the Town Planning Committee.

The six reports rejected include an assessment by Dr Craig Dahlgren, of the Perry Institute for Marine Science, which conducted March 2026 marine habitat surveys on the potential impact of Rosewood Exuma’s service dock and shipping channel servicing it, plus a study by Mark Gash, of Turnstone Ecology, which was “critical” of the quality of ecological and bird surveys performed for the project.

Andrew Baker, of Baker Consultants, similarly assessed the ecological risks and impacts, while Brent Williamson, a maritime consultant, explored marine safety and navigation issues associated with the North Bay supply dock and shipping access - including dredging. Other studies, which Turtlegrass unsuccessfully sought to have admitted at the last minute, focused on groundwater resources plus coastal engineering and process issues.

Yntegra, not surprisingly, welcomed Justice Farquharson’s decision as “significant” as he also rejected other “freestanding challenges” to several of Rosewood Exuma’s earlier certificates of environmental clearance (CECs) that were also submitted as late amendments to its application for permission to launch Judicial Review proceedings.

“This is a significant and welcome decision,” an Yntegra spokesperson said. “The court’s findings reinforce the importance of keeping these proceedings focused and bringing the substantive issues to a timely resolution. That has consistently been our position, and we welcome the clarity this ruling provides.

“Rosewood Exuma represents a major long-term investment in The Bahamas and will create meaningful opportunities for Bahamian workers, businesses and communities.” 

Turtlegrass, whose principal is US investor and Exuma resident, Bob Coughlin, promised this will not be the last Bahamians hear of the six reports as they dealt with “the sensitive and ecologically significant marine and coastal environment at Sampson Cay”.

“These reports were not put together lightly. They were commissioned based on information that came to light in recent discovery proceedings – information which Yntegra kept hidden and our legal team had to fight rigorously to uncover,” Turtlegrass asserted.

“They were compiled by global leaders in their respective fields, each with decades of experience at the cutting edge of research relevant to this case. Together, the picture they paint is a serious one when it comes to the environmental impact of Yntegra's stated plans for this pristine corner of the Exuma cays.”

The neighbouring Sampson Cay resort added: “We respect the court's decision, but this is not the end of the matter.

“We believe this evidence goes to the heart of the case – whether the environmental assessment for this development was legally adequate, and whether decision-makers and the public were given the information the law requires before such an impactful development was allowed to proceed.

“We are considering all options available to us to ensure this evidence is properly heard, through possible appeal in the existing legal matters, submission in other forthcoming proceedings, as well as by bringing these expert findings directly before the public.”

Justice Farquharson, explaining why the six reports were rejected as evidence, said: “I am not prepared to allow the admission of the reports. First, the applications are exceedingly late by any possible standard…. The reports were served in June 2026, approximately ten months after the commencement of these proceedings and just weeks before the trial of the substantive claims scheduled to be heard in July 2026.

“Their predominant focus is EIA revision number two, which dates from March 2025. Sampson Cay Retreat Ltd (Turtlegrass) confirms being aware of the contents of ElA revision two since July 22, 2025, even before its application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. The applicants have not adequately explained why the expert evidence they now seek to rely on could not have been obtained at an earlier stage.”

Besides not being satisfied that the reports are necessary, Justice Farquharson added: “Thirdly, in substantial part, the reports invite the court to decide whether the EIA and EMP were scientifically exhaustive, whether a different assessment methodology ought to have been adopted, the acceptability of environmental impacts and the sufficiency of proposed mitigation.

“Those are normally matters of planning and environmental merits, as opposed to matters for Judicial Review. An ElA is not required to address every issue that another expert considers desirable, or to eliminate all room for professional disagreement.

“I accept Mr Fitzgerald's basic submission that what he described as a ‘descent into the minutia’ is not generally appropriate on a Judicial Review of the adequacy of an ElA or EMP, and that a significant margin of appreciation is to be afforded to the decision-maker.”

Justice Farquharson said several of the specialist reports commissioned by Turtlegrass admitted they applied different, or higher, standards than those set out in Bahamian legislation governing EIAs and related environmental matters, namely the Environmental Planning and Protection Act 2019 and Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2020.

“It is also noteworthy that all six reports, on their face, are stated to have been prepared for both the Supreme Court and separate proceedings before the Planning and Subdivision Appeal Board,” the judge wrote. “Their possible utility in a merits-based challenge does not establish their necessity in these Judicial Review claims, and risks transforming the proceedings into a full re-run of the merits of the CEC applications.

“I do not accept the suggestion made by the applicants that the respondents [Yntegra and government] stand to suffer no prejudice by the admission of the expert reports.

“The CECs under challenge in this action were issued in June 2025. This action was commenced in August 2025. The application to adduce the expert reports was moved just weeks before the last scheduled trial date, after extensive preparations had been made by all sides. The public interest in good administration also requires that the legality or otherwise of the challenged CECs be determined without unnecessary further delay.”

Justice Farquharson also rejected Turtlegrass’s bid to introduce amendments that amounted to “proposed free-standing challenges to the earlier CECs”, including allegations that two - CEC 2400 and CEC 2400A - were “unlawful” on the basis that the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) did not require an EIA or environmental management plan (EMP) for either, and the “decisions were pre-determined or made in secret”.

But, again, the judge said the latest changes ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s civil rule procedural requirements that Judicial Review applications be made promptly. Both targeted CECs were issued in 2024, and Turtlegrass had known of them for at least a year.

“In my view, no satisfactory explanation has been offered for the delay in seeking to convert this litigation into a direct challenge to CEC 2400 and CEC 2400A, or to mount a further or separate legal challenge to the extension decision,” Justice Farquharson wrote…..

“The proposed free-standing challenges would also make an already-lengthy proceeding even more unwieldy, expand the evidence and issues materially and detract from the core question as to the lawfulness of the assessment, consultation and decision-making in relation to the decisions already under review in these proceedings.

“Besides the obvious prejudice this would entall for the respondents, it is also highly prejudicial to the public interest in good administration for the legality of those CECs to be the subject of challenge at this juncture. CEC 2400, which in any event was revoked, was issued over 24 months ago and CEC 2400A was issued approximately 23 months ago.”

The only changes that Turtlegrass has been allowed to make by Justice Farquharson are those the Government and Yntegra are not objecting to. Mr Fitzgerald KC, for the Government, in his submissions had identified five key areas for dispute including the alleged “salami slicing” of the project’s approval process; scope and fairness of public consultation; and the “treasure hunt” and “paper chase” interested parties had to undertake in seeking information.

“The permitted amendments may reter to CEC 2400 and CEC 2400A where that reference bears directly upon the lawfulness of the decision-making process already under review,” Justice Farquharson wrote.

“This includes the contention that separate clearances formed part of an alleged ‘salami slicing’ of the project, and the contention that the omission of CEC 2400 and CEC 2400A from information provided to consultees affected the adequacy of consultation on the extant CEC decisions. Such references are relevant contextual allegations.”