The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE $200M Rosewood Exuma developer has revealed it was unable to lodge the environmental bonds mandated by its permits because the Government’s regulator has yet to set-up the required payment infrastructure.

Justice Leif Farquharson disclosed the hold-up in a verdict unveiled yesterday, in which he rejected the latest demand by the project’s chief opponents - the neighbouring Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club and Yonder Holdings, the Over Yonder Cay developer - for the developer, Miami-based Yntegra Group, and the Government to disclose further documents related to the project.

Yntegra, not surprisingly, hailed the Supreme Court’s decision after Justice Farquharson branded some document requests “speculative”, adding that the rival resort developers’ requests were “peripheral to the centrally-pleaded cases” and “seemingly ignore the extremely fulsome record already before the court” before their substantive Judicial Review challenge to Rosewood Exuma’s environmental approvals is heard at month’s end.

But Turtlegrass, whose principal is US investor and Exuma resident, Bob Coughlin, countered that it is now mulling an appeal “and other legal options” over Justice Farquharson’s decision not to Order document disclosure related to Rosewood Exuma’s planned 22-acre solar energy farm; permit to harvest protected trees granted by the Forestry Department; an “enabling works method statement”; and the project’s environmental bonds.

Besides the obstacles to Yntegra’s payment of the bonds, which are required by two of its already-issued certificates of environmental clearance (CEC), the judge’s verdict also revealed that the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) intervened over a much-publicised “sediment plume” in the waters off East Sampson Cay by requiring the developer to change how it was delivering materials to the project site.

However, Justice Farquharson’s detailing of the bonds situation is likely to raise questions as to whether other Bahamas-based developers have been able to lodge and pay this security, which is designed to guarantee that any environmental damage caused by project activity can be compensated for and there are sufficient funds to remediate this.

The verdict makes clear that the problem lies with DEPP’s failure to-date to put in the necessary payment infrastructure, rather than Yntegra or other developers. Both Turtlegrass and Yonder Holdings had sought documents relating to the bonds given that “conditions” in two of Rosewood Exuma’s CECs stipulated that their payment was required, including the amount of security provided and how this was calculated.

Felipe MacLean, Yntegra’s principal, in a July 23, 2026, affidavit resisting the document disclosure demands, detailed the present status of the bonds. “He also confirms that the developers have been unable to pay the environmental bond referred to in CECs 2400 and 2400A due to DEPP not having the necessary institutional framework in place to facilitate such payment,” Justice Farquharson wrote.

“The applicants submit that the non-payment of the environmental bond, which is a mandatory condition, requires fuller explanation and disclosure. They contend that the explanation attributed to DEP, that the relevant institutional framework was not in place, is inadequate.

“The evidence is that the bond has not been paid because, following a telephone inquiry by BRON on July 2, 2025, DEPP informed BRON that the institutional framework needed to facilitate payment was not in place.” Justice Farquharson subsequently rejected the Turtlegrass and Yonder Holdings disclosure demand over the environmental bonds.

“Whether a bond was paid after the impugned CECs were issued, and the explanation for non-payment, does not bear upon the lawfulness of those CECs,” the judge ruled. “The issues raised by the claims primarily concern the adequacy of the environmental assessments and public consultation process.

“I accept the respondents' [Government and Yntegra] submission that the subsequent payment of a bond is largely irrelevant to the issues in the claims. Nor is non-payment of the bond pleaded as an independent ground of challenge. The requested further disclosure concerning the environmental bond is accordingly refused.”

The verdict also disclosed that DEPP and its director, Dr Rhiana Neely-Murphy, became involved over the July 7, 2026, “sediment plume” that generated another PR battle between the Rosewood developer and its main opponents.

“Dr Neely-Murphy further speaks to becoming aware on or about July 7, 2026, of social media videos showing a sediment plume during barge delivery of materials to East Sampson Cay,” Justice Farquharson recorded. “She states that the videos appeared to show that a silt curtain was deployed but had been ineffective.

“She confirms that, because of that concern, she called the developers’ environmental consultants, BRON, to a meeting on July 9, 2026, and directed that the existing delivery method not continue until a solution was agreed.

“Following the meeting, a floating dock was installed. The stated purpose is to enable barges to remain afloat rather than come into direct contact with the beach and seabed, thereby reducing the risk of a further sediment plume.”

Turtlegrass and Yonder Holdings alleged that their further demands for document disclosure were sparked by material released during a first round of evidence sharing. They argued that the solar farm “only came to light” during a June 10, 2026, site inspection when Yntegra’s attorneys revealed approvals had been sought for a 22-acre site on Big Sampson Cay’s north-west - land on the other side of Turtlegrass - to provide the project’s energy.

“The affiants say the previously disclosed environmental materials contemplated renewable energy infrastructure, including solar panels and battery systems, supplying at least 30 percent of projected power demand,” the Supreme Court verdict said. “They assert that the solar farm proposal may therefore be either: the proposal already assessed; a revised or expanded proposal; or a distinct project requiring separate assessment and approval.

“Both affiants contend that, if the solar facility is integral to the overall project, its separate treatment could amount to 'salami slicing', which they describe as the process of artificially dividing a large, single development project into smaller component parts to avoid triggering ElA thresholds or other regulatory requirements.”

Both Turtlegrass and Yonder Holdings argued that the “enabling works method statement” prepared for the project by BRON contained “technical material” not previously disclosed, as well as referred to a permit to harvest protected trees that they believe had expired and was not renewed or extended. Accordingly, the Rosewood Exuma opponents demanded further disclosures in these areas.

This, though, was opposed by the Government and developer. Dr Neely-Murphy said Rosewood Exuma had “applied to DEPP for approval in respect of a proposed solar-panel installation and related works. She says DEPP has not yet considered the application and has not communicated a decision or response to the developers.

‘She confirms that the ElA and EMP for the project envisaged solar energy supplying at least 30 percent of the development's power demand,” Justice Farquharson added. “She further says that when DEPP considers the application, it will assess the design and siting of the panels for environmental compatibility and impose appropriate environmental conditions in the ordinary course.”

Meanwhile, Danielle Hanek, the Government’s forestry director, explained how it calculated the 15,677 protected trees set to be impacted within the project areaa and how “the projected mortality figure of 784 trees” was reached.

Justice Farquharson, in his verdict, said on the solar farn that “there is no basis for an additional disclosure order” because the entire proposal has been disclosed as an exhibit to Supreme Court evidence and no approvals have been granted.

“The premise that there are undisclosed decision-making materials concerning the solar farm application is not made out,” he added. “I also struggle to see how later correspondence concerning the proposed solar farm is necessary to determine the lawfulness of CECs 2884 and 2894 granted in June 2025, including the allegation of unlawful salami-slicing, as to which there is ample material before the court.”

And, while Rosewood Exuma’s opponents had challenged the forecast 5 percent mortality rate for the protected trees, the judge added: “These matters do not provide a proper basis for the requested disclosure. The lawfulness of the protected tree harvesting permits is not challenged and no relief is sought to quash or otherwise impugn them.”

Justice Farquharson concluded: “The applications do not in my view identity any material change of circumstances or a sufficiently focused category of documents which now makes a fresh order necessary for the fair and just resolution of the extant Judicial Reviews.

“In substance, they seek wide-ranging disclosure in relation to matters peripheral to the central pleaded cases. They also seemingly ignore the extremely fulsome record already before the court. That is neither a proportionate nor a necessary use of disclosure in Judicial Review proceedings… I am not satisfied that the further disclosure now sought is necessary for the fair and just determination of the Judicial Reviews.”

Yntegra, in its response to Tribune Business, said this was the second time the Supreme Court has rejected its opponents’ document disclosure demands.

“Yntegra remains focused on bringing these proceedings to a timely conclusion and advancing a carefully planned, environmentally responsible development that will deliver lasting economic opportunities for Exuma and The Bahamas,” it added.

However, Turtlegrass countered: “Turtlegrass is considering an appeal and other legal options regarding the court's refusal to order discovery of documents relating to the solar plant component of the Yntegra development… The solar plant is integral to the wider development, and we and other affected parties are entitled to information about it.

“This is one of several court decisions Turtlegrass may challenge. Others include the court’s refusal to admit our expert evidence, refusal of amendments to our pleadings based on newly-discovered information, and the directions set for a September 28 trial. We continue to regard that evidence and those amendments as crucial to a fair hearing.

“Throughout this case, the Government and developer have drip-fed documents to us — a breach, in our view, of their duty of candour. We remain committed to full and proper discovery so this matter can be fairly determined.  This pattern of selective, delayed disclosure is precisely why we are seeking discovery of all applications, approvals, refusals, exemptions and correspondence between Yntegra and the Government.”

Turtlegrass added: “We remain committed to protecting the environment of East Sampson Cay, and to our vision for an eco-friendly development there - a vision we've had to put on hold because of the Yntegra project…

“The public must ask why the Government has thrown its full weight behind Yntegra - retaining a roster of international attorneys, including senior King's Counsel from London, at considerable cost to Bahamian taxpayers - to fight this hard on behalf of a private developer.  We will continue to weigh our legal options as we seek a fair hearing and to protect the environmental integrity of East Sampson Cay.”