By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government’s proposed “watering down” of planning laws is not in the Bahamian people’s interests, an environmental attorney warned yesterday, as it threatens to undermine sustainable development.

Romauld Ferreira told Tribune Business that the revised Planning and Subdivision Bill contained “very clever” - and subtle - changes to the 2010 Act that would benefit certain developers at the expense of public transparency and accountability.

He added that it effectively deprived Bahamians of the right to know in advance of commercial and residential developments that might impact them, while also permitting the Town Planning Committee to approve a project BEFORE public consultation.

Mr Ferreira said the proposed reforms, if passed by Parliament, would also give the Government and regulators discretion as to whether they released a project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Describing the proposed Bill as a backward step for the Bahamas, he also questioned whether it had been influenced by recent planning controversies involving the likes of Blackbeard’s Cay and Nygard Cay.

In respect of Blackbeard’s Cay, the Government was defeated by environmental activists in the Supreme Court, which quashed a variety of planning-related permits because the statutory processes for issuing them - including prior public consultation - had not been followed.

“We say that it’s moving in the wrong direction, and it doesn’t promote sustainable growth and development,” Mr Ferreira said of the draft 2015 Bill, which would repeal the 2010 Act. “The effects are going to be extremely dire.

“I, and everyone in Save the Bays, is very concerned by this and the whole idea of reducing public involvement, Land Use Planning and zoning. It benefits someone, but it doesn’t benefit the Bahamian public, the average man on the street.”

However, the proposed reforms have been praised by at least one major developer, who believes that the Bahamas simply lacks the capacity and expertise to properly implement the 2010 Act.

Franon Wilson, the Arawak Homes president, told Tribune Business last year that the 2010 Act was “a disaster from the start” and not made for the Bahamas.

He argued that the former Ingraham administration “went too far, too fast”, and exceeded the capacity of both the private and public sectors to properly implement it.

Mr Wilson added that the 2010 Act required the Ministry of Works to “double, triple, quadruple” its staff, and hire numerous professionals, to fulfill its expanded mandate, but this was never done.

However, Mr Ferreira told Tribune Business yesterday that the 2010 Act was “passed unanimously” by both Houses, including Prime Minister Perry Christie when he was in Opposition.

Detailing the proposed changes, he said the 2010 Act applied to the whole Bahamas, whereas the new Bill will only cover “specific areas”.

“It very clearly leaves out the Port area of Grand Bahama, and it leaves out the cays off New Providence, including Blackbeard’s Cay, which is operating in defiance of the court,” Mr Ferreira added.

“It’s a very clever piece of drafting, and it’s obviously an attempt to grandfather that [project] in.”

Implying that the Bill is intended to ensure that developments such as Blackbeard’s Cay are never again defeated in the courts, Mr Ferreira said it also “does away” with the requirement for the Government to develop Land Use Plans.

And he described as “short-sighted” the proposal not to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for subdivisions with less than 100 lots, arguing that this would allow crafty developers to simply expand their footprint in 99-unit phases at a time.

Mr Ferreira said the criteria for whether a real estate-related project would require an EIA had also undergone “a real watering down”.

While the 2010 Act listed six specific criteria that would trigger an EIA, such as concerns over the effect on the environment or a project’s location involving “sensitive and nationally important” land, the Bill says these will only apply to certain types of developments listed in its second schedule.

Mr Ferreira pointed to clauses in the new Bill that appear to further dilute the EIA aspect. “It doesn’t require it [an EIA] to be disclosed to the public,” he added.

“It now allows the Government to waive EIAs and associated criteria based on the friendliness of the developer. It doesn’t require them to consider public comments on a development prior to a decision being made.”

Clause 12 of the draft Bill limits public hearings to certain types of development listed in the Bill. Town meetings on non-listed types of development will only be held at the recommendation of the responsible Minister or director of physical planning.

Suggesting that the Bill would make the Bahamas non-compliant with United Nations (UN) conventions relating to EIAs. Mr Ferreira said: “It’s a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability.

“The implications of this are that you will get situations where a public consultation is held AFTER a project has been approved. Or what happened with the Baker’s Bay project on Guana Cay, where the developer was told by the Government not to release the EIA.

“The public will not be made aware of significant developments that impact them. These are real problems that are happening now. It exacerbates the lack of planning. When you take this in conjunction with Land Use Plans it becomes very serious, as people will not see what areas are zoned for.”

Mr Ferreira said Save the Bays, in which he is a member, was “really concerned about this concept of bonus zoning”.

The draft Bill permits the Town Planning Committee to make certain concessions/benefits to the developer if their project includes the provision of community facilities, parks, and the preservation of historical buildings.

These concessions include allowing the developer to build to a height, and/or density, that is 25 per cent greater “than would otherwise be permitted”.

The Town Planning Committee can also require the developer to enter into “a bonus zoning agreement” with the responsible Minister. No details or specifics to define such an agreement are provided, and the ‘bonus’ arrangement can continue for as long as the Minister deems fit.

“I think it opens the door for the developer to negotiate their own zoning requirements,” Mr Ferreira told Tribune Business. “There’s no clear criteria as such to be applied.”

As for the $10,000 fine for developers who undertake projects without Town Planning Committee approval, the environmental attorney added: “You can’t be serious.

“Imagine a big developer having to pay a $10,000 fine. It should not be a fixed penalty. There should be a minimum amount and an upper amount based on the size of the development and the infractions.”