By ANNELIA NIXON

Tribune Business Reporter

anixon@tribunemedia.net

Attorneys for the $200m Rosewood Exuma project have argued their opponents have "an insurmountable problem" because they took too long to submit a challenge to its planning approvals.

Robert Adams KC, the Delaney Partners attorney and partner, argued that the challenges to his client's site plan approval by the developers of Turtlegrass Resort and Island Club and Over Yonder Cay were filed out of time almost 120 days after the Town Planning Committee's March 28, 2025, decision was made.

“The more substantial question is whether the Board, in fact, has an appeal before it that it is entitled as a matter of law to entertain,” Mr Adams said. “And the difficulty that the appellants have is that this is an appeal that has been filed almost 120 days after the Town Planning Committee's decision was made. That's a problem for them, and I respectfully submit it is an insurmountable problem for them...

“If they wish time to consider what we have said about the fact that their appeal has been filed out of time, that's a matter for the chair and a matter for them. We are content to proceed today. The objection is a very straightforward one.

"I don't think time will help, but if they wish to have time to consider it, we could not reasonably object to it, provided we're talking about a very short period of time for them to consider what we've said and for the board to reconvene and come back and address that issue.”

A hearing to decide this preliminary issue site relating to the East Sampson Cay project is set for October 28. Raven Rolle, of Callenders & Company, represented Turtlegrass Resort and Island Club, while former minister of the environment, Romauld Ferreira, acted for Yonder Holdings.

Callenders, on behalf of Turtlegrass, described the Town Planning Committee’s decision to grant site plan approval as “procedurally defective and substantially flawed” in the July 25, 2025, appeal submitted to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. Only once a developer fulfills all the Committee’s conditions can it seek full site plan approval.

The appeal, which has been obtained by this newspaper, also attacks an alleged lack of consultation and asserted that the approval decision contravenes the Town Planning Committee Rules. This, Turtlegrass and its principal are arguing, makes the decision “void” and requires it to be reconsidered as a new application.

Arguing that the Town Planning Committee “failed to comply with the requirements for holding public hearings.... and the principles of natural justice”, as set out in its Rules and the Planning and Subdivision Act, Turtlegrass also asserted that the regulator “failed to give reasons for its decision”.

It urged that the site plan approval be overturned, and the matter “remitted” for a new hearing following “proper notice, consultation and disclosure”, and said: “The plans relied upon during the hearing materially differed from those made available for public inspection, resulting in a breach of transparency and procedural fairness, and contrary to law.”

Turtlegrass argued that the approval process for Rosewood Exuma was “in breach of the common law on what constitutes consultation” and the precedent set by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board’s verdict on Wendy’s Paradise Island restaurant.

It also alleged “no further consultation was conducted” despite the objections raised with Physical Planning, violating the Town Planning Committee’s “duty to act judicially” under its rules. The planning appeal thus represents the latest development in the clash between the two neighbouring resorts - Turtlegrass and Rosewood Exuma.