By FAY SIMMONS

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

jsimmons@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court challenge to the $200m Rosewood Exuma project’s environmental permits yesterday kicked-off amid allegations that the development had been subject to “salami slicing” as a way to circumvent the approvals process and disguise its full impact from public scrutiny.

Attorneys for the project’s main opponent, the neighbouring Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club development on Big Sampson Cay, argued that this practice is what regulators and decision-makers must guard against.

Peter Village KC  told Justice Leif Farquharson KC that environmental decision-makers must consider the true nature and scope of a development rather than simply accepting how an application has been divided by a developer.

“The decision maker must be alert to the mischief of salami slicing or project splitting being resorted to in an attempt to evade the requisite assessment,” said Mr Village.

The argument forms part of Turtlegrass’s Judicial Review challenge to environmental approvals granted for the Yntegra Group’s Rosewood Exuma development at East Sampson Cay.

Turtlegrass is challenging the process through which certificates of environmental clearance (CECs) were issued for different elements of the proposed project, arguing that the components should have been assessed as part of one overall scheme.

Fred Smith KC, also representing Turtlegrass, told the court that the Heads of Agreement between the developer and the Government described a single project covering the 22-acre Sampson Cay north-west tip and the 124-acre eastern portion of East Sampson Cay.

Mr Smith pointed to the agreement’s master plan, which he said covered the development over an eight-year period and included interconnected facilities across the two parcels.

The eastern portion includes proposed employee housing, a canteen, medical clinic, nursery, organic farm and back-of-house facilities, plus the resort, beach club, spa and residences.

“The property is one property, one conceptual master plan, one project over eight years, one construction workforce of up to 250 people, and a further continuing operational workforce of 150 people,” said Mr Smith.

He said the components were functionally dependent on one another and argued that the development could not properly be treated as separate projects simply because different portions had been submitted for environmental clearance at different times. “Neither project is a viable development standing alone,” said Mr Smith.

Mr Village told the court that the Environmental Planning and Protection Act, and related regulations, require the assessment of a proposed “project”, arguing that the legislation does not allow a developer to turn one project into a series of smaller projects simply by describing the individual activities separately.

“The Act doesn't make such a distinction,” said Mr Village. “What the Act does is identify and require that any project is assessed.” He said the original application that eventually resulted in CEC 2894 was itself too vague because of repeated references to activities that would “include” various works.

Mr Village argued that the wording made it difficult to determine the precise scope of the project being assessed. “What we say about this application is ... you've got our points about the weasel words ‘include, include’,” he told the court.

He later argued that the approach effectively left room for additional development to be incorporated without the full scope of the project being defined at the outset. “By saying include, it's effectively opening the floodgates for more development without defining it,” said Mr Village.

The Turtlegrass attorneys also argued that the timing of the individual CECs was significant because approvals for earlier works were obtained before CEC 2894 was issued in June 2025.

Mr Village said CECs 2400/2400A and 2884 were granted before CEC 2894, and argued that obtaining those approvals provided an advantage because the physical works could subsequently alter the environmental baseline against which the larger project was considered.

Mr Smith later developed that argument, noting the earlier approvals allowed works to take place on the site before the broader project was considered.

“Those works were in the ground. That the land had been cleared. Those roadways had been effectively made up, and that change to the baseline would have made a real difference to further applications,” said Mr Smith.

The argument was also tied to a proposed solar farm intended to support the resort.

The court heard that a recent affidavit from the developers stated that the decision to develop a solar farm was not part of the project when the earlier CEC applications were submitted.

Mr Smith questioned that position and argued that, if the solar farm had been contemplated before CEC 2894 was issued, the developer should have informed the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) and revised the environmental assessment. He said that would have required the change to be disclosed and put out for public consultation.

Mr Smith also argued that the earlier CECs could have helped establish a baseline for the later solar farm application because physical works had already taken place.

Turtlegrass’s challenge also centres heavily on public consultation.

Mr Smith told the court that the environmental assessment process was progressive, with an EIA (environmental impact assessment), revised EIA, Environmental Management Plan and revised EMP being produced at different stages.

He argued that members of the public should have been given an opportunity to consider significant new documents or changes to the development rather than relying on an initial consultation exercise.

“The consultation, just as the consideration of the relevant documentation is an iterative process, so is consultation,” said Mr Smith.

He said the public was not provided with a number of documents during the consultation period, including the second EIA revision, the original EMP and its revision, an enabling works method statement and other CEC application material.

Mr Smith argued that where important documents or revisions to plans were submitted to the regulator, they should have been made available to the public for consultation.

The attorneys contend that the alleged failure to properly consult is particularly significant because environmental consultation is intended to allow affected persons to make informed representations about a proposed development.

Mr Smith described the alleged failure by the developers and DEPP to make relevant documentation available through the original consultation, reconsultation or further consultation as a serious defect in the process.

The salami-slicing argument formed one of several grounds being advanced by Turtlegrass in its challenge, alongside allegations concerning the adequacy of the EIA and EMP, the consultation process and the lawfulness of individual CEC decisions.

Mr Village also relied on foreign case law dealing with project splitting, including a recent Scottish case involving a wind farm and its grid connection, in which the court considered whether the two components formed a single project.

He told Justice Farquharson that the important question was not simply how an application had been framed, but the actual relationship between the different components and the true scope of the proposed development.

For Turtlegrass, the submission is that the Rosewood Exuma development was sufficiently integrated from the outset that its components should have been assessed together, rather than through separate environmental approvals. The respondents’ position on the allegations will be considered as the Judicial Review hearing continues.