The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamian entrepreneur seeking to restore Paradise Island’s lighthouse yesterday voiced hope the Government will now approve his project - now in its 12th year of asking - with the same “swiftness” it has afforded Royal Caribbean.

Toby Smith, the Paradise Island Lighthouse and Beach Club principal who was previously battling the cruise line for the same two Crown Land acres, told Tribune Business that the go-head granted to Royal Caribbean “is not a recipe for success for the revitalisation” of Bay Street given the extra competition that the 17-acre Royal Beach Club will provide.

Speaking after the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) affirmed that the cruise line has “substantively addressed the environmental concerns” surrounding its western Paradise Island project, and brought the public consultation phase to an end, he also questioned how Royal Caribbean can proceed given its admission that it is still awaiting a revised Crown Land lease.

The cruise line modified its initial requirements for seven Crown Land acres on Paradise Island’s western tip, dropping this to four, so as to exclude the land also sought by Mr Smith and end all conflict with him. However, the latter yesterday queried why Royal Caribbean was seemingly negotiating land that remains caught up in his ongoing legal battle with the Government over claims Paradise Island Lighthouse and Beach Club had a valid and binding lease for those three acres.

Mr Smith’s claim is now before the Court of Appeal, following a Supreme Court reversal, but Royal Caribbean admitted in an answer to one of the questions he posed during the EIA public consultation that it does not possess a revised Crown Land lease for the four-acre parcel - as opposed to the original seven - that will be incorporated into the Royal Beach Club. Nor does the cruise line yet possess any Town Planning Committee approvals.

Replying to what it deemed “the most relevant” queries among the 167 submitted by Mr Smith, Royal Caribbean wrote: “Royal Caribbean was granted a Crown Land lease on May 25, 2021, by the Government of The Bahamas for seven acres of Crown land from the western boundary of our private property.

“Given, at the time, the unresolved legal status of the purported lease held by Mr Smith, Royal Caribbean proposed to the Government that it amend its lease to exclude the three acres under dispute. In January 2023, the National Economic Council (NEC) of The Bahamas granted Royal Caribbean’s new proposal and began to discuss the terms of the amended lease and other associated legal documents.

“Despite the recent court ruling that found that Mr Smith did not have a valid lease, Royal Caribbean has submitted its terms for the amended lease to exclude the disputed property. At present, that amendment has not been completed. Lastly, no, we have not received approval from Town Planning.”

Mr Smith, who said he was “surprised” to learn of the environmental approvals through Royal Caribbean rather than the Government, told this newspaper: “Given the fact Royal Caribbean conceded they don’t have a concluded lease, why is Royal Caribbean negotiating a lease that is not finalised while proceeding through the approval process?

“Why is Royal Caribbean uttering a lease involving land that is before the courts and respecting the legal process? Once I’ve had an opportunity to review the responses from Royal Caribbean I’ll be in a better position to speak more specifically. It’s extremely frustrating, them moving on to the next step.

“Paradise Island Lighthouse and Beach Club is in its 12th year of bringing an all-Bahamian project to market. It has the written support of every major environmental group, and I hope the swiftness upon which the Government is approving Royal Caribbean is applied to our project.”

The Davis administration, though, has requested that Mr Smith “reapply” for the necessary government permits and approvals so that his project can proceed. It took that stance after the Supreme Court ruled the Paradise Island Lighthouse and Beach Club principal did not possess a valid, binding Crown Land lease for the collective five acres he was seeking on Paradise Island’s western end.

Mr Smith, meanwhile, argued that Royal Caribbean’s beach club proceeding does not bode well for the present drive to revive Bay Street and downtown Nassau given the increased competition it will pose after it launches operations in late summer 2025.

“Bahamians are trying to revitalise Bay Street, and Royal Caribbean plans to compete against Bay Street. I don’t believe that will be a recipe for success for the revitalisation,” he told Tribune Business. “Bahamians have it tough enough as it is without having foreign-owned competition immediately across from Bay Street.”

However, Philip Simon, Royal Caribbean’s Bahamas country chief, in today’s paper argues that the cruise line will expand the market for all and not seize it all for itself via the Royal Beach Club. He added that plans to increase the number of passengers it brings to Nassau by 150 percent by 2027, taking this to 2.5m compared to pre-COVID’s one million, will grow the pie for all cruise-reliant businesses. Of that 2.5m, only 40 percent will go to Paradise Island (see Page1B).

Environmentalists and others who have voiced concerns about the Royal Caribbean project and its impact were quieter yesterday. Vaughn Roberts, Atlantis senior vice-president of government affairs and special projects, could not be contacted for comment although the mega resort previously raised queries about the environmental impact and other issues raised by the cruise line’s plans.

Eric Carey, the former Bahamas National Trust (BNT) executive director who was hired by Atlantis to review its EIA, told this newspaper he was “still meeting with the client to formulate a response” and unable to comment yet. Other environmental activists spoken to by this newspaper said they were unaware that the DEPP had given Royal Caribbean its approval, which was issued last week Tuesday, August 15.

The Royal Beach Club now moves on to the submission of its Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and, if there are no issues, will likely receive its Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) and be free to proceed where this topic is concerned although it will also have to satisfy Town Planning Committee requirements.

However, given that it has been found to have “substantively addressed the environmental concerns”, Royal Caribbean’s Paradise Island ambitions have likely overcome their last remaining major hurdle. The Davis administration’s NEC approval earlier this year was conditioned, or predicated, on it satisfying all environmental issues and it now appears to have done just that, paving the way for full and final approvals.

Mr Smith, though, challenged whether Bahamians had been given sufficient time to assess the environmental issues raised by the Royal Beach Club given that multiple key documents were only released publicly just days before the June 8, 2023, public consultation.

“Given that the Bahamian people have only been given approximately an hour at a public forum to air their concerns on something as substantial as a Crown Land lease for a minimum 150 years, I don’t think they’ve given the Bahamian people a fair chance with consultation,” he added.

“Royal Caribbean only released data quietly a few days before the public consultation meeting. They didn’t allow anybody to be able to review, digest and address questions or concerns.”

Similar concerns were raised by Mr Carey at both the public consultation meeting and in a letter he wrote on July 5, 2023. “As I expressed that evening, I was disappointed that the public was given so little time to review your supplemental EIA materials,” he wrote.

“And as I’ve shared with you directly since that meeting, the poor resolution quality of the report made it very difficult to properly review. The more recent studies you cite in the supplemental information are welcome and important to understanding both the potential impact of your project and what level of mitigation is required to reduce the chances of catastrophic environmental harm.”