The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Major developers and resorts last night told Tribune Business they are willing to take their campaign to block Wendy’s Paradise Island restaurant “to the highest level of the judicial system”.

Glen Haddad, executive vice-president of the Paradise Island Tourism Development Association (PITDA), which represents the likes of Atlantis, Paradise Landing (Sterling Global’s former Hurricane Hole project), the Ocean Club and Comfort Suites, confirmed in writing that they will bring their opposition to the London-based Privy Council if that is what it takes.

Asked by this newspaper how far the Association and its members are prepared to go in challenging the site plan approval granted for the Wendy’s and Marco’s Pizza restaurant, Mr Haddad replied: “Yes, we are prepared to take this to the highest level of the judicial system.”

This signals that the Association and its deep-pocketed members may try to grind Aetos Holdings, the local Wendy’s and Marco’s Pizza franchisee, and its Psomi Holdings subsidiary into submission through costly and time-consuming legal action. Besides planning process appeals, another legal avenue that may be explored is a Judicial Review action to challenge the rationale for the Town Planning Committee’s decision.

Meanwhile, the Association and its members yesterday turned their fire on the planning authorities over what they branded a “baffling” decision by the Committee to grant Wendy’s site plan approval for the former Scotiabank branch location with only a few minor conditions attached.

It also hit out at the Department of Physical Planning for failing to fulfill its lawful obligation to develop a Land Use Plan for Paradise Island some 13 years after the Planning and Subdivision Act was passed, arguing that this had resulted in “yet another uninformed planning decision”.

Mr Haddad told Tribune Business that the requirement for the Department “to prepare a Land Use Plan for all islands of The Bahamas” is laid out in the Act’s section 16. The Association, in its earlier statement, said it was “extremely disappointed” in the Town Planning Committee’s decision and refusal to grant an extension for further submissions following the Monday, October 16, public hearing.

“The Committee refused to grant the extension and instead advised PITDA that it would be meeting in one week to make a decision and indicated that any submission should be submitted for consideration before the meeting,” the Association added.

“In a rushed but comprehensive correspondence, PITDA reminded the Committee of its various concerns, including parking and traffic concerns, [and] questioned the Committee’s refusal to require a traffic impact assessment despite the concerns it raised when this developer made its first application before the same Committee, which was approved and later successfully appealed against.”

The Association also “advised that it had commissioned a traffic impact study from a local expert, and offered to assist the Committee with identifying the development policy for Paradise Island - since the Department of Physical Planning had failed to create one despite its statutory requirement to do so - to avoid the Committee making yet another uninformed planning decision.”

The Association said that, in the same letter, it had also asked the Town Planning Committee to “call a special hearing after the submission of the traffic impact study and the policy document to permit it and others to have a fair hearing before the Committee on all of the issues arising.

“The purpose of this request was to allow PITDA, other stakeholders (including residents and businesses on Paradise Island), the developer and other interested persons adequate time to carefully prepare submissions to be heard before the Committee and to permit such persons to put reasonable questions to the Committee regarding their material considerations and the use of their power,” the Association added.

“We believe that the Committee acted unfairly and unreasonably in refusing to grant PITDA’s reasonable request for an extension of time, and refusing its request for a special hearing by approving the application without the courtesy of a response to PITDA’s requests, despite the unanswered questions regarding traffic concerns, and without providing any feedback on the matters which were material and immaterial to its decision-making process.”

Keenan Johnson, the Town Planning Committee’s chairman, told Tribune Business earlier this week that it rejected as “unreasonable” the request that it delay its decision by four weeks to allow time for Caribbean Civil Group, the Association’s contractor, to complete a traffic impact study.

He added that sufficient time for such work had already been given by the month-long advance notice of the public hearing on the Wendy’s proposal. Asked by Tribune Business why a traffic study was not commissioned much earlier in the process, Mr Haddad said the Psomi Holdings and Aetos Holdings should have been required to produce one.

“According to Psomi’s application form and the responses at the hearing, the director, during the pre-submission consultation with Psomi, expressly indicated that a traffic impact study was necessary,” Mr Haddad wrote. “After PITDA became aware of this, PITDA took steps to engage a professional to conduct a traffic assessment and did this in advance of the hearing.

“In any event, the Committee refused to take the results of a traffic assessment into consideration. It should have required Psomi to produce one in support of its application.... The traffic study has been made ‘late’ by the Committee’s refusal to allow an extension for the assessment to be completed.

“The Committee insisted on making a decision within one week of the hearing and refused to consider the content of an objective traffic assessment. PITDA’s recourse is to challenge the Committee’s decision to grant the approval despite the various issues raised by PITDA and other interested persons.”

The Association, in its earlier release, said: “Our members find it baffling that the Committee would move forward with this approval. “As we have pointed out before, PITDA is the entity that maintains all the roads, traffic lights and directional signage, other infrastructure, and traffic security across Paradise Island.

“Given its remit, PITDA strongly believes that this development will have a very negative traffic impact on the visitors, residents and employees of Paradise Island. Our members – Atlantis, Bay View Suites, Comfort Suites, Paradise Island Beach Club, The Ocean Club, Paradise Landing, and Ocean Club Estates – all agree. As do more than 200 homeowners on Paradise Island.”

Pledging to appeal “against this erroneous decision immediately”, the Association added: “We believe that this site is one of the many prime locations on the island - it being near the roundabout by the exit bridge - and contributes to first and last impressions and experiences of the otherwise luxurious Paradise Island.....

“We feel it was wrong for the Committee to disregard the objections of the businesses and residents of Paradise Island, who overwhelmingly reject this development. The introduction of the proposed fast food restaurants is unnecessary and unwanted.

“PITDA, the businesses and residents of Paradise Island believe that permitting the branding and operation of these fast food brands on Paradise Island will have an immediate negative impact on the Paradise Island brand upon which thousands of jobs and the overall branding of the islands of The Bahamas depend.”

Setting out its concerns over planning procedures, the Association added: “This entire process has caused us to repeatedly ask these questions which, unfortunately, we believe will remain unanswered: What weight does the Committee apply to the desires and concerns of residents and stakeholders? What considerations were material to the Committee’s decision?

“Why is a traffic impact study irrelevant to the Committee’s approval, especially when the developer was unable to confirm the number of available parking spaces, anticipated number of patrons etc.? Where is the desire for these fast-food restaurants on Paradise Island coming from?

“What is the Department’s understanding of the development policy for Paradise Island? What policy considerations did the Committee have to apply its mind to? Are we as a country taking planning issues seriously?”