The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian couple have failed in their bid to halt Sandals Royal Bahamian’s construction of its newly-opened overwater chapel and dock upon which it sits.

Justice Camille Darville-Gomez, putting her reasons into writing in a February 25, 2025, verdict, rejected efforts by Basil and Margot Barnett, proprietors of Bahamas Medical & Surgical Supplies, to obtain an interim injunction from the Supreme Court on the basis that they had failed to include the Cable Beach-based resort as a party to their Judicial Review action.

The couple, who live in close proximity to Sandals Royal Bahamian, had also sought Orders requiring multiple government regulators and agencies - the port controller, director of physical planning, director of environmental planning and protection, and director of the Bahamas Public Parks and Beaches Authority - to disclose all details of the resort’s applications for permits and the associated approvals.

This, too, was refused by Justice Darville-Gomez on the grounds that a disclosure Order would be “premature” coming ahead of any Supreme Court decision to give the Barnetts permission to proceed with their Judicial Review challenge.

She added that “entitlement to these disclosures rests primarily or solely” on whether the case is allowed to proceed, noting there is “a substantial dispute” over whether the couple have ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter under the new Civil Procedure Rules 2022.

Detailing the dispute, Justice Darville-Gomez wrote of the Barnetts: “It is their belief that Sandals is engaged in the unlawful construction of an overwater chapel, no public authority has demonstrated that Sandals has all the necessary permits for its construction, or that the regulatory regime necessary to supervise the construction of such overwater structures is in place.”

The couple also argued that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Environmental Management Plan (EMP) had ever been produced for the project. “Therefore, they fear that there is no indication that the myriad attendant risks of long-term damage to the delicate ecological environment associated with this overwater chapel have been considered or are being managed,” the judge added.

“They have also asserted that there is a very real risk of loss of financial value of their property.” The Barnetts, who have lived at 15 Coral Road, West Bay Street, said they voiced “express opposition to the nature and scope of work Sandals was undertaking” to the resort on August 30, 2023, before raising the matter with the Port Department on May 21, 2024.

They alleged that Sandals stopped work, only to start again in May 2024, and they found it was expanding the original pier by about 40 feet “in a northern or western direction” and constructing the overwater chapel. However, the Government defendants are arguing that they lack ‘sufficient interest’ because their home is 300 feet from Sandals with two properties in between.

Berne Wright, the Port controller, in his affidavit evidence alleged that Sandals had met with the Barnetts and “proposed reangling” the dock and chapel so that their view was not obstructed. The Docks Committee had no objection to the project, and Rhianna Neely-Murphy, DEPP’s director, revealed that the certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) was issued to Sandals on October 28, 2021.

She said the environmental impacts were deemed to be “negligible”, because the area had already been used for a dock, which also meant no EIA was required. Sandals Royal Bahamian said last summer it had the correct permits to construct the overwater wedding chapel.

Kevin Clarke, its general manager, said the resort has “most definitely” received the necessary approvals to construct its waterfront wedding chapel and is open to discussing the project with neighbours.

“At the end of the day, we have to exercise good community relations. I have spoken to them on several occasions, and I’m available for a consultation, and we would have never done anything to jeopardise the brand or the authorities in The Bahamas,” he said. “It’s no way close to their property or would impede them from kayaking or jet skiing, based on how it’s drawn.

“We’ve actually proposed before a drawing, and they made an injunction that we will be impeding on their property, and we revised it. So, we’re working with an approval now that is a revised version of it, so there is no way that would be able to impede or block their property or view or access thereof.”

Mr Clarke said the structure is “quite safe” and will not cause damage to neighbouring property during a hurricane.

“Based on the construction and the approval and the permits that we’re doing, the structure is quite safe, and it’s not a thatch roof that we’re doing as well. So that shouldn’t. And it’s not directly across from their property, where it would cause damage to affect their property,” Mr Clarke explained.