The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A key opponent of the $200m Rosewood Exuma project is threatening to initiate fresh legal action unless Bahamian planning authorities suspend next week’s site plan approval hearing over “procedural unfairness” and failing to comply with legal requirements.

Turtlegrass Resort and Island Club, and its attorneys, are demanding that the Department of Physical Planning and Town Planning Committee respond by today to “serious concerns regarding non-compliance” with statutory regulations governing public consultation for projects such as Rosewood Exuma.

Callenders & Company, in a January 23, 2026, letter to Keenan Johnson, the Town Planning Committee’s chairman and other government officials, argued that insufficient documents and time have been provided to enable interested parties such as Turtlegrass, which will be Rosewood Exuma’s immediate adjacent neighbour, to offer considered analysis and feedback on the proposed project by Miami-based developer, Yntegra Group.

Asserting that several regulations accompanying the Planning and Subdivisions Act have thus been breached, Turtlegrass and its attorneys are arguing that the consultation process over Rosewood Exuma’s site plan approval application is “materially defective” and “cannot reasonably be regarded as meaningful, accessible and fair”.

As a result, it is demanding that the February 5, 2026, public hearing - scheduled to take place at the Black Point All-Age School at 6pm - be suspended to allow for the public consultation process to be “regularised” through making all relevant documents easily accessible and sufficient time allowed to review them.

Otherwise, Callenders warned that it would seek a Supreme Court “stay” or injunction to halt the consultation process and prevent the February 5, 2026, hearing from taking place. And, with active Judicial Review challenges to Rosewood Exuma’s certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) already before the courts, the law firm and Turtlegrass argued that the planning authorities should place the site plan hearing into “abeyance” anyway.

“This letter is written to place on record serious concerns regarding non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing public notice and public consultation, to identify deficiencies in the availability of documents which the law requires to be made available for inspection, and to formally seek the suspension of the consultation process and public hearing scheduled for 5 February, 2026, pending the regularisation of the consultation process,” Callenders asserted on Turtlegrass’ behalf.

The concerns and complaints are similar to those voiced by the Save Exuma Alliance (SEA), the collection of Exuma-based businesses that have also voiced misgivings about the Rosewood Exuma project and its potential impact, in a statement on Friday. The Alliance, too, argued that insufficient time had been allowed to review all the site plan application documents, while also suggesting that the hearing’s time and location were inconvenient.

Yntegra Group, which now faces yet another potential regulatory and legal obstacle to its plans for East Sampson Cay, declined to comment last night with the Department of Physical Planning did not respond to this newspaper’s inquiries. However, in replying to the Alliance’s concerns on Friday, Yntegra said it is “fully compliant with all legal and regulatory requirements” and voiced confidence in the “competence, independence and diligence” of the regulators.

Turtlegrass and its attorneys, though, are arguing that the public notice informing Bahamians of the hearing, and the 21-day timeframe given to review the application documents, were not aligned. Newspaper notices were published on January 20, 2026, and January 22, 2026, but Callenders informed the planning authorities that this meant the 21-day timeframe expired on February 10, 2026, and February 12, 2026, respectively.

Both these dates are after the scheduled February 5, 2026, hearing, which means that interested parties such as Turtlegrass are not being afforded the promised 21-day period to assess key documents. “Accordingly, if representations are to be made prior to the hearing, sufficient time for notice and consultation must be afforded, and the notice as issued is internally inconsistent and incapable of compliance on its own terms,” Callenders said.

It added that the Planning and Subdivision Act’s regulation three, which deals with public notices, also mandates that all relevant information supporting a planning application must be made available for Bahamians and other parties to provide informed feedback. Yet Callenders alleged that its attorneys had repeatedly been given the run-around when trying to access the Rosewood Exuma documents in both Nassau and Exuma.

It said the documents that Deborah Humes, one of its attorneys, was allowed to inspect at the Department of Physical Planning on January 20, 2026, did not include either the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the project despite Rosewood Exuma’s Bahamian environmental consultants, Bron Ltd, specifically stating these were in the package sent to the planning regulators.

Callenders alleged that the Department of Physical Planning “refused, with no reason provided” to give Ms Humes copies of the documents she was able to see. And, when she returned the following day with three other Callenders & Co representative, the EIA and EMP were still, not present in the file.

“When those documents were requested, we were initially informed that a written request to the Director of Physical Planning would be required in order to view them,” Callenders & Co alleged.

“At some time later during that visit, the documents were produced and we were informed that they had been kept in the director's office, notwithstanding that they are core technical documents which ought to have been kept with the application file and made continuously available for inspection throughout the consultation period.” Requests for copies were again refused.

Callenders & Co fared no better when it sought to access the Rosewood Exuma documents at the Exuma administrator’s office in George Town. However, officials said they did not have the file when inquiries were made on January 22, 2026, despite the public consultation notice stating they would be present.

Turtlegrass and its attorneys argued that the Bahamian courts have ruled that consultation is “procedurally unfair where interested persons are denied access to critical information required to make meaningful representations”. They suggested that this applies to the circumstances of the Rosewood Exuma process due to the “truncated” timeframe allowed.

“Meaningful consultation plainly requires expert review, including environmental, planning and engineering expertise, which cannot reasonably be undertaken within the remaining time,” Callenders wrote.

“In addition to the deficiencies identified above, the practical realities of the consultation process further demonstrate its procedural unfairness. Having regard to the nature of the application and the materials filed, the consultation framework presently in place does not permit meaningful engagement by affected persons.

“The application comprises a substantial volume of highly technical and specialist documentation, including environmental, planning and engineering material, which necessarily requires expert review in order for representations to be informed, intelligent and responsible. The time between the effective availability of the application materials and the scheduled public hearing on 5 February, 2026, is wholly inadequate to permit such review,” Callenders added.

“As a result, interested persons are deprived of a reasonable opportunity to understand the proposal, assess its implications and formulate proper representations, notwithstanding that the statutory consultation process is intended to facilitate precisely that outcome.

“The consultation process is therefore materially defective, as for a substantial portion of the consultation period critical documents forming part of the application were unavailable, withheld or only produced upon request.” Callenders added that, when combined with the timing and location of the public hearing, “these logistical barriers reinforce the conclusion that the consultation process, as presently constituted, cannot reasonably be regarded as meaningful, accessible, or fair”.

Turtlegrass and its attorneys concluded: “In these circumstances, we respectfully request that the public hearing… be suspended and that the consultation process be regularised so that all required documentation is made continuously available for inspection for a reasonable period, thereby permitting expert review and the making of lawful and meaningful representations.

“Failing this, we are constrained to advise that an application will be made to the Supreme Court seeking appropriate relief, including a stay of the consultation process and hearing… on the grounds of procedural unfairness and non-compliance with statutory obligations.”

The planning consultation warning surfaced as international media reports revealed that the Rosewood Exuma project plans to offer a floating helipad system capable of accommodating helicopters weighing up to 190,000 pounds.