The Tribune

By ANNELIA NIXON

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

anixon@tribunemedia.net

Green Turtle Cay residents have deep concerns over a proposed development at Gillam Bay, questioning why the community was not consulted earlier and whether one of the island’s most valuable natural spaces can withstand further development.

A Town Hall meeting held last week discussed the Gillam Bay project by developer Reginald Curry, who has received environmental approval to construct nine 1,900-square foot villas, a single-storey clubhouse with a restaurant and bar, an administrative office and a back-of-house facility.

While officials stressed the project has met all legal and environmental requirements to-date, many residents argued Gillam Bay’s ecological significance and cultural value warrant greater public input and stronger protections.

Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) officials said Mr Curry’s project was granted a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) on April 22 after completing the required baseline assessment and management plan. Samantha Cartwright, DEPP’s representative at the meeting, said the developer followed all procedures required under the Environmental Planning and Protection Act and accompanying regulations.

She stressed that the current approval applies only to the project’s first phase. “He was approved for a CEC for nine 1,900 square foot villas, a single-storey clubhouse and restaurant and bar, an administrative office, and a back of house facility,” she said. “That is all he was approved for. That is all he presented a CEC application for.”

Ms Cartwright said any future additions including a marina, dock or other marine infrastructure, as shown on broader conceptual site plans, would require an entirely new environmental review and certificate.

“There is no application for any marine portion of the site,” she said. “Anything beyond that, he cannot do at this time.” Ms Cartwright also outlined numerous environmental conditions attached to the approval, including prohibitions on marine works, excavation beyond building foundations, mining, mass clearing and burning.

Buildings will be elevated on pilings rather than requiring extensive excavation, she added, while vegetation clearing is limited to 40 percent of the approved development footprint and only native landscaping may be used. Failure to comply with those conditions could result in revocation of the certificate and significant financial penalties.

“We do our pop-up visits,” Ms Cartwright told residents. “Mr Curry has to comply or he has a lot of money to spend.” Despite those assurances, many residents remained unconvinced.

Several attendees questioned why a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and public consultation were not required before approval. Ms Cartwright responded that DEPP determined the proposal did not meet the threshold for an EIA because it involves construction on pilings rather than major excavation, mining or marine works.

“If he was doing major excavation or mining in that area, or if he had the marine work that’s associated as part of the CEC… then yes, he would have been required to do an impact assessment,” she said.

Instead, the department required an environmental baseline assessment and environmental management plan (EMP). Residents repeatedly returned to concerns about Gillam Bay’s environmental sensitivity, pointing to wetlands, bird habitats, sharks, shifting sand dunes and the area’s recovery following Hurricane Dorian.

One resident described Gillam Bay as an internationally-significant bird habitat, and questioned whether wildlife would remain once villas and commercial buildings are constructed. Another questioned whether engineering studies could truly account for the constantly changing shoreline.

“My sister and I walk Gillam Bay a lot, and from one week to another… the face of the beach can completely change,” the resident said. “I’m afraid to lose it.”

Ms Cartwright said she had personally visited the site four times, spending extended periods there, while environmental consultants conducted geotechnical and baseline studies over a much longer period.

Beyond environmental concerns, residents repeatedly expressed frustration that they only learned of the project after activity began on the site. Ms Cartwright acknowledged she had received no calls, e-mails or letters questioning the project before the CEC was issued.

“When Ms Cartwright… said no one wrote in, none of us knew about it,” one resident said. “This isn’t a problem against the developer… Any major developer… needs to be making sure that they’re following the right steps.”

Chief Councillor Ron Levarity said the local government board itself was unaware of the proposal until earlier this year. “This just came to our table in May,” Mr Levarity said. “We had no idea what was going on… We didn’t have a full Board here at the time, so we denied it until we had a full Board.

“That’s why we brought it to the community to get your voice and your opinion.” Kirk Cornish, North Abaco MP,  acknowledged residents’ frustration but stressed that the process is governed by law rather than public sentiment alone.

“The local government… can approve or reject proposals,” Mr Cornish said. “However, the developer… has a recourse.” If an application is rejected, he added, the developer can seek legal remedies, meaning any denial must be legally justified rather than based solely on public opposition.

“If the community… can prove that there is a present danger to the environment… then the court may possibly rule in your favour,” he said. Asked whether residents could independently challenge the project, Mr Cornish encouraged the community to organise.

“If you want to go and get independent studies done, do that,” he said. “Form your committee… get legal counsel… If you believe you have legal rights, pursue it.”

Several described Gillam Bay as one of the island’s last publicly accessible natural spaces, and questioned whether economic development should always take precedence over preservation.

“We have enough bars. We have enough restaurants,” one resident said. “We need places where people can go and find peace and quiet.” Another said the property “should have never ever been sold for development”.

“We need to leave some things the way God made it,” the resident said. “This is a done deal, and that is exactly why people don’t speak up because they feel like nobody’s listening to us.”

One resident, however, supported the project, arguing it would create economic opportunities for Green Turtle Cay through increased visitor spending. Another resident disagreed, arguing that preserving Gillam Bay’s natural character is precisely what makes Green Turtle Cay attractive to tourists.

Officials also assured residents that public beach access must remain open, with Ms Cartwright noting that DEPP conditions prohibit developers from blocking access to the shoreline.

Even so, residents pointed to previous coastal developments at Gillam Bay, claiming approved conditions were not properly enforced and resulted in sections of beach becoming unusable. Ms Cartwright maintained that environmental enforcement has since become significantly stronger, citing tougher penalties, environmental bonds, expanded monitoring requirements and more frequent inspections under recently amended regulations.