The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE $200 Rosewood Exuma developer is pledging to vigorously oppose any assertion by its key opponents that a planned 22-acre solar farm represents “salami slicing” designed to cover-up the project’s full environmental impact.

Attorneys for Yntegra Group, the Miami-based entity, pledged in written submissions filed with the Supreme Court that any such claim by Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club will be “met” and resisted as both sides prepare for today’s battle over the latter’s bid to overturn the Great Sampson Cay development’s main environmental approvals.

The substantive Judicial Review hearing, which is set to last for four days, comes after the Court of Appeal on Friday rejected the 11th hour attempt by Turtlegrass to halt today’s proceedings and gain permission to challenge Justice Leif Farquharson’s refusal to admit as evidence six specialist reports it commissioned on Rosewood Exuma’s potential impacts.

Yntegra, in a statement hailing its latest victory in the preliminary legal skirmishes, said the decision by appeal justice Gregory Smith “opens the door for the substantive proceedings to get underway”. It described the verdict as another step in its quest to have the Rosewood Exuma project “move forward”, and reiterated that it remains “remains ready to address the substantive challenges in court, and to continue advancing a responsible development that can create opportunities for the people of Exuma”.

The Rosewood Exuma developer and its attorneys, in their written trial submissions to the Supreme Court, also denied allegations by Turtlegrass and its principal, Bob Coughlin, that they and other interested parties had been forced by the Government and themselves to undertake a “treasure hunt” to obtain key details on what the project entails.

And they renewed their argument that the first legal documents filed with the Supreme Court by Turtlegrass show “this dispute is more about competition than it is about the environment” given the latter’s complaints that it was never informed by the Government of Yntegra’s Sampson Cay designs despite it being the first to obtain a Heads of Agreement.

However, Turtlegrass and its attorneys, Callenders & Company, in documents filed with the Court of Appeal on September 24, 2026, to support the now-rejected bid to halt today’s substantive Judicial Review hearing, asserted that recent disclosures about Rosewood Exuma’s planned solar farm represent “evidence that goes directly to [the] salami slicing ground” that is one of the key elements in the trial.

Felipe MacLean, Yntegra’s principal, confirmed in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court on September 23, 2026, that the developer’s original plan - to install solar panels on the actual buildings forming part of the Rosewood Exuma project on Sampson Cay’s eastern side - had altered in favour of developing a standalone solar farm on its western side.

But Turtlegrass, which previously alleged it only became aware of the solar farm plan during a June 10, 2026, site inspection as part of a separate planning approvals process, is alleging that Mr MacLean’s affidavit does not reveal whether the solar farm decision was taken before Rosewood Exuma applied for - and obtained - its certificate of environmental clearance (CEC).

Asserting that the renewable energy plant must be factored into any CEC assessment and approvals, Lavar Ferguson, a Callenders & Co attorney, argued that this illustrated a key complaint by his Turtlegrass client - the alleged deliberate dividing up, or “salami slicing”, of the project where key components are not subjected to scrutiny or disclosure to the public so that the full environmental impact can be assessed and understood.

“In that affidavit, Mr MacLean says that the developers decided to develop a solar farm ‘to support the resort’ on part of the 22-acre parcel of land on the north-west tip of Big Sampson Cay; that the solar panels had originally been intended to be installed on the roofs of the buildings on East Sampson Cay; that the solar farm ‘introduced new environmental impact issues’, including clearing of the land; and that a CEC application was submitted to DEPP (Department of Environmental Planning and Protection) on 19 May, 2026, which has not yet been decided,” Mr Ferguson alleged.

“Mr MacLean does not say when the decision to develop the solar farm was made. He says only that it was made ‘later’. The date matters. If the decision was made before CEC 2894 was issued in June 2025, the developers could have amended that application, revised the ElA (environmental impact assessment) and consulted again on the project as changed. 

“If it was made afterwards, the changed project required a new application. Either way, Sampson Cay Retreat (Turtlegrass) cannot address the point without the documents showing when and how the decision was made, which are in the developers' possession,” Mr Ferguson continued.

“On the developers' own sworn evidence, the project has changed. Mr MacLean describes the solar farm as intended ‘to increase use of renewable energy in the project’ and refers to the developers' ‘recent decision to add solar farm to the project’. No CEC covers the project as the developers now describe it, and the solar farm has not been the subject of any environmental impact assessment with the rest of the project.”

Mr Ferguson argued unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal that Turtlegrass will now be “driven” to seek documents on how the solar farm decision was arrived at, and Yntegra’s communications over its development with BRON, its Bahamian environmental consultant, plus architects, engineers, project managers and contractors, at today’s trial.

He added that, if the solar farm proceeds, Turtlegrass will be surrounded on all sides by Yntegra’s project - the main Rosewood Exuma development to its immediate east, and the solar farm next to it on the western side of Big Sampson Cay. And there are unresolved questions over how power generated from the solar farm will reach the main resort, such as via cables over Turtlegrass’s property.

“I verily believe that this evidence goes directly to Sampson Cay Retreat’s salami slicing ground, which the learned judge permitted,” Mr Ferguson said of Justice Farquharson. “The 22 acres on the north-west tip of Big Sampson Cay were part of the project [Rosewood Exuma] from the outset. 

“The Heads of Agreement between the Government and the developers dated December 19, 2023, as amended on May 21, 2024, provided for development on both the 22 acres on the north-west tip of Big Sampson Cay and the 144 acres of East Sampson Cay.

“The EIA and EMP (environmental management plan) on which the public was consulted referred to solar power, and the consultation material described it as roof-top mounted. The public was never consulted on a ground-mounted solar farm on a separate island. On Mr MacLean's own evidence, the solar farm is to support the resort,” Mr Ferguson added.

“The resort therefore depends on a part of the project that has never been assessed with the rest of it… Sampson Cay Retreat does not know how power will be carried from the solar farm to East Sampson Cay, what buildings, battery storage and access facilities the solar farm will require, or how materials will be brought to the 22 acres. None of those matters has been assessed, consulted upon or disclosed.”

Justice Farquharson, in his September 10, 2026, ruling some 13 days before Mr MacLean’s latest affidavit dealing with the solar farm emerged, denied Turtlegrass’s request for further disclosure on this aspect of the Rosewood Exuma project.

However, Delaney Partners, on Yntegra’s behalf, argued that any claim of “salami slicing” involving the solar farm would be “without merit” and premature given that DEPP has yet to decide or approve the CEC application related to it. They also argued that, given the timing of when the developer decided to develop the solar farm, it could not have been included in DEPP’s earlier deliberations on the very CECs that Turtlegrass is now challenging and seeking to overturn.

“It is to be noted that this argument about salami slicing as presently made is not based on the developers’ application for a CEC in respect to their proposed solar farm recently submitted in May 2026,” Yntegra’s attorneys alleged. “If the applicant now seeks to amend their claim as to salami-slicing to include the application for solar farm, that claim will be met.

“The developers’ decision to develop, and the application for a CEC, were made in response to the feedback the developers continue to receive from members of the public regarding its proposed development, which have included considering a greater use of renewable energy sources in the project. 

“Further, both the decision and application for a CEC in relation to the solar farm were made well after the commencement of the judicial review. Hence, the solar farm application could not have been a relevant part of the factual background to the decisions which are the subject of these judicial review applications.”

Delaney Partners added that all relevant information on the solar farm had been provided to Turtlegrass and its attorneys when Mr MacLean supplied a previous affidavit to the Supreme Court.

“If such an amendment is now made it will likely be met by the response that, as no such application has even been considered by DEPP, much less a CEC issued, the claim of salami-slicing would be without merit,” Yntegra’s attorneys added of the solar farm. 

“Indeed, the application may be refused or DEPP may require further studies or further consultation. It is purely speculative, and no doubt one of the reasons no application to amend has been to ground the salami slicing on the application with respect to a solar farm.”

Delaney Partners’ submissions also rejected Turtlegrass’s allegation that there had been “salami slicing”, which it defined as breaking-up parts of a project into smaller components so as to circumvent the EIA review process, with other aspects of the $200m Rosewood Exuma project.

“ In the present case, on the evidence of Dr [Rhiana] Neely, DEPP took the applications for the CECs as all part and parcel of one project,” they argued. Yntegra and its attorneys alleged that Turtlegrass’s claim was founded on whether two earlier CECs, which they said were granted for geotechnical work, “amounts to project-splitting or salami slicing” due to being issued before the CECs for the full project.

“It cannot be credibly suggested that by exercising her statutory discretion to issue CECs 2400 and 2400A, the director of DEPP [Dr Neely-Murphy] created an artificial fragmentation of the project that led to environmental impacts associated with the resort project escaping assessment,” Delaney Partners asserted.

“It is obvious that DEPP was aware of the whole project, and took into account the entire project when issuing the CECs. A review of the certificates themselves makes this clear. It describes the project.”

And, turning to what Yntegra has alleged is the real cause of the dispute, Delaney Partners asserted: “This dispute is more about competition than it is about the environment. As stated.. their primary complaint is that the granting of the CECs was unlawful and irrational’“having regard to the existence of the approved Turtlegrass development in the circumstances outlined in this statement, and pursuant to the terms of the Heads of Agreement granted to the applicant’.

“It must be recalled that the Heads of Agreement between Turtlegrass and the Government was made on March 13, 2023, and the Heads of Agreement between the developers and the Government made on December 19, 2023. In short, Turtlegrass’ complaint is that the Government agreed to a development in competition to theirs nine months after it agreed to Turtlegrass’ development…

“This is not an arid point. Turtlegrass’ evidence and complaints about the environmental degradation must be evaluated by this honourable court against the background of Turtlegrass’ complaint that it was on Sampson Cay first.”