OCHO RIOS, St Ann – Environmental Solutions Limited (ESL), the company which conducted the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Bahia Principe Resort in Pear Tree Bottom here in St Ann, wants the orders of Justice Brian Sykes, who quashed the EIA for the hotel project, varied on the grounds that the company was not notified of the judicial review.

“Several statements have been made without the company having an opportunity in court to explain or clarify issues questioned about the EIA, which the company had conducted,” ESL said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Regrettably, there is confusion regarding the process by which the decision to grant the permit was made and the EIA itself which informed the decision makers. ESL intends to set the record straight before the Supreme Court and the general public,” the statement added.

Justice Sykes, on May 16, quashed the environmental licence permitting the construction of the 1,918-room resort, citing failure on the part of NEPA and NRCA to adequately consult with residents and stakeholders in Pear Tree Bottom before granting the licence.

The verdict was stayed for 21 days to allow an appeal. Sykes later granted a further extension that will last until June 27.

Meanwhile, ESL’s managing director, Eleanor Jones, said that based on the EIA done by her company, she believes permission to construct the resort was correct.

“It’s an ecologically sensitive area, we agree. With that, we pointed out one of the things that needed to be done and which needed to be taken into account and so we see no reason why the permit should not have been granted,” Jones told the Observer.

Defending her company’s reputation, Jones said the impression was given that all of the documents of the EIA were not submitted to NEPA, when in fact they were.

“The impression was that we didn’t do all the work and the EIA was faulty; and we are saying that is not true, the work was done and the documents were submitted to NEPA and NRCA. They utilised the documents as far as we are aware to make the decision that they came to,” Jones said.

The statement also quoted Dr Barry Wade, ESL’s chairman and consulting principal, as saying one of ESL’s main concerns, which prompted the court action, was that one of the substantial bases of the application by the environmentalists for judicial review before the Supreme Court, was an allegation by the applicants in the suit, that the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) and the National Environmental and Planning Agency (NEPA) acted irrationally, relying on what they deemed a ‘flawed EIA’

“ESL maintains that many allegations made by the applications about the EIA are unfounded,” the statement said.

The allegations, the statement added, appeared to have been accepted by the court without ESL having an opportunity to explain its work.

ESL said the EIA consisted of a main report, a marine ecology report and two addenda, which were passed through three levels of scrutiny within the NRCA/NEPA, that is, its professional staff, the technical review committee comprising interested government agencies and the full NEPA Board.

“On that basis the company maintains that those involved in the decision making process within NRCA/NEPA were fully aware of the full range of potential project impacts which were set out in the EIA and found it a fully competent set of documents on which to make their decision to grant a permit,” the statement said.