THE National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) has defended its recent approval for Spanish developers, the Pinero Group, to construct phase two of the controversial Bahia Principe Hotel at the ecologically sensitive Pear Tree Bottom in St Ann.

“Our position is that due process was carried out, in that we had already done what we were supposed to do. The agency approved the second phase based on the fact that we were satisfied that the proponents (Pinero) were proceeding according to the terms and conditions of the original permit,” said Zadie Neufville, acting communications manager at NEPA.

Her statement comes amidst criticism from local environmental groups, including the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association (NJCA) and the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), that approval had been granted in the absence of proper public consultation. At the same time, the environmental groups have expressed concerns over the impact of siltation on the reefs in the vicinity of the hotel and the adequacy of the sewage plant constructed to serve the development. JET’s executive Diana McCaulay initially raised the concerns in a March 16 letter to NEPA’s CEO, Leary Myers.

Earlier this week, Wendy Lee, president of NJCA, reiterated the concerns, while noting that she was disappointed that last year’s lawsuit – involving the NJCA and JET as the applicants, along with a number of community residents; and NEPA and the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) as the respondents -had taught the regulatory agency nothing.

“The outcome of the lawsuit set a precedent for the consultation process, basically, and the. process that goes into making these kinds of development decisions. If NEPA and NRCA were found to have not met the legal standards, surely the appropriate course of action after that was to take some steps to remedy that, and to do it better next time,” Lee told the Sunday Observer.

“This (second phase of the Bahia development) was a golden opportunity to set right what they did wrong before. I don’t think they have made any effort to involve the public,” she added.

Last year’s lawsuit, heard in the Supreme Court by Justice Bryan Sykes, concluded on June 23 in favour of the hotel developers who were allowed to continue construction, following an earlier May 16, 2006 order to quash the environmental permit allowing construction.

Justice Sykes, however, made it clear in his judgment that NEPA and the NRCA had failed to adequately consult with residents and stakeholders in the hotel development before awarding the permit. It was, in fact, on that basis that he had made the May 16 order.

Neufville insists, however, that NEPA has observed due process in so far as public consultations on the approval of this latest permit is concerned.

At the same time, she said that the developers had complied with the range of conditions set out for the first permit, which included:

. ensuring all the endemic flora from the area was recorded;

. collecting specific plants (50 per cent in fact) so that they could be planted elsewhere;

. ensuring that at least 95 per cent of all orchids, bromeliads, cacti found in the footprint of the development were collected and transferred to a plant nursery; and

. submitting a botanical assessment report to the agency.

But the acting communications manager did concede that there was one concern NEPA shared with the greenies, and this has to do with the sewage plant.

“We had a concern too, and we had indicated to the developers that they would revisit the design of the plant and make their adjustments so that it falls within the requirements of the permit,” Neufville told the Sunday Observer.

“It (the sewage plant) cannot be commissioned without it being approved. The proposal for the plant, that design had been by EHU (Environmental Health Unit of the Ministry of Health) and we would not be approving anything else. Once it has been approved by the EHU, that is what they will have to put up and we will ensure that it is working before the hotel is put in operation,” she added.

As to the greenies’ concern over the consultation, Neufville said that they had been given the opportunity to offer their feedback.

“The EIA was done. They wanted to have the marine ecology study. They got it. We had the public consultation. That ball was in their court,” she said, adding that “public consultation doesn’t necessarily mean we have to have a public meeting. Public consultation is that you send your comments to us”.

One copy of the marine ecology report, Neufville said, was given to JET, which requested it under the Access to Information (ATI) Act, while additional copies had been made and put in the library at NEPA.

Beyond that, the NEPA officer said the agency had sought to address the environmental groups’ concern over size through its stipulation that the hotel be developed in phases, while cutting the number of rooms from the proposed 1,918 initially to 1,610.

“The agency in its wisdom decided that we did not want the developer to do such a vast development all at once, but we would undertake for them to do it on a phased basis to facilitate the monitoring, and to ensure that the mitigation measures worked,” Neufville said.

“We had also taken into consideration the concerns about things like sink holes and reefs and so; and the footprint of the hotel was shifted to minimise any impact on the surrounding environment.”

Lee contends, however, that NEPA’s efforts amounted to little more than a joke.

“There has been no further attempt to broaden the dialogue, the consultation process. I feel that the concerns we brought with such great effort when we had the lawsuit, they were completed disregarded,” Lee said.

“The main concerns we had, were the coral reefs and the size ad scale of the development. As far as them having listened to us, that is ridiculous. They haven’t listened to us. The size, they have not reduced it in any significant way. What is the difference between 1,900 and 1,600 rooms?” she added.

Meanwhile, in what could be interpreted as an offer of an olive branch to the greenies, Neufville said that while the NRCA board had given its stamp of approval for the permit, there were certain conditions that the developers would have to satisfy before the permit was awarded.

At the same time, she said that the agency also reserved the right to amend the permit at any time.

“In relation to our permit, we have a right to amend the permit according to whatever we see necessary. So the agency maintains the right to change a permit based on whatever new developments may come about,” she said.