THE iconic Pellew Island in Portland may only be a hair’s-breadth from development, with a revised plan for the construction of two villas there getting a stamp of approval from the Mines and Geology Division (MGD) and the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) voicing no objections.

MGD and NEPA are two of the three agencies asked by the Portland Parish Council — the entity that received the application for building approval — to weigh in on the proposed development. The third is the local health department.

Monday Commissioner of Mines Clinton Thompson told Environment Watch that the MGD is satisfied that the size of the new proposed development would result in the reduced disturbance of the area, thus eliminating their earlier concerns. MGD said as much in a May 2, 2011 letter to the council about the amended building application for resort development.

“Based on our review, the MGD is satisfied that the recommendations stated in our letter dated September 27, 2010, have been included in the amended building plan,” that letter stated.

Up to press time, Environment Watch was unable to get the precise details of the revised plan, except that the project has been scaled down. What is reportedly on the table now is for the construction of two villas — one of them with four bedrooms and the other with three — at Lot # 46 San San and Pellew Island by Beverly Barakat. The earlier application, according to the 2008 environmental impact assessment (EIA) report on the project, had proposed the construction of the same two villas, but one was to have seven bedrooms and the other, four.

NEPA has left the final decision on the new proposal to the parish council.

“This doesn’t fall under our jurisdiction; this is a parish council matter. There are two separate authorities — the Natural Resources Conservative Authority (NRCA) and the Town and Country Planning Authority (for which NEPA is the administrative arm),” Ainsley Henry, acting director of NEPA’s Applications Management Branch, told Environment Watch. “Because of the legislation that governs the TCPA and the various guideline documents, like the developments orders, the (Pellew Island) development is not under the TCPA… it is not for their decision.

“Essentially, what they (the parish council) sent to us did not conform to the requirements in order for us to make a decision… It is noted that Pellew Island does not fall within the Town and Country Planning Portland Coast Confirmed Development Order of 1963 and hence any proposed development on the island will not require planning permission from the TCPA,” Henry said further, referring to the contents of a letter, dated August 23 this year, that was sent to the council.

Quizzed as to NRCA’s role in the process given the ecological sensitivity of the area, he said the authority would get involved if and when there is an application requiring a permit from them.

“If the development is going to happen and it does fall under the prescribed categories of the permit and licensing system, then they would need to make an application in advance of doing the development,” Henry said.

The developer’s initial applications for a beach and sewage permit/license — submitted in line with the original development proposal — were de-listed, with news that the design plans would be adjusted.

The initial proposal for the development of Pellew Island, submitted to the council in 2007 was refused in February 2010 on grounds of not only the steeply sloping gradients, which present accessibility challenges, but also because of the increased risk of slope failure as a result of development works, given the geo-technical characteristics of the island. These were objections noted by MGD.

The construction difficulties that would emerge, given the island’s terrain and the requirement for “hard engineering works” that would be an “unacceptable intrusion in a pristine and sensitive marine environment”, were also sited by MGD as justification for the council’s refusal. This is in addition to the impact of wave action on the island, particularly during storms.

At the time, it was noted that to make the proposed development a reality, construction work would have involved, among other things, partial clearing of vegetation to accommodate surveying as well as the establishment of a dock facility to receive building material.

Electrical and water conduits were also to be routed across the channel to support and facilitate construction and eventually to be used for the operation of the two villas, according to the EIA consultants, Caribbean Ecosystems Limited in their report on the development.

The parish council subsequently turned down the application, but then, as now, environmentalists are averse to the development. Pellew Island, they insist, should be left in its natural state and freely accessible to the public.

“I was there on the weekend and it should not be touched,” said Peter Espeut, former head of Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation, and a long-time advocate for the environment. “It should remain in the present pristine state and nobody should be allowed to build houses on it. It would be a travesty… an insult to God’s creation.”

He was supported by Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer of the Jamaica Environment Trust.

“Where are the people who are supposed to say Jamaica’s tourism depends on a pristine natural environment. This is an iconic image of Jamaica’s coastline and tourism industry. Where are their voices? And this situation about it (the land being) privately owned… the rights of private property are fettered in ways that protect the public interest,” she said.

“There are uses that island could be put to that would not impact the environment… I believe there are uses to which she can put her property that don’t include villas. Where are the voices of the San San villa owners, many of whom look at Pellew Island? Where are the voices of the people who are currently making a living taking people from Blue Hole over to the island… Do they realise that all of that will stop?” McCaulay added.

She also took issue with NEPA’s stance on the new proposal, insisting that the agency — despite what it has said — has a vital stake in any development of the area.

“The agencies need to come together to decide whether any development goes ahead. Suppose the parish council decides they are going to approve the building and then halfway along the road, (the developer applies to) NEPA for sewage, under what circumstances will NEPA say no?” McCaulay said.

“If the situation is that NEPA is not likely to issue a sewage licence or (a beach license to) remove the sea-grass beds or coral heads that are likely to be necessary, they need to say so now. NEPA must man up. So this business about the building is not part of their mandate is a fraction of the story. The beach licence is their mandate and the sewage licence is their mandate…” she added.

Portland Mayor Commander Floyd Patterson has said the council will meet on the new proposal for Pellew Island next month.

“We will look at it at the next council meeting, (which is held) every second Thursday of every month,” he told Environment Watch Monday.