The decision to grant a special development order (SDO) for Tucker’s Point should have been the subject of a Judicial Review, according to environmentalist Stuart Hayward.“The court could have been asked to decide what studies the Department of Planning should have carried out and what information the Minister ought to have had before granting an SDO,” the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce head said in a statement yesterday.The comments came as part of a response to the special report by the Bermuda Ombudsman on the process that led to the granting of the SDO.In the report, Ombudsman Arlene Brock argued that the Government had failed to uphold its commitment as a signatory to the UK Environmental Charter.While Ms Brock said that according to the Charter Government should have conducted an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) before granting an SDO, Environment Minister Marc Bean responded that the Charter was “aspirational” and not binding.Speaking at a press conference in March, Mr Bean said: “The Government did not act unlawfully, as reported by the Ombudsman, and as a consequence reported by the media, and as championed by the Opposition.”In yesterday’s statement, Mr Hayward said: “Our Government does not regard the Charter as binding on it.“It would benefit the community to have our courts determine whether and to what extent our Government ought to abide by the principles and commitments set out in the Charter.”He said that Ms Brock’s main concern with the SDO was that because of a lack of EIA, Members of Parliament were left to make a “hasty decision” without having all of the pertinent information.“The Government of Bermuda had an obligation to carry out due diligence to support the decision-making process,” Mr Hayward said.“An Environmental Impact Assessment, as an integral part of the decision making process, the Ombudsman argues, ought to be carried out prior to granting, even in-principle, major development orders like the one granted to Tucker’s Point.”An EIA, Mr Hayward explained, looks beyond the immediate environmental factors involved in a development project, but also the economic and social factors.“According to the Ombudsman’s analysis, while the principle legislation cannot be reviewed by the Courts, the Special Development Order itself is subordinate legislation and is subject to review,” Mr Hayward said.“A planning application that goes to a Minister under Section 15 may not receive the scrutiny of the Development Applications Board (DAB) like any ordinary development, which cannot be logical treatment for a major development.”Mr Hayward called for Government to amend Sections 15 and 16 of the Development and Planning Act 1974 to require that all planning applications, including SDOs, receive adequate scrutiny by the DAB, including an EIA for all major developments.