Dear Sir,

I am at a loss for words. Well, almost. Gencom’s application for a special development order for its Fairmont Southampton property was denied by four oversight bodies. After a lengthy period of silence from the Government, we have learnt, unsurprisingly, that it has been approved essentially by one person — and that person is the Minister of Home Affairs, Walter Roban.

In spite of the application being rejected by two government regulatory bodies and two environmental groups amid strong public outcry, this one politician single-handedly was able to overturn a unanimous planning development decision. The result being that he has just given the green light to the developer, Westend Properties, to proceed with its plan to massively redevelop the Fairmont Southampton property.

The Department of Planning, the Development Applications Board, the Bermuda National Trust and the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce agreed that the developer’s plan, which includes 261 tourism and residential units spread around the hotel’s existing golf course green space, was not in the best interests of Bermuda. In fact, it was unanimously agreed that the proposed development went against this government's own Bermuda Plan 2018, with its goal of responsible, sustainable land development over the long term.

So, why does one government minister have the power to override the Government’s own planning rules? Quite simply because of this strategic piece of legislation: The Development and Planning Amendment Act of 2021.

It is necessary to give more history on this particular Act so as to provide some context on the treatment of SDOs in the past. Twelve years ago, in March 2011, Mr Roban, the then the Minister of Environment and Planning, introduced amendment legislation to the Development/Planning Act requiring all SDOs to go before Parliament; ie, they would be subject to the “affirmative resolution procedure”. Mr Roban said this amendment to the Act would now require all future SDOs to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, meaning all MPs and senators debate the permissions and conditions attached to an SDO, thus ensuring transparency of the decision-making procedure.

I wholeheartedly agree with this ruling. At that time, Mr Roban admitted SDOs should have been subject to such scrutiny ever since 2006 when, under a previous Progressive Labour Party administration, they were reclassified as “Government Notices” rather than “Statutory Instruments”. (I do wonder why because the classification change to “Notices” meant they were no longer subject to parliamentary scrutiny).

Mr Roban said that his 2011 amendment would bring SDOs back in line with the same practice which was in force before 2006. He said: “One critical feature of a statutory instrument is that it has a legislative effect. Clarifying the Development Planning Act to provide for SDOs as statutory instruments and for them to be subject to parliamentary oversight via an affirmative resolution procedure is, in my opinion, serving the public interest.”

He added that previous special development orders — including those for the controversial Southlands development, Coco Reef resort and Dockyard cruise ship pier — were not debated by Parliament as a result of this “oversight”. So, readers, we now know that this “affirmative resolution procedure” had been in place from 2011 until 2021.

Then in 2021, Mr Roban, now Deputy Premier and the Minister of Home Affairs, supported further legislation amendments to the planning Act, which included the provision for SDOs to be approved via the “negative resolution process”. This is effectively a reversal of his 2011 stance on ensuring parliamentary scrutiny because now debate on an SDO in the House by MPs and senators is no longer required.

What happened to “serving the public interest”? To defend his stance in support of this controversial amendment, he said: “To introduce or amend an SDO, the minister must wait until the House sits to table it. This existing affirmative resolution procedure requirement can cause significant delays, which typically equates to economic ramifications that can undermine the viability of a development.”

At that time, the minister stated that the new Act amendment was not in the context of any particular development project. He further emphasised that “there is going to be a very clear and transparent procedure before any such approval is given, subject to the negative resolution”. The minister claimed that the new legislation creates a higher threshold of protection for land.

If you are having a hard time keeping up with Mr Roban’s legislative record and rationale for flip-flopping on SDO procedure/approval requirements, you are not alone. It reeks of a “yes man” mentality that tows the line when pressured to do so, which seems to be pervasive in this administration — with one exception. This minister’s questionable history with planning decisions goes back at least as far as November 2011, when he was environment minister under the premiership of Paula Cox. He came under intense criticism for granting planning permission to two political colleagues against the advice of his technical officers and, as a result, he subsequently resigned.

So here we are in 2023, and we were recently informed by Mr Roban during his public announcement that with this Fairmont Southampton SDO approval — via “negative resolution” — there are additional planning conditions to be satisfied by the developer, which have been agreed by Westend.

Some of these requirements include:

• Conservation areas to have long-term management plans

• Full details of water, sewer, waste management plans

• Traffic and parking requirements

• Railway Trail improvements

• Protective fencing around historic Turtle Hill

• Installation of ten additional bluebird boxes around the development site

One would have thought that most of these essential infrastructure specifications for a project of this size would have been clarified and published by Westend long before this. But I guess nothing about this controversial development project and its players should surprise us, given the disgraceful treatment of the hotel employees in 2020 when their employer, Gencom, initially withheld their redundancy pay, contravening Bermuda's Employment Act and ultimately requiring the Government’s (ie, taxpayers) intervention.

On the subject of those ten bluebird boxes? The minister apparently has a dearth of knowledge regarding bluebird nesting sites and their surrounding habitat because these ten bluebird boxes will most likely become sparrow condos. My nephew reminded me about the nature of the bluebird nesting habitat, which most certainly is not surrounded by construction activities, dust and noise for 20 years. But, have no fear, sparrows are not discerning in the slightest about their nesting sites and will put the boxes to good use.

So, it’s a win for the sparrows and a loss for the bluebirds, the land and the people. The contempt shown by this government to the taxpayer, including its pretence of broad public consultation, its environmental-impact ignorance and utterly weak contract-negotiating skills, has ultimately culminated in our forced commitment to the largest land development project in our history, with a risk factor we cannot afford. The Government’s actions have set a dangerous precedent for Bermuda's long-term development future.

“Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

— Lord Acton

BEVERLEY CONNELL

Pembroke