To say that we at Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce are stunned and disappointed with Walter Roban’s approval of the Gencom 2023 special development order would be putting it mildly.

It is not just us. Aside from a few isolated special interests, the opposition to this SDO is widespread. There were more than 100 objections submitted and almost 4,500 signatories to the “Save our Green Space” petition. The overwhelming sentiment was that this level of exploitation is inappropriate for Bermuda and at odds with the community’s vision of itself, and what it wants to be. Additionally, the Department of Planning and the Development Applications Board each recommended that the SDO be rejected.

Many Bermudians have expressed that they believe that the proposed development will be a blight on our landscape and destroy a recreational and open space area. This will impact not only residents, but will have a detrimental impact on our image as a tourism product.

The timing of the new SDO process in July 2021 was not coincidental: it was that very same month that Bermuda Environment Consultants first shared with us Gencom’s conceptual plan for the Fairmont Southampton site. The home affairs minister still claims, unconvincingly, that there were “no projects and no developments that I have seen or have been proposed that would benefit from these changes”. A November 2021 Pati request submitted by The Royal Gazette, seeking details of discussions between Gencom and the Bermuda Government, has yet to result in the release of records. Had they been, perhaps we could have absolutely proved the minister’s claim as untrue.

The next step in this new SDO process must now follow a Negative Resolution Procedure — under the Statutory Instruments Act 1977 — where copies of the “statutory instrument” “shall be” laid before the House and Senate. If any members of those bodies are still not satisfied that this 2023 SDO is not in the interest of the country, those members can send a message to the Governor asking that the statutory instrument be annulled — in part or in full. This means that the continued passage of the SDO approval is in the hands of the ministers and senators.

As a reminder, what follows are just a few of the ongoing concerns that we, and others, have with the SDO:

The application, to build 250 additional units at the Fairmont Southampton hotel site, goes against much that Mr Roban pledged when the Bermuda Plan 2018 — the existing Development Plan for the island — was finalised. Then he proudly stated that the plan “... emphasises the need to incorporate sustainable design principles into new developments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, minimise energy consumption and minimise our vulnerability to flooding risk and high temperatures”. He also lauded our zoning restrictions, as they highlight the priority of sustainable development and the preservation of the natural environment from degradation. He said that “it provides for the land-use and development requirements of the island in a way that makes the most effective use of its resources, protects its natural and built environment, and provides a good quality of life for the island’s residents”.

We agree. That Bermuda Plan properly reflects the importance of preserving our dwindling open spaces, promotes our native and endemic flora and fauna, and seeks to move our island towards a more sustainable future. Both the planning department and the Development Applications Board upheld that plan and its aspirations by recommending the refusal of the SDO, assessing that the proposed development would not provide the benefits to the island that the developer claims.

The proposal — for an additional 250 units and related infrastructure — not only neglects the preservation of green open space, but also fails to prioritise the energy efficiency and sustainability goals, which Mr Roban has previously held up as important goals. This project risks undermining the policies and objectives in these areas, despite the minister’s prior emphasis on their significance. The issues of energy and sustainability are simply not given the broad consideration or importance that is necessary, and the developer has significantly understated what the total energy demand of the site will be.

A development of this size would be the perfect opportunity to create a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified project, integrating energy management and cogeneration, and renewable generation. As an aside, if we are to meet the sustainability goals that we have set ourselves, we believe that the Leed standard should be established as the norm for such large commercial development applications. Yet Gencom has not made such a commitment towards solar or cogeneration. Nor have we required them to.

Potable water is also a significant concern, especially given that Bermuda is vulnerable to potable water disruptions. With general usage rising and Gencom grossly underestimating how much the fully developed site would use, the absence of a commitment to upgrade or increase on-site reverse-osmosis capacity means that our public utility stands to be the de facto supplier for the entire site — raising the prospect of service curtailment to surrounding residential areas.

This clearly demonstrates that Gencom has dismissed the concept of sustainability entirely. To approve this SDO was to set a dangerous precedent for all such large projects going forward. There will likely be a series of large projects proposed in the next decade and all will likely pursue SDOs using this new, admittedly flawed process. This SDO will set a precedent for those that follow. Approval of this SDO will be a public declaration that projects of this scale and importance are not required to incorporate commonly used sustainable design methods, nor project-level energy management systems, nor commonly used renewable energy sources. This will effectively reverse all the sustainability messaging that Mr Roban has been doing for years.

Throughout this process, Gencom’s misleading figures, drawings and renderings have created a high level of mistrust between the developer and Bermuda’s residents. Added to this is the uncertainty as to the level and structuring of any financial guarantees, the details of which have not been shared with the Opposition.

The minister leans on the “economic assessment” provided by PwC. Even describing the PwC report as an “assessment” is not really accurate since it presents only the benefits and not the costs of the project. The report is full of limitations and qualifications, noting that PcW’s assessment is based entirely on data and assumptions provided by Westend Properties. Further, it is unaudited and even without an opinion by PwC.

The gross domestic product “bump” of $1.4 billion is also misleading as that total would be spread over the 20-year life of the project, but with a huge range of uncertainty, as indicated in PwC’s assessment. “The additional economic benefit generated from the SDO would reflect approximately 1 per cent of overall GDP.” An important consideration we must make is whether or not this seemingly low return is acceptable for the loss of Bermuda’s limited open green areas and a precedent-setting taxpayer commitment of a $75 million guaranty with $130 million of tax concessions for 15 years.

The minister’s clear disregard for the totality of the many points of objection raised by the people of this country is another slap in the face. Gencom already has an approved SDO from 2009 to build 130 units. The minister could have insisted that it works within those bounds so that we could then have tested the viability of its “model” without sacrificing our limited, precious land.

Now is the time for our government ministers and senators to consider the matter deeply and broadly, and to speak up if they also agree that the Gencom 2023 SDO proposal is not the right model for Bermuda, and that it should be annulled under the Negative Resolution Procedure of the Statutory Instruments Act 1977.

• Kim Smith is the executive director of the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce