Objectors to an appeal by Pink Beach site owners of a Development Applications Board decision have said the subdivision of the prime real estate was a “bait and switch” tactic, with the owner claiming agricultural land they had proposed to save “was now desperately needed,” according to Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce.

The organisation, along with area residents, have mounted significant and extensive objections to the owners’ appeal of the DAB’s refusal to sanction the building of 10 units in two buildings which will be two to three storeys in height, along with a communal swimming pool, driveway and parking for 13 cars and ten bikes, along with the relocation of previously approved sewage treatment plant, using the land that is zoned agricultural reserve.

Owners Sardis Development Ltd have said they have discovered they need to develop the arable land in order to make the project financially viable. They are seeking in-principle permission to build the additional development. The owner had subdivided the Pink Beach property, preserving five and a half acres of the original 13.5 acres for a private home, on the beach that previously served the guests of the original hotel.

Sardis Development Ltd is currently developing the remainder of the site as a resort.

The board of directors of Hidden Cove Ltd, who represent the residents of condominiums adjacent to the development, said in their letter of objection: “ ... it would seem that a classic “bait and switch” campaign has been employed by Sardis Development that once approval was gained for all aspects of the hotel and condominium development, attention would be turned to eliminating the Agricultural Reserve in order to construct rental units.”

One of the objectors said: “How is it that Government would ever allow building on arable land in Bermuda, which is such a precious commodity?”

BEST, in its letter of objection, stated that the application was initially submitted in early December 2014, and BEST had strenuously objected to the proposal to build on the Agricultural reserve. “This application was refused by the DAB,” the environmental organisation said.

Sardis has already won a subsequent appeal, which was accepted by the Acting Minister of Home Affairs earlier this year; however, the objectors to the original application were not notified that the case was going to be heard.

Permanent secretary for the ministry Randy Rochester said in a letter to the objectors that the decision has been redacted. “It was been brought to our attention that formal objections to PO474114 were not given the opportunity to review and comment on the appeal case, associated with the application.

“As such the decision made by the acting minister in considering the appeal, was premature.”

The oversight was blamed on a clerical error.

BEST’s objection to the Sardis Development Limited appeal, which runs to eight pages, states:

•The owner achieved (the) subdivision through false pretences.

•The owner then did a “bait and switch”, claiming the agricultural land he proposed to save was now desperately needed.

•The owner has an alternative solution available to him in that other land holdings can be made available to compensate for the self-made land shortage problem.

•The proposal to trade land and protect it via a Section 34 agreement is unreliable and unacceptable.

BEST said: “Throughout the entire process the applicant was aware of the implication of developing around agricultural land. There is substantial proof that the applicant was aware and accepting of the conditions required for agricultural land, and even willing to restore the land. This point cannot be overemphasised. The applicant knew as early as February 2014 that development upon agricultural reserve land was not acceptable.”

BEST also said that “Everyone was lulled into believing the agricultural reserve land was safe, was going to not only be preserved but upgraded via an agricultural rehabilitation plan.”

BEST quoted Adwick Planning, who they said stated in January that increased costs had been uncovered as the project has developed over the last nine months, and it has become important for the developer to be able to utilise all potential sources of revenues.

Adwick Planning was also quoted by the environmental organisation as saying: “While the concern for building on agricultural reserve may be understandable given the nostalgia that is attached to farming in Bermuda the quality of the 0.9 acre of agricultural land should be considered an important factor.”

BEST responded: “Our concern and the concern expressed by technical officers is not based on nostalgia but rather attention to future survival,” and said that the agricultural land could be upgraded through composting.