The Riddell’s Bay Members Committee would like to respond to some of the comments in the press. We believe that it is important to present the public with feedback and a balanced perspective of opinions when it comes to making important zoning decisions, involving the Draft Bermuda Plan (2018). This is not a garden/nature reserve project, it is real estate development masquerading as a conservation project.

As many will be aware, the Committee published a petition on Change.org titled “Preserve Bermuda Recreational Land Petition” (http://chng.it/JV9N2G4rkX) which now has over 1,800 signatures. This weekend, the “Riddell’s Bay Planning Application - Objection Petition” (http://chng.it/PW49zRvZVZ) was published on Change.org. Those members of the public who want their voices heard or cannot lodge a written objection by the Friday July 26 deadline can sign this petition. In order to provide full transparency, we allow the public to see the major points of objection to the Castile Holdings planning application (S0020/19).

The petitioners are objecting based on the following factors:

1) The application does not comply with the zoning of the land. The application violates Development and Planning Act, 1974, the Bermuda Plan (2008) and Draft Bermuda Plan (2018), since the proposed new 19 Residential 2 lots in the applicant’s Master Plan are located on protected recreational property.

2) The application is based on the acceptance of the applicant’s objection to the Draft Bermuda Plan (2018) and without this acceptance there is no reason to subdivide the property.

3) Loss of open space/recreation land. The proposed change of zoning of 59.44 acres of protected recreation properties in the applicant’s Master Plan violates the objective of the Bermuda Plans (2008/2018) and specifically the language protecting recreational property.

4) The proposed subdivision is premature and not in the public interest and would be detrimental to the conservation of the visual amenities of the area.

5) Planning studies have shown that additional residential land is not required due to the decline in the local population.

6) Negative environmental impact. While the applicant has hired and paid an “environmental expert” to write a long environmental impact study on what could be done in the new “Nature Preserve”, Riddell’s already is considered one of the largest environmentally protected areas in Bermuda with significant areas of Woodland Reserve, Coastal Reserve, Nature Reserve and Recreation zoning. Those of us who have signed this petition recognize that the natural habitat in Riddell’s Bay is not found in other areas of Bermuda. We also recognize that changing 20.87 acres of this property to residential 2 zoning will permanently damage the sensitive eco-system.

7) Coastal reserve impact. The proposed 7 western lots are located on an environmentally sensitive area which includes coastal reserve zoning and a small bay with mangroves, sea turtles and other protected sea life. Building homes on this area will have a major impact on the herons, longtails, bluebirds, lizards and other endemic species that live in this area.

8) Unknown environmental impact of future residential development. The applicant is not a developer and plans to sell the rezoned lots. Therefore, they have no control over what the new owners build on their properties. As such the applicant’s Master Plan environmental impact study cannot assess what impact this overall proposal will have on the environment.

9) Lack of clarity about the future management/potential for further development of the open space areas. It is unclear from the Master Plan who will pay to maintain “Riddell’s Bay Gardens” once the applicant has sold the residential lots. While the applicant states “to allow for development of new residential lots that will help finance long term maintenance of the nature reserve and gardens”, there are no details on how they intend to pay for the maintenance of remaining 66 acres of property. A survey of the residents indicates that they do not intend and are not obligated to pay for maintenance that had previously been paid by the golf club.

10) The granting of permission for the proposed lots under the current zoning or the change of zoning in the 2018 Draft Plan to allow such development would set a major undesirable precedent for the conversion of open space to residential development. The applicant purchased assets of the former Riddell’s Bay Golf and Country Club for commercial reasons, outbidding two other potential buyers who intended to maintain the golf course and recreational zoning. Since the applicant could make a substantial profit from the zoning change this will set a dangerous precedent for other golf courses and athletic clubs.

We would note that the images provided by Castile Holdings used in the July 22nd RG Article (“A rendering of what the completed Riddell’s Bay redevelopment would look like”) is not an accurate reflection of the number of lots that are in the S0020/19 application and their Master Plan. The rendering shows 12 new homes when there are 19 new lots in the application and the potential for 18 new homes (illustration attached). They have made substantial changes.

The statement in the same article that “The overwhelming majority of the residents of Riddell’s Bay as well as people close to the situation understand and agree that this is a phenomenal opportunity for the environment, for the residents and for Bermuda as a whole” has no factual substance. There are many objectors to the plans of Castile Holdings, including the 1,800+ who signed the original petition, the signers of the new application objection petition and others who are objecting directly to the Planning Department.

We hope that that this landmark decision is made considering the future of everyone on our small island and that this attempt to cleverly ‘mask’ a major real estate development project as a “conservation project” is widely understood before any final decisions are made.

• Press release from the Riddell’s Bay Members Committee