Timetables for the Fairmont Southampton project are “becoming critical”, it was claimed in a letter to the planning department from the agency acting for the hotel’s owner.

Peter Adwick, of Adwick Planning, said Westend Properties had requested the presentation of its special development order proposals to the Development Applications Board as soon as possible.

In a separate letter, he noted that the applicant accepted many details of its plan were yet to be “worked out” but pointed out that conditions could be attached to any SDO approval.

The documents were among the latest to be uploaded to the Department of Planning website after a revised request sought in-principle permission for up to 159 tourism and 91 residential units in buildings of two to four storeys.

An earlier SDO application was submitted in April — seeking approval for a maximum of 261 units — and the amended version followed in July.

Mr Adwick wrote that “the SDO process has taken a significant amount of time to get this far, and the timelines for the project are becoming critical”.

He added: “The applicant therefore requests that the SDO proposals are presented to the Development Applications Board at the earliest opportunity.”

His letter, dated September 1, was in reply to correspondence from the planning department four days earlier, when it was recommended that amendments were made to certain documents to address discrepancies, include appropriate titles or attribution and provide further information.

Response was also invited to submissions made during a public consultation process.

The planning department’s letter explained: “A detailed assessment of each topic of the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] together with all other relevant considerations will be made separately in due course in the form of a report to the Development Applications Board upon receipt of your response and updated documentation.”

It said earlier that the EIS should confirm at which stages of the construction phase each of the SDO’s proposed community benefits would be carried out and completed.

A revised EIS said that conservation management plans — to include a programme of invasive culling as well as native and endemic planting — for three areas of the resort would be submitted for approval with the detailed planning application for phase 1, with work to start during that stage.

It explained that the addition of ten bluebird boxes, to expand upon 14 already in place, could be installed during phase 1 but that “due to reconfiguration of the golf course during phase 2, there will need to be a reinstallation of some boxes during phase 2”.

A potential realignment to straighten South Road where it borders the property and to improve the camber was proposed for completion by the end of phase 1, “but will be contingent on co-ordination” with the Government’s Highways Section, the EIS said.

The same timescale and condition were suggested for the installation of a three-way traffic light system where the northern exit and entrance road to the hotel meets Middle Road and Lighthouse Hill.

Improvements to the Railway Trail that include the provision of a ramp where there is a steep staircase and the addition of “discrete” lighting would be carried out during phase 1, the EIS said.

Mr Adwick said in a letter dated July 26 that the construction period for phase 1 of the proposed development was expected to be 2025 to 2030.

He added then that phase 2 was anticipated to run from 2033 to 2036 and phase 3 work would be carried out in 2039 to 2040.

Another letter from the agent on behalf of Westend Properties, dated September 1, included comments offered in reply to representations from members of the public and environmental groups.

Mr Adwick wrote: “Responses tend to focus on the total number of units proposed rather than the revised composition of the development as a whole and question the need for the amount of development proposed.

“Need, in this context, however, should be interpreted in terms of what is required to ensure the success of the Fairmont Southampton resort into the future.

“The SDO is required as this will necessarily involve extraordinary development options rather than those limited by the arithmetic behind zoning policies.”

An SDO granted in 2009 gave planning permission in principle for 71 fractional tourism units, 37 residential villas and 22 town homes at the resort.

Mr Adwick said: “In the revised proposal, 70 per cent of the units are intended to be tourism units linked to the hotel.

“This compares with 44 per cent in the original proposal and 54 per cent in the 2009 SDO development.

“This uplift in tourism units translates into a 40 per cent increase in hotel bedrooms at the property, which would be a significant boost to hotel bed count in Bermuda as well as potentially expanding employment opportunities at the hotel.

“It seems there is some scepticism among objectors that this is achievable but the upgrade in the hotel and facilities is geared towards achieving the full potential of the property.”

The letter said that several respondents were concerned about what they perceived as a downgrading of the resort’s golf course.

It added: “The details of the reconfiguration of the golf course, including such matters as its total length, have not yet been worked out, but it is intended to maintain the course as a high-quality 18-hole par 3 golf course.”

Access arrangements for a group of buildings among the proposal’s Southern Hill Top Villas “have not been finalised”, the letter said.

It added: “It should be noted, however, that the similar development approved under the 2009 SDO took access to Lighthouse Road via the right of way.”

Mr Adwick wrote: “WPL acknowledges that there are many details to be worked out as that is the nature of a proposal that seeks approval in principle.

“However, where details are not yet available, the process allows for conditions to be attached to any approval requiring detailed submissions of specific types of development or mitigation schemes or other enhancements before construction can proceed.

“The applicant fully expects that should approval of the SDO be granted, such conditions are likely to be a feature of the permission and would abide by such conditions.”