Response to Government’s Justification of Southlands SDO
On July 26, Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield headlined a twenty-minute television and radio broadcast that explained Special Development Orders (SDOs) and attempted to justify the issuance of an SDO for the proposed hotel at Southlands. The Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) believes the Minister and her Cabinet colleagues failed in this attempt. In our view, the approval of this project denigrates the planning system and reduces sustainable development concerns to irrelevance. It discounts public opinion in favour of political ends. It negatively impacts the environment, coastline and, most importantly, generations to come. It creates significant precedence for use of public lands by private developers.
Minister Butterfield described SDOs as an important tool used for responding to strategic, national issues and the development needs of the day. The Government has not shown that this particular hotel is strategic or of national importance. Bermuda’s economy is booming, prices for housing are rising out of reach of the average Bermudian, inflation is chipping into everyone’s income. Further rapid expansion of the economy will worsen cost of living issues for middle and lower income Bermudians.
Minister Butterfield implied that information from Technical Officers and other experts has been incorporated into the final SDO. However, as the Minister did not provide specifics, and without seeing the actual SDO in its entirety, the public cannot be confident that the Minister took the advice and counsel of Technical Officers and other experts into consideration.
Minister Butterfield said Technical Officers and the Architects Advisory Panel provided feedback that led to the production of the Draft SDO. This statement is misleading. The Draft SDO was actually drafted by the developers and submitted with the application back in December 2006, long before Technical Officers provided any input.
Much was made about local ownership of the hotel. However several hotels, including the Hamilton Princess and Elbow Beach, had local owners. More importantly, local ownership should not mean that planning regulations and good sense should not apply. An SDO should not allow the developers to avoid planning regulations and zonings that all other land owners and Bermudians must obey. Moreover, the public may not be aware that the northern portion of the property will contain 42 luxury residential units that will likely be sold to non-Bermudians. The Minister of Immigration is concerned that 37% of housing in Bermuda is in the hands of non-Bermudians. The fractional housing units at Southlands and other hotel developments will add to the non-Bermudian ownership.
Minister Butterfield said the developers must submit assessments of potential environmental impacts. However, no timetable or guidelines for rigor were mentioned. This is highly significant. BEST’s formal response to the Draft SDO in March stated “Without a full environmental impact assessment, carried out by a competent and impartial third party, and evaluated in a professional review process, there can be no rational argument to issue an SDO for this proposal.†The review from the Ministry’s own Conservation Department reinforced the BEST view: “… lacking the benefit of a thorough environmental impact assessment aimed at prompting informed decision making, the Department of Conservation Services is duty bound to object to the proposed development.â€Â
Premier Brown referred to our economy as “flourishingâ€Â. However, knowledgeable economists refer to the economy as overheated. In December 2006, the rating agency Standard and Poors expressed concern about the strain on the Island’s infrastructure that accompanies our current economic status. Un-moderated expansion from the construction and operation of luxury hotels is not in the Island’s interest, short- or long-term.
Premier Brown declared that Bermuda’s last hotel was built 35 years ago. That is not true. Stonington Beach was built in 1980, Club Med in 1985, Daniel’s Head in 2000 and the brand new Tucker’s Point is almost complete. The Premier’s point is valid that much of our hotel stock is aged, but it is no justification to over-ride good sense and planning laws. It is the scale and details of this plan that are so objectionable. The Minister of Works and Engineering provided details of the tunnels, but the fact remains, no amount of road width, lighting and plantings can compensate for the fact that from henceforth all travelers on that section of the South Road will be diverted through a series of tunnels.
Minister Butterfield made no mention of the ten-story housing unit to be built in the quarry off Khyber Pass. This is linked to the Southlands application and should require a separate Environmental Impact Assessment to examine the effect the dormitory-styled housing unit will have on traffic, social safety and amenity value for the neighbourhood.
Minister Butterfield stated that the SDO contains several conditions. However, all conditions will have to be monitored and enforced. The monitoring and enforcement of existing environmental laws is beyond the Government’s current ability and will. Examples include: Palmetto Bay Gardens in Flatts that was given concessions to build residential units provided they built a hotel – they have not built the hotel; the contractor who demolished a section of cliff on Gilbert’s Bay in 2004, flouting planning and environmental protection laws – the Special Enforcement Notice issued by the Environment Minister has yet to be enforced; the ongoing dumping of rubble at Devonshire Marsh. What confidence can the public have of the ability and will of the Government to monitor and enforce new conditions required by the SDO of the Southlands project?
Minister Butterfield inadequately explained that the lifting of the Section 34 covenant for the current developers adds a development potential and economic gain which was not permitted to the previous owner. The public should note that when previous Section 34 covenants are being overturned it makes a mockery of any Section 34 agreement that the current developers will sign. What confidence can we have that any new Section 34 covenant will be honoured? If the developers are requiring zoning and protective convenant changes, then the proposal is arguably not in the public interest and should not be granted an SDO.
What was NOT mentioned is the unsustainability of luxury tourist accommodations. The elevated consumption of resources, particularly energy, whether directly in the form of electricity for lighting and airconditioning, or indirectly though food and beverage and other goods, is not in Bermuda’s survival interest. The threat of climate change to our very existence should prompt our leaders to tone back extravagant and wasteful tourist practices or even go further and promote Bermuda as an eco-friendly resort. Instead, they are encouraging and promoting the very practices that add to our danger. As our environment deteriorates, whether from construction or from rising sea level, the tourists we now cater to will go elsewhere. Where will Bermudians go?
What was NOT mentioned is the hotel’s billing as a “Destination Resort Hotel†which, in the industry lingo, describes a gated community where the tourists are discouraged from leaving the facility. This could well mean no customers for restaurants, taxis, grocery stores outside the compound, and no locals allowed inside. What is the point of local ownership if Southlands becomes another foreign enclave on our shores?
The programme showed clearly that approval of the Southlands proposal reflected the agendas of Government Ministers while ignoring or discounting the professionals in the fields of Architecture, Economics, Planning (both social and development), Conservation and Environmental Protection. This is a violation of Ministerial responsibility to serve the needs of Bermuda’s people.
The programme highlighted that this proposal supresses the concept of “sustainable†while maximizing “developmentâ€Â. It ignores the community’s increasing open space needs while creating a farce of the Sustainable Development Initiative and de-valuing the Ministry of the Environment and its departmental expertise.
The most crucial tool for evaluating and decision making in a proposal as massive and precedent-setting as at Southlands is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It must not be left to the developers to decide the parameters of the EIA, particularly as the development constitutes such a major and precipitous conversion of open space to residential and tourist accommodations. The EIA must go beyond a short list of concerns and deal comprehensively with social and cultural aspects of the development as well as the physical environment. The EIA must be conducted by independent and established professionals, and must be audited.
We must empahasize that BEST supports efforts to diversify the economy and build
the tourism sector, but not at the expense of Bermuda’s social and physical
environment. We must not lower the quality of life for the Island’s residents.
A development priority, as put forward in the Government’s own Sustainable
Development Strategy, must be to redevelop derelict tourism properties rather
than developing new ones.