Watchdog critical of SDO report response

Make text smaller Make text larger

Ombudsman Arlene Brock yesterday chastised Government for its “inadequate” response to her damning report on special development orders and the inappropriateness of its “continued challenge” to her jurisdiction.

Ms Brock tabled a special report in the House of Assembly in which she concluded that only four of the responses to the 32 recommendations she made in her initial report, ‘Today’s Choices: Tomorrow’s Costs’, were good enough.

‘Today’s Choices’ was released in February after Ms Brock decided of her own volition to probe into SDOs due to controversy surrounding the granting of such an order for Tucker’s Point.

In that report, she declared Government had acted unlawfully by not conducting a required assessment of the environmental impact of developing the luxury resort, as required under the UK Environment Charter.

She said the study should have been done before legislators were asked to decide whether to grant the SDO for the expansion on “one of Bermuda’s most environmentally sensitive pieces of land”.

Environment Minister Marc Bean immediately criticised Ms Brock’s findings, suggesting the Ombudsman may not have been entitled to launch her “own motion” inquiry.

He described her decision to do so as “somewhat peculiar” and questioned whether her conclusions were “without bias”.

Ms Brock said yesterday: “I find the continued challenge to my jurisdiction inappropriate and many of the responses to the recommendations inadequate or even unresponsive.

“I set out my jurisdiction very clearly in ... the SDO report. Today’s special report adds a decision of the Privy Council that supports Bermuda’s Ombudsman Act.

“The words of the Ombudsman Act are crystal clear. You just cannot substitute your own words and claim that is what the Act is saying.”

In its official response to ‘Today’s Choices’, Government claimed the UK Environment Charter was “not a binding instrument and does not trigger obligations”. Mr Bean described it as an “aspirational document”.

But Ms Brock says in her latest report: “The evidence before me is overwhelming that the charter that Bermuda signed on September 26, 2001, was intended to set out legally binding commitments.”

She adds: “There was never any expectation that — eleven years down the road — any signatory would try to claim that the commitments are only ‘aspirational’.

“The Ombudsman points out that the UK has conducted two formal reviews (in 2007 and 2009) to monitor compliance with the charter.

“The ultimate question is whether Bermuda will join the rest of the modern world in making Environmental Impact Assessment a requirement, prior to approval, for all proposed developments that are ‘major’ or ‘likely to cause significant adverse impact on the environment’.”

MPs debated ‘Today’s Choices’ in the House of Assembly last month on a motion tabled by United Bermuda Party member Charlie Swan, who said Government wasted time and money signing up to a charter it chose to ignore.

Mr Swan said yesterday he planned to table a motion proposing a debate on Ms Brock’s latest report.

The Ministry of Environment did not respond to a request for comment by press time last night.

Useful website: www.ombudsman.bm.

Make text smaller Make text larger

Take Our Poll