A decision will be made today on a planning application for Phase Two of the new Dockyard cruise ship pier, but several Government bodies have expressed "disappointment" in its retroactive nature.

The work on the Ground Transportation Area (GTA) and terminal building has already been actioned by the Ministry of Works and Engineering, which says it must meet a deadline of this spring the start of the cruise ship season.

It involves: land reclamation using clean fill to create the 58,735 sq ft Ground Transportation Area; construction of a seawall and excursion dock; widening the existing North Arm bridge to 42ft; and construction of the terminal building and a ferry docking area.

Phase One involved installation of steel piles for the main dock and the pouring of a reinforced concrete deck, plus catwalk, mooring and breasting dolphins.

The Development Applications Board is to meet today to decide on planning approval for the retroactive application, but a senior planner, Government department heads and the Bermuda National Trust have all questioned the actions of the Ministry of Works and Engineering.

They have expressed "disappointment" not only in the Ministry's failure to follow planning protocol, but say the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is also not thorough enough, particularly relating to sediment and water clarity studies.

In an e-mail to Director of Environmental Protection Fred Ming on February 12, senior planner Christine Rickards said: "Based on my review of it (the Environmental Impact Statement), I cannot support the application because the EIS is substandard in many ways."

In a February 19 e-mail to Crystal Rogers, environmental consultant at Bermuda Water Consultants, she said: "The monitoring programme aspect of the EIS is paramount and remains incomplete."

Dr. Ming meanwhile, in a memo on February 10, said: "The MRB (Marine Resources Board) wishes to convey to the Department of Planning and the client (applicant) that the use of retroactive applications arguably could bring the validity of the (DAB) board review process into question."

In a letter to Planning on February 6, Director of Conservation Services Jack Ward said: "We (Department of Conservation Services) are compelled to point out that being overly critical of an EIS that has been submitted for a retroactive application is not highly constructive."

But he said: "Given that this application is for final approval, this Department believes that the EIS should provide detailed assessment of all aspects of the operation of the facility. In this regard we find the tendered document to be lacking to a very significant degree.

"Of particular concern is the issue that this Department first raised in its submissions of 27 July 2007 and which has still not been addressed. That document stated: 'We feel that this review is overly limited in terms of geographic range particularly as it relates to the marine environment'."

Mr. Ward said there appeared to have been "no attempt" to model the impact of ship movements and sediment plumes in the area. He said studies had been restricted to "an area immediately adjacent to the new terminal", but currents would transport sediment to adjacent areas.

"Although no attempt to model the movement of these sediment plumes has been conducted, we can share that we have seen aerial photographs that have revealed dramatic plumes extending around King's Point toward the northwest whilst a cruise ship was manoeuvring alongside the North Arm at Dockyard," he said.

The effect of plumes in the shipping channels would also reduce water clarity, "thereby depriving seagrasses and corals of essential sunlight and causing particles to be deposited upon coral colonies".

This in turn could lead to a decline in fish production, he said.

Mr. Ward described the EIS water quality assessments as "extremely limited".

"Recognising that the true environmental impact of the use of this new cruise ship terminal will only be revealed through careful studies conducted over a period of time, this Department strongly recommends that a long-term monitoring programme be designed, funded and implemented," he said.

Richard Lowry, Heritage Officer, in a memo on February 17, said although the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee raised no objection, "the committee would like to voice their disappointment that the (Phase Two) application was submitted retroactively".

Also, in a February 27 memo, Government hydrogeologist Mark Rowe said he visited the GTA to inspect two drainage boreholes but found they were "incomplete" connecting pipes between the settlement sumps did not include 'T' fittings.

"I have not yet established who was responsible for authorising the construction of these boreholes in the absence of Environmental Authority approval, which has been applied for retroactively," he said.

A letter from the Bermuda National Trust also stated: "The Bermuda National Trust objects strongly to the application on the grounds that the EIS is incomplete and fails to take into consideration potential indirect impacts of the development."

Dorcas Roberts, Director of Preservation, said: "We are disappointed that permission for this project has been sought by means of a number of planning applications in a fragmented manner.

"Our concern remains that this project will be complete before the impact of the development as a whole has been established or fully understood, negating the best practice process of undertaking impact assessments.

"We are extremely disappointed that a development of this magnitude has practically reached completion before the impact of the development has been given full consideration."