Environmental campaigners have accused Government of "deliberately breaking the law" in submitting a retroactive Planning application with a "flawed" EIS for phase two of the new cruise ship pier.

Stuart Hayward, chairman of Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST), said that just as 'running late' was no excuse for a motorist caught speeding, so the Government could not use delays for defying Planning protocol.

Opposition Environment Minister Cole Simons also spoke out yesterday, claiming Government had "bullied the DAB (Development Applications Board) into a corner" over retroactive approval for the project.

Mr. Hayward said: "BEST regrets that the DAB has found itself in the position of having to bend its own principles in issuing a decision on this project and, further, of having to resort to conditions that require the same kind of diligence from the applicant that has so far been missing.

"A key problem ingredient has been the flawed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), first submitted in June 2007.

"It was then relabelled as a 'draft EIS' and, months later, made the subject of a 'scoping exercise' that by rights should have been done months before it was first submitted.

"To date, the EIS does not meet the minimum standards for a project of such complexity, with the potential for severe environmental impact."

Mr. Hayward said: "At virtually every step, this project has been delayed due to failed attempts at shortcuts, each of which has only added to the delays and prompted further shortcut attempts.

"It is distressing to find that the Ministry of Tourism, rather than facing head-on the procedural and environmental requirements of assessing the impact of the entire scheme, chose again 'retroactively', to split the scheme into three so-called phases, enabling it to push ahead with each phase without having to address or account for the overall impact of the entire scheme.

"By taking on an inadequate, flawed and tardy EIS, the Government has truncated its own ability to do the right thing.

"An EIS, properly scoped and conducted, would provide for the Government vital information that would enable it to avoid hurried and frequently flawed decisions.

"However, in the same way that being in a hurry or late for an appointment is no justification in law for speeding (and such excuses are routinely ridiculed by Magistrates), the Government must cease citing delays, posing excuses or inventing justifications, however plausible, for deliberately breaking the law."

He said: "The DAB has a well-deserved reputation for fairness and trustworthiness, and has undoubtedly been frustrated in the extreme by this application, as evidenced by the strong language condemning the Government for 'blatantly disregarding the Planning process'.

"The DAB has set several conditions that, if adhered to, may remedy some of the current deficiencies in the project.

"We endorse and support the DAB's intention to uphold Planning regulations and processes that have protected Bermuda from the disorderly development practices that have plagued other tourist destinations."

UBP MP Mr. Simons said: "The DAB have been bullied into a corner. Government has said 'we need this approved before the ships arrive in April, we need to have the lease in place'.

"They were forced into approving a retroactive Planning application, and I think subconsciously the Government was trying to treat this like an SDO (Special Development Order)."

Mr. Simons said: "It's shameful the DAB had to make a decision without the fundamental input of the environmental assessment, especially for a development of this magnitude.

"I think Government constantly undermines the credibility of the DAB by showing blatant disregard for its technical officers and professionals in the industry. It undermines the role of the DAB, period."

Planning officials on the DAB approved the Ministry of Works and Engineering application for phase two on March 25, but criticised its "blatant disregard" of the Planning process.

The retroactive Planning permission covers land reclamation for a 58,735 sq ft ground transportation area, construction of a terminal building, seawall and excursion dock, a ferry area, security gates, and the widening of a bridge.

Planning permission was given in principle for the $35 million new cruise ship pier project at the end of 2007, but only phase one of the scheme construction of the pier received final approval.

Government applied for a Special Development Order (SDO) for phase two last April, under the advice of the DAB.

However the project was stalled in December after Opposition MPs in the House of Assembly persuaded Government to suspend plans on a request to reclaim the 8.2 acres of land needed for the cruise ship dock.

The SDO was abandoned after it became clear one could not be granted in time to have the site ready for the start of the cruise ship season on April 29. Delays would result in a $16 million loss to the economy, according to the Ministry of Tourism and Transport.

On January 6, the retrospective planning application for the work at Dockyard was submitted. But some Government department heads and the Bermuda National Trust expressed disapproval with the way the work began without official approval and more studies into the impact on the environment.

The DAB approved the application for phase two on condition that a long-term monitoring programme is approved into air quality, water quality and marine ecology.

It said: "The Board is disappointed with the applicant's blatant disregard for the planning process in undertaking the phase two works which are the subject of this retroactive application."

The DAB also expressed disappointment with the Ministry's failure to establish a 'terms of reference' for the phase two EIS. Full detailing of the scope of work was to be vetted by stakeholders prior to any work taking place, and was an advice note in the phase one application.

"The lack of this scoping work has resulted in an EIS which did not undertake the full range of scientific studies required, and therefore some conclusions are not fully substantiated," said the DAB. As a result, the Board had to make a judgment on the likely environmental impact of the project without the benefit of objective scientific data."