No permit

State register shows Hyatt project yet to be granted permission

The situation regarding the multi-million dollar Hyatt Centric Resort on Bay Street, St Michael got more curious today as Barbados TODAY investigations cast doubt over whether the 15-storey property had received planning permission.

Barbados TODAY examined the physical official state register in the Town and Country Planning Development Office, and it revealed that a final decision had not been taken on an application for permission to build the hotel.

Furthermore, an official of the Town Planning office said that as far as he could see from additional data, no permission had been granted for the construction of the hotel, pointing out that the application was still being processed and awaiting information from an international agency.

He did not name the agency or specify why such information was required.

The state register, the official record for physical developments in Barbados, revealed that the application was submitted by Vision Development Inc of developer Mark Maloney on March 30, 2015 in care of Edghill Consulting Inc, Port St Charles, Heywoods, St Peter.

However, nothing was there to suggest that the project had been approved.

Minister of International Business, Commerce and Small Business Development Donville Inniss had told Parliament during the debate of the 2016 Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals on Friday, that Opposition Member of Parliament for The City Colonel Jeffrey Bostic was not telling the truth when he said the hotel had not been given planning approval, claiming such “mistruths” were scaring away potential investors.

“I heard the Honourable Member for The City get up and say today that the Hyatt project did not have Town Planning permission . . . and Madame Deputy Speaker if we on the Government side do not stop these mistruths in their tracks . . . they go out there, and not only domestic investors, but regional and international investors ask: what kind of society are we running in Barbados?” Inniss said then.

He suggested that it would not have made sense for an announcement to be made about the construction of the hotel without first applying for permission. The minister said he had been furnished with the facts, while emphasizing that the Opposition members were lying. Inniss revealed that the hotel developers had applied for permission and it was approved with conditions. “I believe they have appealed some of the conditions and that matter is also being addressed at the highest level,” he said. So sure that the project had been given the “green light’, the Minister also announced in Parliament that it should start in six weeks time with 500 Barbadians finding jobs during construction.

Meanwhile, attorney at law and social activist David Comissiong has threatened legal action against the construction of the proposed hotel, if the project was not subjected to a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment. Comissiong has made clear his opposition to the project, which was announced last month, saying it would have implications for the environmental well-being of the city of Bridgetown and its designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site. In a statement issued over the weekend, he noted claims made by Inniss that the Chief Town Planner had already dealt with, and approved with conditions, construction of the controversial hotel, were false.

Inniss had told the House that an environmental impact assessment (EIA), a heritage impact assessment, a traffic study, a geotechnical survey, a marine survey and a geophysaical survey had been carried out.

Comissiong contended that the people of Barbados were never given public notice of, or invited to participate in any EIA pertaining to the proposed 15-storey structure.

He argued that a “legitimate” EIA “could not be carried out in secret – unknown to the Barbadian public– and without the participation and input of the people of Barbados, particularly the participation and input of the people who reside in the communities closest to and most affected by the proposed hotel”.

Comissiong also highlighted implications for Bridgetown and the environment if the project went ahead.

Hyatt Corporation announced on July 27 that one of its affiliates had signed a management agreement with Vision Developments Inc for the construction of the 237-room resort on the outskirts of central Bridgetown.

17 Responses to No permit

  1. Charlie Black August 24, 2016 at 3:09 am

    Is this Seriously A Report of ???? or ??????? WOW!!!!

  2. Hal Austin August 24, 2016 at 3:10 am

    The confusion over whether or not Hyatt has got planing permission is a problem of our own making.
    Planning is a political decision, not a technocratic one for the civil servants. The chief planning officer should be responsible for executing decisions made by the planning committee.
    The prime minister (or the relevant minister) should be responsible for the planning committee, which should meet every month or six weeks, in public. All those affected by the application, neighbours, utilities, etc, should be notified and given an opportunity to submit evidence.
    In addition, all application to be heard by the committee should be displayed on the T&CP electronic noticeboard.

  3. Tony Webster August 24, 2016 at 6:08 am

    There is no “confusion” over this “project”/ “Plan”/ “Investment: there is however, EXTREME caution, obfuscation, nuanced responses, an outbreak of disingenousness; an epidemic of political hyper-sensitivity….all as both investor, and those of the Thursduh Throng, tip-toe , delicately, throught the tulips…wending their way (hand-in-hand) to that blessed place where pristine white (oops, sorry) sand, meets the pelucidly-clear waters of the Caribbean sea…and therby admixed, become opaque, and a bit cloudy. One is thusly prevented from seeing the fish clearly, and from casting a net (yes, one may cast aspersions freely)…but it does NOT follow that either (a) there are no fish there in the water- or even the odd, greedy, shark! So taken together with these perturbations and undercurrents ’bout there…and bathing is not recommended at this location today…or for a little while yet.
    Yes, stay tuned; we must all “wheel and come again”. Speaking of which… some wheels turn slowly; others grind finely; yet others are “reluctant”… but just need a li’l dollop of “axle grease”…and cud easily be turning sweetly within a year of being “brought up to optimum speed”.

  4. BaJan boy August 24, 2016 at 7:05 am

    All rhetoric and you have a Minister who continues to lie to the people of Barbados as this government had done constantly to try to look good and look more and more stupid ever time..

  5. Harry August 24, 2016 at 8:06 am

    You hear lie – dat is lie, but who lie?

  6. BUDDY August 24, 2016 at 9:09 am

    If I was an investor in this Hyatt project, I would persuade the development team to try and move this project to another location in the Caribbean. Tobago, Grande Anse in Grenada, Antigua, St. Kitts, Anguilla,, Bequia, Cayman Islands, even Cuba.
    St. Vincent is at the finishing stage with their spanking new International Airport which they will need to keep busy. The wheels of progress in Barbado turns very lowly if it ever turns at all. Of course it can turn real fast if dollah grease is applied. otherwise procrastination, a local Barbadian way of life will show it face. You move thi project to another location and Barbadians will say ” wate wuh happen hay?”

  7. Aneta August 24, 2016 at 9:16 am

    A bunch of liars. The Maloney saga, the Hyatt saga, the chicken wings saga. Should I go on. The cheffette saga at orange hill. More! That is all for now. Bajans wake up. I did. Dem used to be my party. Used to be a strong supporter of dem. Most more cause I dun wid dem.

  8. Sue Donym August 24, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Permit me to ask:
    Is applying for permission the same as having received permission?
    Let’s agree that permission was applied for. If approval is granted PENDING certain conditions , and the conditions are not agreed or met (appealed/challenged/queried) is there a good and valid permit?
    Are such permits, in order to be active and valid, to be acknowledged and signed by the parties?
    Is the permit confusion as scandalous as how the land came into private ownership in the first place? It is quite astounding what it takes, for what SHOULD be public information, to become known to the public.

  9. Alex Alleyne August 24, 2016 at 9:39 am

    A wall of words. This is why “joe public” should stand on the side and let the politicians “duke it out”.
    Barbados Today should go and speak to Mr. Cummins and set the record straight on this issue for the public “cause we would like to know the real TRUTH”.
    Happy hunting……chop, chop.

  10. harry turnover August 24, 2016 at 11:52 am

    So sure that the project had been given the “green light’, the Minister also announced in Parliament that it should start in six weeks time with 500 Barbadians finding jobs during construction.

    Leh we wait until six weeks from now to see who telling lie and who tink people foolish and who mek somebody look foolish.

    Remember the chicken wing fiasco ? somebody mek somebody look dey din know that the importation WAS LEGAL…tables turned now ? leh we wait and see.

  11. Donild Trimp August 24, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    This is serious stuff.

    Somebody better start back-dating documents.

    If there are no documents approving this project, those responsible for misleading the people of Barbados should resign with immediate effect.

    Bajans must understand that the Politicians and the Civil Servants are employees of the Barbadian people and not the other way around.

  12. Donild Trimp August 24, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    This is serious stuff.

    No documents to show project was approved and yet Minister announcing the project to start in six weeks.

    Not looking good on some important people.

  13. BoboTheClown August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Lots of jobs eh? Well never count your chickens while de hen is still sitting pun de eggs ,’cause some might addle . And I thought it was only Ossie Moore that did put de cart before de horse, but I was wrong which isn’t very often. Many fools are still being allowed to breathe Oxygen that should be reserved for the wise.

  14. George Jones August 25, 2016 at 11:06 am

    The question of how the land got into private hands is very pertinent. How properties are acquired in Bim is often a very interesting topic if people are aware enough to investigate. We have short attention spans here, whereby with the six weeks many if these issues may be forgotten. Someone is lying or seriously mistaken. Who has the most to gain tends to be the culprit.

  15. Barspecs August 25, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Wait for it – another “Four Season” affair and Hyatt will back out. There may well be an “escape cause” in whatever document was signed.

  16. The Negrocrat August 25, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Mark Cummins and Mark Maloney depicted.

  17. Donild Trimp August 25, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    This is serious business.

    No documentation to show project was approved.

    What a bunch of jokers. Banana Republic.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *