BOTH Minister of Tourism Richard Sealy and Minister of Commerce Donville Inniss would be well advised to keep their mouths shut on the issue of the application by Visions Development Inc. (Mr Mark Maloney’s company) to construct a 15-storey Hyatt hotel on Browne’s Beach.
The law of Barbados – as spelt out in the Town And Country Planning Act and in various orders made under that act – stipulates that the application in question has to be dealt with by the minister responsible for Town and Country Planning (the Prime Minister), and that it has to be subjected to an objective and impartial processing procedure that must take into account the provisions of the country’s Physical Development Plan and “other material considerations”.
Furthermore, the existing Town and Country Planning policies and regulations establish that an application of this nature also has to be subjected to an “environmental impact assessment” exercise, inclusive of a public meeting with persons who reside within the vicinity of the proposed project.
It is only after all of these processes have been completed that the Prime Minister would be in a position to conclude his processing of the application and to make a reasoned and informed decision.
It is therefore highly irregular and improper for Mr Sealy, a senior minister in Mr Stuart’s administration, to be “shooting off his mouth” and speaking out of turn by publicly declaring that Mr Maloney’s company will be given permission to construct the hotel in question. Mr Inniss’ recent publicly expressed criticism of Mr Stuart’s handling of the Hyatt application is also to be deprecated!
If the procedure that is being applied to the processing of the application is an independent and impartial one, and if this procedure is still ongoing, then how could Mr Sealy be in a position to assert that Maloney’s company will get the permission? And what right does Mr Inniss have to insert himself in a process that does not concern him – a process with which Mr Stuart, by law, is charged with sole responsibility?
Mr Sealy’s public pronouncements are only serving to cast doubt on the independence, objectiveness and impartiality of the manner in which the processing of this application by Mr Maloney’s company is being conducted.
And if, at some point, this matter becomes the subject of a judicial review application in the Supreme Court of Barbados, Mr Sealy can rest assured that his out-of-turn public pronouncements will feature prominently.
– DAVID COMISSIONG