St. John’s Antigua – A judge in Antigua and Barbuda’s High Court is being asked to determine whether the country’s planning authority acted lawfully when it approved the construction of a residential project at Cedar Tree Point, Barbuda — an ecologically sensitive area within the RAMSAR-designated Codrington Lagoon.

The outcome of the case brought by Barbudan fisherman George Jeffrey and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) now rests in the hands of Justice Jan Drysdale, who reserved judgment after a five-hour hearing and review of a 2,000-page court bundle earlier this month.

She will consider whether the Development Control Authority (DCA) breached public consultation laws and environmental protocols when it granted a building permit to developers in May 2022.

At issue is a planned luxury residential project by English developer Henry Anderson, through the Abercorn Trust, at Cedar Tree Point. The DCA approved the development despite prior revocations by the Department of Environment (DoE), which had flagged the site as environmentally risky and inappropriate for construction.

Allegations of Improper Motives

Jeffrey’s legal team, led by King’s Counsel Leslie Thomas, notes that the DCA failed to publish its approval decision, a requirement under law that would have allowed for public appeal and scrutiny of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The DoE had twice revoked the project’s development permit — first in December 2020 and again in July 2021 — citing serious environmental risks.

The DoE warned that the development poses risks from sea-level rise, storm surge, and the precedent it would set for construction in protected zones. The site is near a turtle nesting beach and the globally significant Frigate Bird Sanctuary.

Though the EIA suggested risks could be mitigated, the DoE insisted there should be no construction in that area, referencing the devastation of similar nearby developments — like Lighthouse Bay and Barbuda Bell — by Hurricane Irma in 2017. The department described the recommendations as grounded in “best scientific knowledge.”

However, in May 2022, the DCA approved the project without formally addressing those concerns. According to an affidavit submitted by Deputy Chief Town and Country Planner Clement Antonio, the DCA claims it “orally” informed the DoE of its decision — but the letter failed to say when, how, or to whom this was communicated.

“This breach alone should allow claimants relief by order of mandamus,” Thomas argued, also citing Antigua and Barbuda’s obligations under the Escazú Agreement, which mandates maximum disclosure in environmental decision-making.

DCA and Developer Defend Decision

Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan, representing the DCA, rejected the arguments, describing the opposition as “ignorant.” He claimed the DCA acted within its discretion, noting that the DoE had found the EIA adequate — so long as its mitigation strategies were followed.

Astaphan cited the findings of Marine Biologist Ruleo Camacho, who reportedly measured setbacks of 300–400 feet from the shoreline and determined the project was over 4,000 feet from the lagoon. Camacho found minimal environmental disruption and no development within the lagoon itself.

However, the claimants’ lawyers noted Camacho was not presented as an expert witness and admitted lacking expertise on RAMSAR site classification.

Both Astaphan and attorney Kemar Roberts, representing Abercorn Trust and English developer Henry Anderson, argued the DCA was not legally bound to follow the DoE’s advice. They also highlighted the absence of domestic legislation officially designating the Codrington Lagoon as a protected area.

Roberts questioned whether the DCA’s actions were irrational or unlawful. He argued that there was enough public information to infer why the agency diverged from the DoE’s recommendations.

“Reliance on general law is not compliance,” Thomas replied. “We say it’s evasion.”

The defence lawyers both accepted that the DCA failed to publish its approval decision but asked the judge not to scrap the permit. Instead, they proposed that the court order the DCA to comply with its legal obligations and allow meaningful public participation.

Thomas further responded, telling the court the DCA’s failure to notify the public was a “foundational defect,” not merely a procedural slip. “Failure to consult cannot retroactively be remedied after a decision is taken,” he said.

Developer Speaks Out

After the hearing, developer Henry Anderson released a statement condemning the claims made in court and online.

“My hopeful expectations of court today were that I might hear truthful concerns, delivered with integrity from the Claimants who assert themselves as defending justice. But, I was appalled and disappointed by their manipulation of the truth, including efforts to perpetrate false hatred on social media.”

He accused the claimants of hypocrisy, pointing out a nearby hotel development that he said violated environmental rules without any legal challenge.

“Despite the claim that Cedar Tree Point is an unheard of development in a Ramsar site, the claimants are aware that there is a larger development right next door… with buildings constructed almost to the waterline and without permission.”

Anderson argued that the development at Cedar Tree Point follows all environmental rules and setback requirements. He claimed the DoE’s own advice was followed, the site is sustainably developed, and “not one leaf of a mangrove has been damaged.”

He also accused GLAN of “seeking to disrupt any development in Barbuda from overseas investors,” referencing the recent Privy Council ruling that confirmed Barbuda lands are owned by the state.

Thomas expects that the judge will hand down her written decision before the end of 2025.