People are starting to realise that if an MP in Parliament votes in favour of the 2003 (Amended) National Physical Development Plan, they will be voting against creation of the Graeme Hall National Park.
This is because the proposed 2003 (Amended) National Physical Development Plan calls for residential and urban development of most of the agricultural lands and environmental buffers surrounding the actual wetland at Graeme
This is in direct conflict with, and contrary to, past Physical Development Plans that recommended nature reserve, open recreational and agricultural uses for these lands, based on historic scientific and other studies over the past 30 years.
Furthermore, according to Mr. Leonard St. Hill, former Chief Town Planner, there are substantive legal and procedural questions regarding the development and execution of the proposed 2003 (Amended) National Physical Development Plan.
Mr. St. Hill was forced to publicly itemise these legal and procedural deficiencies in a letter to The Nation after receiving no response from the Government of Barbados.
Indeed, Mr. St. Hill may be doing Members of Parliament a huge favour by alerting them to these apparent deficiencies before the proposed Plan is pushed through Parliament.
But the really interesting question is, if Parliament votes for this Plan and thereby establishes that it is also against the Graeme Hall National Park, what will be the reaction by the 6000 Petitioners in favour of the National Park?
Our thanks to BFP reader “Fuzzy” for this insightful article.