Objectors to Bengal quarry permit admit no legal action against previous operators
Published:Wednesday | May 28, 2025 | 12:13 AM
Two objectors to a controversial environmental permit supporting mining in Bengal, St Ann admitted in court Tuesday they had neither challenged previous mining operations nor provided concrete evidence of harm from the proposed project.
Dr Shermian Woodhouse, a US-based radiation oncologist, and Alec Henderson, a local businessman, testified against a permit granted to Bengal Development Company to mine in the ecologically sensitive Dry Harbour Mountains. Both resident-witnesses expressed fears about environmental damage but, under cross-examination, conceded they had taken no legal action against earlier miners.
Woodhouse owns property opposite the proposed quarry. In her affidavit, she said her land title prohibits industrial use and allows only hotels. She also argued the mining violates the government’s zoning order for St Ann and infringes on her constitutional right to a healthy environment. She cited potential noise pollution and the negative impact on her villa rental business, calling the project an “eyesore”.
In a subsequent affidavit, she recalled prior family “hardships” from past quarrying and mentioned dust pollution from Noranda (now Discovery), though the company operates five kilometres away. However, when questioned by Attorney Annaliesa Lindsay, representing the attorney general, Woodhouse admitted she never pursued legal action or constitutional claims against Noranda.
She acknowledged not knowing whether similar restrictions applied to the titles of Noranda or Bengal Development, and confirmed she had never sued previous quarry operators.
When asked about evidence linking environmental conditions at her villa to health issues, Woodhouse responded, “correct”, indicating the absence of such evidence. Regarding studies on dust pollution she referenced, she admitted they were not submitted to the court, leading Lindsay to suggest that she wanted the court to rely on her “say-so”. Woodhouse replied, “Sure.”
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT CONDITIONS
Bengal Development’s attorney, Abe Dabdoub, highlighted environmental permit conditions aimed at limiting ecological harm.
“Is it your understanding ... that they are, as far as practicable possible, to leave the area in a good condition?” he asked.
Woodhouse responded, “Yes.”
Henderson, who runs a villa at Bengal Beach and plans to retire there, also opposed the mining but admitted he had no evidence that the operation would harm his business. Under questioning, he confirmed he had not consulted experts or provided financial assessments to show adverse effects.
“You have not exhibited to your affidavit any evidence from an actuary or chartered accountant or an auditor on any adverse effect on your business?” Lindsay suggested.
Henderson said: “There’s been no impact because it’s a proposed quarry.”
Pushed, he acknowledged he had no evidence from the relevant experts.
The case stems from a permit granted in November 2020 – amended a month later – by Prime Minister Andrew Holness, who oversees both the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA). The NRCA had initially denied the permit in May 2020, citing environmental and health risks, but Holness overturned that decision.
Six residents are now challenging the permit, arguing it violates their constitutional rights to a safe environment. They are seeking to have it revoked and to block the proposed mining.
Dabdoub also addressed press coverage of his comments from the first day of the trial, clarifying that discrimination was not part of Bengal’s defence. He had earlier referred to the issue as cultural and said it would surface during proceedings.
The matter, which started in the Constitutional Court on Monday, is expected to continue on Wednesday, with resident and environmental advocate Wendy Lee scheduled to testify.