Resident admits Bengal Development permit much stricter on environmental protection than her quarry licence
Published:Monday | June 2, 2025 | 12:05 AM
One of the residents objecting to Bengal Development Company’s controversial quarry plans in the Dry Harbour Mountains has acknowledged that her family’s marl business has operated in the area for years under far fewer environmental restrictions than the company she is suing to stop.
Anne Hopwood, the fourth resident-witness in the ongoing trial before the Constitutional Court, conceded under cross-examination last Thursday that the quarry licence for her family’s operation carries far fewer stipulations and oversight mechanisms than those attached to Bengal’s environmental permit.
“Clearly, 17 conditions are much fewer than 72 or 76 conditions,” she said, referring to the original, and later the amended conditions issued to Bengal Development Company in December 2020. According to her, her quarry licence was “much abbreviated” despite “some similarities” with Bengal’s.
The case, which began on May 26, is expected to continue today through Thursday, before Justices Sonya Wint-Blair, Andrea Thomas, and Tricia Hutchinson Shelly in the Constitutional Court.
Environmental advocate Wendy Lee, a resident-witness and the first claimant in the lawsuit, will continue her testimony started on Thursday. Defence lawyers have appeared eager to question her.
Hopwood, who is the assistant manager of Bengal Farms Limited and who has lived in the area for 42 years, is married to Martin Hopwood, who testified earlier in the trial.
She lives adjacent to the proposed mining site in the ecologically sensitive Dry Harbour Mountains in Bengal, St Ann. She said in her affidavit that she is concerned Bengal Development’s mining “will affect” her family’s health and reduce their property value. She also said she was “distressed” by the thought of the forested area being “mined down to sea level”.
However, much of Thursday’s hearing was dominated by her testimony under questioning from attorney Annaliesa Lindsay, who is representing the Attorney General. Lindsay’s line of questioning sought to establish that Hopwood’s family quarry has operated for years under minimal regulatory oversight, and even without a current licence. She earlier disclosed that Bengal Farms does not have a quarry licence.
Hopwood acknowledged that their quarry licence, which expired in 2022, has not yet been renewed, although an application was submitted and the fee paid three months after expiration.
“My understanding is that the application for the renewal of the licence, which I made in 2022, is in process,” she said. When asked by Lindsay whether operations have continued without a renewed licence, she replied, “Yes, with the explanation…” before being cut off.
“I don’t need the explanation,” the attorney said.
Hopwood admitted that no environmental permit was obtained for their quarry, and that their operation does not have restrictions for dust or noise levels, nor restrictions on the number of haulage trucks or their hours of operation.
“The licence doesn’t give a scientific limitation,” she conceded about the dust and noise.
76 CONDITIONS
In contrast, Bengal Development’s environmental permit – granted after Prime Minister Andrew Holness overturned the Natural Resources Conservation Authority’s (NRCA) original denial – contains 76 conditions, many of which deal directly with ecological preservation, emissions, and operations monitoring.
“You would agree with me that your ‘much abbreviated’ special conditions are less stringent than those listed for the third defendant (Bengal Development),” Lindsay asked.
“Yes, they are,” Hopwood replied, although she later added that the stipulations for her quarry were satisfactory.
Hopwood further confirmed that the St Ann Development Order gives the responsible minister the authority to approve quarry operations in the parish.
The cross-examination also revealed that Hopwood and her husband operate a river rafting business in addition to the quarry, and that the Bengal property where the proposed quarry will sit was sold to Bengal Development by her husband’s father, Donovan Hopwood.
Bengal Development’s attorney, Abe Dabdoub, pointed to a potential conflict in Hopwood’s objections to his client’s permit, suggesting commercial competition as a motive for the constitutional claim. She rejected a suggestion that the mining would affect the rafting business.
“We are not anxious about competition from the 3rd defendant (Bengal Development). We are anxious about the environmental consequences of mining stone on the border of our farm…,” she said in a second affidavit, responding to allegations of competition fears by Bengal Development’s CEO Kashif Sweet.
Asked whether she had read the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was the subject of a formal complaint against Bengal Development’s application for a mining licence, Hopwood responded: “It’s a very long document… . I skimmed it.”
In paragraph 5 of the complaint that Hopwood signed to and was read out in court by Dabdoub, the complainers said the assessment “failed to describe to the full scope of Bengal’s project on the physical environment and the health and livelihoods of residents of surrounding communities over the failure to adequately address community concerns”.
‘ACCURATE OR NOT?’
Dabdoub pressed further: “Having skimmed the EIA, are you in a position to say whether or not paragraph 5 (of the complaint) is accurate or not?”
Hopwood replied, “I believe it to be accurate.”
Earlier she rested her view on the accuracy due to the alleged failure of the assessment to adequately treat with community concerns and pursue alternatives.
Attorney Kimberley Myrie Essor, representing the NRCA, also cross-examined Hopwood, establishing that before her licence could be renewed, she was required to obtain an environmental permit.
“Are you aware that before renewal of your quarry licence, you’re required to apply for and obtain an environmental permit?” Myrie Essor asked.
“No, I’ve never been asked to report on that,” Hopwood said.
When Myrie Essor suggested she “must have an environmental permit before obtaining a quarry licence,” Hopwood accepted it and added, “I can only take you at your word”.
Hopwood said she had never conducted noise or dust emissions testing at her quarry, and that she was aware the NRCA sets the standards for such testing.
“Without testing the noise level and the dust levels,” Myrie Essor pointed out, “You did not know whether you are within the limit.”
Hopwood agreed that there were no specific business operations near her quarry and confirmed receiving no complaints from those operating on the nearby river.
Her appearance followed three other resident-witnesses – Martin Hopwood, Dr Shermian Woodhouse, and Alec Henderson. They conceded under cross-examination that they did not have evidence of personal harm nor take action against previous mining operators.
The four residents are among six claimants who remain in the case that started with eight residents filing a constitutional claim against the Attorney General, the NRCA, and Bengal Development in December 2020.
The case stems from the controversial environmental permit issued to Bengal Development in December 2020, a month after Holness overturned a May 2020 decision by the NRCA to deny the permit on environmental and public health grounds. Bengal pitched a 20-year project that promises more than $600 million in taxes and up to 100 jobs. Holness oversees the NRCA, the country’s environmental regulator, whose administrative arm is the National Environment and Planning Agency.
The residents and property owners are alleging that the decision to issue the permit violates their constitutional rights to a healthy and safe environment. The group wants the court to revoke the permit and block mining activity altogether. The Dry Harbour Mountains, off the coast of St Ann, are in an ecologically sensitive area noted for endemic flora and fauna.
King’s Counsel Michael Hylton is representing the claimants, while Lindsay is defending the Government’s process, arguing that the appeal mechanism used to overturn the NRCA’s decision was lawful and does not infringe on constitutional rights.