PRESS RELEASE: PDA Approves One of the Biggest Industrial Projects in Grenada Without an EIA
Woodford Environmental Alliance for Community Transformation [WEACT]
3 December 2025
Ongoing industrial development in Morne Docteur (Woodford).
The Planning and Development Authority (PDA) has approved a massive industrial complex at Woodford without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - and on the basis of what appears to be political direction that the Minister, if he did, had no legal authority to give. This represents a profound breach of procedure and a serious breach of public trust.
Rayneau Construction, a company with a well-documented pattern of commencing works without permission and ignoring enforcement orders in St Lucia, St Vincent, and now Grenada, applied in June 2025 for approvals to establish a quarry, concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, and jetty. Additional applications were also filed for a storage shed, garage, and block plant - notwithstanding that the concrete batching plant was already completed and more than 20 acres cleared - prior to approval. On 10 November, the PDA approved all applications, marking them internally as “FAST-TRACKED.”
WEACT wishes to inform the public that the PDA’s handling of this matter is deeply problematic for the following reasons:
1. The PDA replaced a mandatory EIA with an Initial Environmental Statement (IES).
To approve this project, the PDA relied on an IES - a preliminary screening tool that cannot lawfully substitute for an EIA - in a project of this size and industrial hazard risk. The preparer of the IES is, Dr. Valma Jessamy, for JECO Caribbean.
2. The scoping process began before the developer even applied.
The IES notes: “PDA appears to be solely concerned with environmental scoping ...... however, given the scope of the proposed development the project requires the preparation of physical plans.” It seems that PDA initiated environmental scoping before Rayneau made formal application. Work on the IES began on or around April 2025 and Rayneau submitted formal applications to PDA June 2025, creating the appearance that PDA had embarked on the process of approval - even before the developer had applied for such.
3. The development was fragmented (“salami-sliced”) to conceal its scale.
The developer broke the project into multiple smaller applications - storage shed, garage, block plant, quarry, jetty. Courts across the Commonwealth have held that such fragmentation is improper and unlawful. R v Swale Borough Council ex parte RSPB (1991) concerned a council’s decision to treat several related works in a protected wetland as separate small projects rather than as one integrated development, which had the effect of avoiding a full environmental assessment. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK challenged this, and the court held that the council must consider the whole project and its cumulative impacts, not allow it to be split into pieces.
4.The PDA short-circuited the statutory sequence by demanding post-approval plans.
After bypassing the EIA, the PDA instructed the developer to prepare Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plans (ESMMPs) after approval. These plans are normally derived from an EIA - not used as a substitute for one.
5. The community was never consulted.
The IES process did not utilize community consultation but it recommended that “community engagement will be needed as part of the planning approval process.” This never occurred. Approval was granted without community consultation.
6. Strong indications of ministerial direction that would have been unlawful.
Claim is that PDA was directed. The Physical Planning and Development Control Act 2016, grants the Minister the power to make regulations regarding general policy (4.2) and even governing the EIA process itself. The IES reaffirms that “The Act gives the Minister power under section 22 (4) to make regulations for the conducting of an EIA.” In this case, the Minister refers to the Minister for Infrastructure and Physical Development, who is Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell. If the Minister wished to create a different process for Rayneau, the law required him to bring regulations to Parliament and have them gazetted. Therefore, any political “direction” from higher up that departs from the steps set out in the 2016 Act is unlawful - and the PDA - not required to comply with it.
7. The developer has a history of violating planning law.
In Development Control Authority v. Rayneau Gajadhar (St Lucia), the High Court restrained the developer for operating an industrial plant without permission and in defiance of enforcement orders. Yet in Grenada, enforcement was lifted and approval granted without proper environmental scrutiny.
8. The PDA ignored the consultant’s own warnings.
JECO Caribbean, author of the IES, explicitly recommended the removal of the plant from its current location to protect the health and safety of nearby residents. By fast-tracking approvals based on the IES, the PDA has shown that it has not read these findings or chosen to blatantly disregard them.
9. Claims that the project is “useful to the country” cannot excuse unlawful process.
Neither Government - nor PDA - has engaged the affected community. Assertions of national benefit ring hollow when those who will be directly impacted are ignored and the laws meant to protect them are violated.
Contact: WEACT — Woodford Environmental Alliance for Community Transformation
Email: woodfordaction2025@gmail.com