Opinion: Pacific Harbour residents question golf course subdivision

On Saturday, residents of Pacific Harbour in Deuba gathered for a community meeting that should never have been necessary. We came together not to oppose development — we are not against progress — but to ask a simple question: Why were we not consulted?

The answer we received was troubling.

We learned that part of the fairways of our championship golf course — a Robert Trent Jones Jr.-designed course that has been the centrepiece of this community since 1971 — had been approved for residential subdivision without a single resident being notified.

The rezoning was signed off on December 18, 2025. The subdivision approval followed on January 29 2026. We only discovered what was happening when consultants conducting a “social survey” for an Environmental Impact Assessment knocked on our doors.

A breach of trust

Many of us purchased property in Pacific Harbour on the basis of restrictive covenants embedded in our title deeds — legal promises that the golf course would remain recreational land. The original master plan from 1971 was deliberately built around two recreational zones that acted as the structural “lungs” of the development, designed to drive up the value of surrounding residential lots.

Those covenants were meant to protect our investments. They were meant to give us certainty.

Instead, we have been presented with a fait accompli.

When residents wrote to the Director of Town and Country Planning seeking answers, we were told the decision had been made and that we had no statutory right of appeal. The Department’s position is that because the subject site is “outside the boundary of an approved Town Planning Scheme”, public consultation was not required.

Let me be clear: The land may be outside a municipal boundary, but it is very much inside our community.

Process reversed

The normal sequence for a development of this scale should be clear: concept development, environmental screening and public notification, environmental studies, planning assessment informed by those studies, and only then a rezoning decision.

That is not what happened here.

The rezoning was approved before the EIA was completed. The subdivision was approved before the EIA was completed. The Director of Environment required a full EIA as far back as 21 August 2020. The Terms of Reference were issued in November 2020 and renewed on 27 April 2026. Yet the approvals were granted regardless.

Condition 16 of the subdivision approval explicitly states that “no development is to be allowed on the site until the EIA process is completed”.

And yet, pegs have already been installed marking out individual sections. Work has commenced in clear defiance of the Department’s own conditions.

Infrastructure already at breaking point

This is not just about a golf course — although that alone is reason enough for concern.

The Water Authority of Fiji has confirmed that our sewage and water systems are already under strain and may not support additional development until upgrades are completed, potentially as late as 2030. The Fiji Tourism 2021 Report stated that “the capacity of the sewage treatment system at Pacific Harbour is operating at close to capacity and would need to be upgraded for any future development”. That was five years ago. No upgrades have been made.

The approval allows for septic tank disposal for 61 new dwellings. In a flood-prone area adjacent to the Qaraniqio River, this is not a solution — it is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

A national asset at risk

Murray Cockburn, a renowned architect and long-time resident, described the golf course as a “championship resort course” that should not be “destroyed by profit hungry developers”. He warned that reducing an 18-hole championship course to nine holes risks initiating a “process of progressive decline” — reduced revenue, lower maintenance standards, fewer visitors, and ultimately, the loss of the entire facility.

Once nine holes are converted to residential development, that land will never return to golf course use. If the remaining nine holes subsequently become economically unviable, we lose everything.

This is not NIMBYism. This is a community fighting to preserve what was promised to us, what we invested in, and what generations of Fijians and visitors have enjoyed.

A note of thanks

I acknowledge and thank the Minister for Local Government, Maciu Nalumisa, for sending representatives from the Department of Town and Country Planning to our meeting on Saturday. Their presence demonstrated that the concerns of ordinary citizens are being heard at the highest levels of government.

The Permanent Secretary for Environment has also provided welcome clarity on the EIA process.

We now understand that once the EIA report is submitted, there will be a 21-working-day public viewing period, followed by public consultations where the EIA consultant and all authorities will be present to respond to questions.

Public comments must be addressed by the proponent before the Technical Review Committee assesses the report.

This is the transparency we have been seeking. We welcome it. And we intend to participate fully.

What we are asking for

To the Minister, the Director of Town and Country Planning, and all relevant authorities:

• Provide the community with access to the original Pacific Harbour master plan so we can understand the legal and planning framework that governs our community.
• Ensure that no development proceeds until the EIA process is completed and all conditions of approval are satisfied.
• Confirm that the EIA will comprehensively assess drainage, flooding, traffic, biodiversity, social impacts, and infrastructure capacity — particularly sewage and water.
• Recognise that the community has a legitimate interest in decisions that fundamentally alter the character and amenity of our neighbourhood.

The way forward

We are not opponents of development. We are residents who love this community and want to see it thrive. But thriving requires trust, transparency, and due process.

The process that led to the approval of this subdivision has eroded that trust. It has left residents feeling powerless and excluded from decisions that affect our homes, our investments, and our way of life.

But we are not giving up. We will participate in the EIA process.

We will submit our objections during the public consultation period. We will seek legal advice on the enforceability of our restrictive covenants. We will engage the media and demand accountability.

And we will continue to ask the question that should have been asked from the very beginning: Why were we not consulted?

Pacific Harbour was conceived as an integrated community — a place where residential, recreational, tourism, and community uses complement one another.

The proposed development risks moving us in the opposite direction: replacing a shared recreational asset with an exclusive residential enclave.

We ask the authorities to pause. To listen. To ensure that the process is as important as the outcome.

Because a community that is consulted, informed, and respected is a community that can move forward together.

Feedback: newsroom@fijisun.com.fj