ENVIRONMENTALISTS watched in horror yesterday as bulldozers set to work on a parcel of protected woodland off Harbour Road.

And the Bermuda National Trust is to consult its lawyers, concerned that the pair behind the controversial scheme ? homeowners Keith James and Roger Raynor ? knowingly flouted the Section 34 agreement, an environmental regulation designed to protect land against development.

"Work began without any formal notification," said Peter Drew, Environmental Conservation Officer for the Trust. "The Trust was not informed either that the Section 34 had been amended, or that the building permit had been issued, especially when one considers that it was such a pivotal environmental case.

"It's just another incident where there seems to be a lack of management and control over very sensitive environmental areas.

"It is fine for Planning to have issued the building permit but they should have made clear to the applicant that they could not begin excavating until such time as the Section 34 had been amended by the Minister. That was in the judgement that was issued by the Appeals Court. They should not have started the project.

"The Trust is shocked by this continuing breach of environmental and planning laws. They seem to happen all over Bermuda. We will be speaking with our lawyers to see what actions we may take."

At stake is a parcel of woodland protected under a covenant between planners and the original land owner, Lady Oona Chaplin, the Bermudian widow of comedian Charlie Chaplin and daughter of Nobel Prize-winning playwright Eugene O'Neill.

Prior to homes being built on the estate, Lady Chaplin orchestrated an agreement with Planning ? that she be allowed to subdivide the property and, in return would prevent further development by placing it under the protection of a Section 34 agreement.

Mr. James and Mr. Raynor first launched their bid to build an access road through the woodland to Harbour Road in 1998. Rejected four times by the Planning board, the application was passed by former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson, in July of 2000.

The Trust appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that covenants which protect land ? such as Section 34 agreements ? could be overturned by the Environment Minister.

A subsequent appeal launched with the British Privy Council was later abandoned. Trust lawyer Alan Dunch determined the charity might have been forced to fork out a six-figure sum to Government and the land owners, if they lost the appeal and were made to pay costs. To avoid having their wishes ignored, the Trust urged landowners interested in preserving open spaces, to donate properties to the National Trust or the Bermuda Audubon Society.

Calls from area residents alerted Mr. Drew to the bulldozing yesterday. He visited the site with Stuart Smith, chairman of conservation group, Save Open Spaces (SOS).

"The real shame is that many of the people whose properties were zoned Section 34, are people who have passed away now," said Mr. Smith. "They have no say in any of this. That's a shame. Their wish was that these properties would never ever be developed. They owned them. It was their prerogative.

"At that time, everybody thought that land zoned under Section 34 could never be developed on. They didn't think that politicians would use this how they pleased. They're fragmenting this beautiful stretch of open space. I have total acceptance of seeing a Section 34 (overturned) if it's a national emergency; if something needs to be done such as immediate housing or an airport, if we have to cope with a disaster.

"We would understand why the Minister has the right to give permission in that case.

"The Planning laws are not enforced. It seems that people now build and then ask for retroactive permission. They build and worry about the ramifications later because they're so limited, because they're not followed through. We don't have enough environmental protection.

"The problem with Bermuda today is that we forget that beautiful space is not just for us but also for the creatures we live with. Our respect for these creatures has diminished to the point where we don't care. We don't live in harmony with them. It's all about what we can do for us."

The two environmentalists were slightly comforted in seeing work at the site halted by a Planning officer. However, the bulldozing may soon continue.

According to Brian Rowlinson, Permanent Secretary for the Environment, Mr. James and Mr. Raynor's application is now before his department for Ministerial consideration.

"We received phone calls this morning concerning the bulldozers starting work on the Chaplin Estate," he said. "An inspector went straight out.

"A stop notice has been issued and the gentlemen have stopped work. In accordance with the Court of Appeal decision of June 27, 2003, the applicants need the permission of the Minister to amend the Section 34 that's in place.

"The Court of Appeal said the Planning permission stands, but it can't be acted upon until the Section 34 is amended."

The secretary added that Mr. James and Mr. Raynor had "failed to make that application prior to (yesterday) morning" but it was later made by their attorney, Delroy Duncan.

"In due course it will be considered by the Minister," he said.