UNDER-FIRE Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield is being sued by a developer after she vetoed his plan to convert two rundown town houses into upmarket apartments.

And businessman Kevin Cross is also taking his case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the Minister's ruling ¿ which went against the recommendation of both the Development Applications Board and an independent inspector ¿ overturned.

Mr. Cross, who operates Whitecross Construction, submitted a proposal to demolish the two properties on Cavendish Road, Pembroke, in September, 2006.

He told Planning officials he wanted to replace the properties with 14 multi-bedroom apartments, providing family accommodation within walking distance of Hamilton.

But the plan provoked a slew of objections from both neighbours ¿ who argued that the apartments would increase traffic in the area ¿ and residents living across Hamilton Harbour, who claimed their views of the City would be diminished.

Because of the number of protests ¿ around 15 ¿ a special open forum was held when the project came before the DAB in February. Despite the objections, the Board ruled that the scheme could go ahead.

But Mr. Cross faced a second hurdle after objectors launched an appeal against the DAB ruling. Ms Butterfield appointed an independent inspector from the UK to assess the plans ¿ and in May he also gave the project the green light, concluding that objectors' concerns "are insufficient to alter my recommendation that the appeal be dismissed".

Despite that expert recommendation, Ms Butterfield blocked the proposal ¿ and has so far failed to explain why. The inspector's findings were forwarded to Mr. Cross along with a hand-written note from the Minister in June, which simply stated that she "does not concur with the inspectorate".

Yesterday, Mr. Cross said he launched his civil suit because Ms Butterfield's decision "goes against the laws of common justice".

"This was an extremely well-vetted procedure in which everyone was allowed to have their say ¿ the DAB even held a public forum," Mr. Cross said.

"The DAB gave approval with no, or very limited, conditions. The objectors appealed to the Minister, which of course they are entitled to do. The Minister then called in an inspectorate, which again is normal practice in these circumstances. He looked through the entire file again and concluded that there were no grounds to support the appeal. He said that the appeal should be dismissed and the project was a definite go. Yet the Minister then gets back to us telling us she is upholding the objectors - without even telling us why."

Mr. Cross has now submitted the same plans to the DAB in an attempt to find out why the initial project was turned down.

"We are hoping that we might get some kind of indication as to what we are allowed to build," he said.

"We've been waiting a long time, more than a year, and yet we're back at square one.

"We don't even know what we're permitted to build there."

Last month an online petition calling for Ms Butterfield to resign or be sacked was launched following a wave of controversial Planning decisions.

"Please send this Government a message about the rampant environmental and cultural artefact destruction," the e-mail read.

"Stop it at the source ¿ remove the Minister of the Environment from her office.

"Why? The Botanical Gardens, Trimingham's, Southlands, Queen of the East and many more soon to come.

"In a democracy, the Government is answerable to its people.

"This is not a colonial system any more. If we really want to change things , this is the way ¿ by saying. 'NO MORE'."

The Mid-Ocean News contacted the Ministry of the Environment this week asking if Ms Butterfield could explain why she rejected the recommendations of the DAB and the independent inspector.

But she said she was unable to comment as the matter is now before the courts.