Development in Bermuda has gone "haywire'', according to Shadow Environment Minister Rev. Trevor Woolridge.

And Government has had to withdraw the House of Assembly debate into the 1992 Bermuda Plan because of confusion over how voting should take place. The plan zoned the Island, pointing out areas where possible development can take place in the future.

But there have been complaints over certain decisions of the Objections Tribunal into the plan, particularly on Catchment Hill in Hamilton Parish.

The National Trust has appealed to all MPs to refuse the plan because it suggests there should be development allowed on Catchment Hill, one of Bermuda's last large areas of forest. The Trust has complained the land was historically earmarked for tourism and now will be developed for foreign owners.

However it was unclear whether MPs would have to vote against the whole plan if they disagreed with the Catchment Hill decision.

Government backbencher Mr. Trevor Moniz asked: "I don't know if I can put through an amendment which would exclude one piece of the report.

"The Environment Minister, the Hon. Gerald Simons, said he agreed with the report except for one part, the Bermuda Paint Company. Presumably he will address that.'' His colleague Mr. Tim Smith agreed there was a dilemma. He asked: "Do we have the option to reject parts of the report?'' In Mr. Simons' absence, Acting Environment Minister the Hon. Clarence Terceira has decided to hold today's debate over until a later date. Dr. Terceira explained that the tribunal report was simply to be used for guidance while the planning statement and the maps are the things that need to be accepted.

He added: "Basically we either accept the planning statement or we reject it and there's no in-between.

"There has been quite a bit of confusion which has led to people believing they would be voting on the tribunal's report. It just gives an overall view.'' Dr. Terceira also stressed that just because the tribunal had agreed to zone an area for residential development it does not give the owner planning permission.

He said: "Any plans to develop a piece of land will still have to go to the Development Applications Board where people will still be able to voice their objections.'' But he stressed there is a timetable for approval of the report and it must be decided by July 2, although there could be an extension.

Although the debate will not take place today, the Catchment Hill situation was still annoying many MPs.

Rev. Woolridge said: "As the representative of Hamilton Parish and Shadow Minister of the Environment I do have concerns about what Government has promised individuals and what they appear to be doing now.

"The development of this country appears to have gone haywire. I have similar concerns over the quarry in Hamilton Parish. We seem to be giving in to the interests of big money.'' Mr. Woolridge said the Government's decision to hold off on the debate proved they were again in an embarrassing position.

Mr. Moniz, whose constituency borders Catchment Hill, said: "It is a concern to me that development should be allowed on one of the last few open spaces.

The National Trust has put together a fairly compelling argument.''