An environmental group has called on Government to ensure a maintenance yard being erected in Botanical Gardens doesn’t mar the park.

Stuart Hayward, chairman of the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) said he did not believe the site would reach “industrial” scale, but the location for the project was not ideal.

“Anything more than a moderate upgrading of the existing site is not the most desirable alternative,” he said. “It is our view that Bermuda’s most important park, and a popular tourist destination, should not have industrial scale development constructed in its midst.”

The site has served as a maintenance yard since the 1960s, but staff were forced to move to less adequate facilities at Marsh Folly in 2003 after the yard was damaged in Hurricane Fabian.

Work has begun on the site but members of the public have expressed concerns the completed maintenance yard would be an industrial site in the heart of the park.

Government has said there are no other appropriate sites for the necessary project and the impact on the surrounding area will be minimal.

Mr Hayward said that he was not surprised to see that members of the public were concerned about the Botanical Gardens, noting that BEST itself was formed as a result of a 2006 campaign to save the Gardens from becoming the site of the new hospital building.

“For this development, we naturally would prefer that the maintenance yard didn’t have to be in the Botanical Gardens at all — there are other locations that seem more appropriate,” Mr Hayward said.

“BEST hopes that the Government will take every step possible to maintain a park-like setting throughout the Botanical Gardens and to minimise the expansion of any industrial activity. Certainly we expect that the level of activity at the site will not rise to ‘industrial’ scale.”

Mr Hayward also said that in the future, Government should be more proactive in notifying the public about development projects involving parklands.

“We support and encourage vigilance and activism by individuals and citizen’s groups, particularly where public parklands are threatened,” Mr Hayward said.

“Recognising the public’s increased vigilance and sensitivity, it may be useful in the future to allay public fears about any development involving public parklands by proactively issuing an explanatory statement clearly describing the development and inviting comments.

“Certainly the public should not have to monitor government projects in minute detail to protect our parklands.”