A proposed nine-storey office block on Front Street has been given the go-ahead after a minister overturned a decision by planning officials.

Developers had proposed pulling down the existing structure on the site to create the new global headquarters for Brookfield Reinsurance and the company’s Bermudian-domiciled listed affiliates, Brookfield Property Partners, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, Brookfield Renewable Partners and Brookfield Business Partners.

The plans also provided for retail space on the ground floor and along Chancery Lane.

Neighbours raised concerns about how they would be affected by the construction. Others complained about the scale of the building.

The plan was rejected by the Development Applications Board on November 8, in part because the height of the structure was deemed “excessive”. The board recommended that at least one storey be removed.

The director of planning also advised that a subsequent appeal by the developers be turned down.

Vance Campbell, the Minister of the Cabinet Office, overturned the DAB ruling, although he has not given his reasons for doing so.

“Quite simply, this project is a demonstration of the significant confidence in Bermuda as a premier business centre, and the success of any business development benefits all of Bermuda,” a ministry spokeswoman said in response to the question.

“This project is a major investment that will translate into more jobs and opportunities for Bermudians and expanded economic growth for our island. As an added note, this is a tangible reinforcement of the importance and success of our Economic Development Strategy. So, these are the obvious and welcome benefits that this project will bring.”

However, in a letter to Botelho Wood Architects dated December 18, Mr Campbell said: “I have carefully considered the decision of the board, the submissions made by the objectors, the appellant’s case and the cases submitted by the Director of Planning and have decided to overturn the board’s decision and grant planning permission.”

Mr Campbell did give the developers a list of 11 conditions that must be complied with, including a stipulation that construction work must start within two years.

Developers must also obtain a building permit that includes a construction environmental management plan “together with a demolition methodology, security and screening of the site and measures to inform the public of construction works and any planned road/footway closures”.

Mr Campbell also granted parking and manoeuvring space for a maximum of eight cars and four cycles.

The minister’s decision was criticised by the Bermuda National Trust, which warned that it could set a precedent for other structures to be given approval.

In a Letter to the Editor, Karen Border, the trust’s executive director, wrote: “It seems that if a multinational corporation worth $64 billion wants to flout Bermuda’s longstanding building-height regulations they can do so, although they could afford to remove a storey or two.

“To be clear, the Bermuda National Trust does not have an issue with a modern, new building in this location, just with the excessive height, which would tower over adjacent buildings and mar the city skyline, including views of the cathedral from across the harbour.

“Moreover, this development would likely set a precedent for similar high buildings in the historic and retails district of Hamilton, although there does not seem to be a shortage of existing office space.”

Ms Border also criticised Walter Roban, the Minister of Home Affairs, who had responsibility for planning decisions up until November 10, when the planning remit was switched to Mr Campbell’s ministry.

Mr Roban overturned two DAB decisions only days before planning oversight was transferred from his ministry.

On November 6 he overturned a ruling which blocked planning permission for a food truck to be located in Flatts.

On November 8 he overturned a second DAB ruling which had blocked a proposal for an events lawn at Southlands.

The applicant, the Bermuda Housing Corporation, claimed the project was essential to the success of the neighbouring Bermudiana Beach Resort.

Overturning that DAB ruling, Mr Roban said: “My decision is based on the importance of the proposed events lawn to the success of the tourism development which it would serve.

“I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the loss of established existing vegetation and, as such, have included a condition requiring the appellant to submit a comprehensive conservation management plan for the approval of the Department of Planning to mitigate associated terrestrial conservation impacts.”

In her letter, Ms Border said of the recent overturning of DAB decisions: “It indicates a very worrying trend for flouting the Bermuda Plan 2018 and prioritising economic interests over all other considerations, even when there is no evidence that anyone but the companies and individuals seeking the application would benefit.

“What is particularly problematic with this decision to give away part of one of our national parks for development is that appropriate processes were not followed.

“The change of use for this section of parkland was not gazetted and the decision was made in the absence of the National Parks Commission, the statutory body responsible for guiding decisions made about our national parks. The NPC was disbanded by Lieutenant-Colonel David Burch in December 2022, despite the legal requirement for its existence, and has not been reinstated.

“The Bermuda Plan should not be overridden by one individual — even one with the legal power to do so — without exceptionally compelling reasons in the national interest.

“In the majority of recent cases where ministerial discretion has been applied, there has been no compelling case that it is in the national interest. Some private businesses and individuals may benefit but Bermuda as a whole will be worse off.

“This practice has to stop. Ministerial discretion is open to abuse and perceptions of abuse if used too often. All Bermudians should be concerned by this and should make their concern known to their MPs.”