Geoff Parker, Sr., president and project director of Purvis Projects Ltd. (PPL), insisted there was greater need to preserve our open spaces for future generations.

And he pointed out that such a move was inconsistent with the concept of sustainable development as instigated by Government and now before the public for debate.

"One of the things the green movement specifically tries to do is not build on virgin green, on open space, as it has far more of a greater impact when you take away something.

"From our point of view it is a poor choice to put the hospital in that particular spot because you know that if (the present King Edward VII Memorial Hospital) is knocked down and they try to plant on that spot, it will never happen. They'll find they need it for housing or for something else. I think the hospital needs replacing but not in that spot as far as I'm concerned."

Mr. Parker is now in the process of building Victoria Place, a multi-million-dollar complex on the corner of Victoria and Brunswick streets.

Anticipated to be completed by June, 2008, the building will adhere to the strict environmental guidelines of LEED, an organisation created to define "green building" by establishing a common standard of measurement.

As such, its benefits will include the highest levels of indoor air quality, minimum artificial lighting, non-toxic paints and fabrics to protect allergy sufferers and asthmatics and an advanced energy system designed to reduce fuel costs by at least 40 per cent.

An environmentalist, Mr. Parker decided to build Victoria Place to "green" standards in spite of the additional costs incurred in doing so and despite the fact that Bermuda's stringent building codes are far less demanding.

"It's the responsible thing to do," he explained. "There's only one other firm doing this for Bermuda ? HSBC International is a very responsible environmental outfit and Cooper & Gardner is doing this for the new bank but most people walk away.

"There's a lot of time and money that's required to be spent on research and owners aren't interested in paying more money. The cost of a 'green' building is probably five per cent more than the cost of a (traditional) building you use architects, engineers and contractors who are experienced at building 'green'. However you get the money back quite quickly in terms of energy conservation.

"We did it because we felt it was part of our responsibility as corporate citizens. Not only are such buildings energy efficient, they provide for healthier workplaces because of their superior air and environmental conditions. The statistics are there ? 'green' buildings provide happier environments for people to work in and as a result, actual (sick) days are significantly down. It's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year."

He added that Government had shown interest in having such methods incorporated into Bermuda's Planning laws but insisted it would take a strong incentive for them to be embraced by local developers.

"Government has embraced the concept," he said. "My son and I have been involved in the rewriting of Bermuda's building codes to 'green' them. There's no question that (head of the Sustainable Development team) Erica Smith (who formerly worked in the Department of Planning) and a small group of people in Forward Planning were keen in seeing a lot of this incorporated, at first on a voluntary basis, and at some point a pre-requisite in many instances.

"Government can encourage these things to happen by giving credits back on land tax and things like that. Because the products are a little more expensive there needs to be some incentive for people to change. Government has to play its part by perhaps lowering the cost of customs duties on 'green' items or take the duty off completely."

He said the work with Planning had lapsed on Ms Smith's transfer to the Sustainable Development team however he anticipated it would continue at some point in the future because of the many advantages such buildings offered to the environment and the public.

The environmentalist added that such methods could be used to rebuild KEMH without a massive increase in its estimated $500 million price tag. Because his company has already pioneered the process, it would therefore save Government from having to waste time and money on research.

"The LEED programme would be wonderful for KEMH. It is of significant importance to the environment and offers beneficial aspects for patients."

Among the benefits he said he building standards improve the environment for patients with asthma and allergies. As well, it demands that air conditioners are placed underneath the floor as opposed to overhead ? a move which contains germs to a given area.

The only negative, under the terms expressed by LEED, would be the hospital's proposed location. According to Mr. Parker, a better option would be to rebuild the hospital on Berry Hill and Point Finger Road.

"The cost of knocking the hospital down and trucking the (material) away - that alone is out of this world," he said, adding that if the trees were left on the roadside, no one would even know the hospital was there. Instead, the hospital could be rebuilt with patients moved into the new areas on completion.

But he urged Government to reconsider its current building codes which place great restrictions on buildings' heights, insisting that such a change could also be used should an alternative plan be considered for KEMH.

"We don't have the space in Bermuda to do that. Just because it's public land doesn't mean that we can spread out. Our children, our grandchildren, will have nothing available for them later on. They need to acknowledge that they have to go under and up."