. Jennifer Caines says her neighbours were allowed to move forward with plans to create an access road, despite the fact that the plans involved a portion of her property and she had objected to its use.

She feels the applicants ? Chesley Foggo, Delores Binns and David Landy ? received special treatment, that their request was "fast-tracked at the Ministerial level and the present Minister of the Environment (Neletha Butterfield) was involved in the process".

The Environment Ministry did not respond to requests for comment by press time. Ms Binns referred the matter to her lawyer, who was unable to respond.

Mrs. Caines said she contacted several Planning officials on the matter, including former director of Planning Rudolph Hollis, all of whom stated the application had been approved on its merit. Unsatisfied, she said she contacted Mrs. Butterfield who described the dispute as "a civil matter".

"This civil matter was created by those responsible for approving the application as it is clear that my objection letter was disregarded without justification by the Department of Planning or the production of the requisite legal documents to counter the objection, thus not allowing me 'due process'," she said. "As you are aware, the Hon. Minister Butterfield's portfolio includes the Department of Planning, which is responsible for forward planning, development control and building control. (There are many) reasons why the Minister of the Environment, Telecommunications and E-Commerce should take responsibility for the problems that were created by this application being fast-tracked and without going through the usual process of requiring the consent of neighbouring property owners."

Mrs. Caines said the application process for the development had been full of "flaws" ? the proposed three-dwelling unit was given permission for an eight-foot right of way when ten feet are typically demanded in such circumstances. The application did not address the need for a communal garbage site ? a necessity as garbage trucks would be unable to travel along the narrow passage. Her objection was ignored and, where "the normal application process takes eight months, this one was submitted and appealed in three months. So it was fast-tracked. Somebody pulled strings".

She added that Government's technical officers erred in the decision-making process by accepting as fact what in actuality was "an erroneous letter" from the Foggo family's lawyer Shirley Simmons, expressing her opinion that they hold "exclusive use of the said right of way" and that it did not service Mrs. Caines' property.

She said she was similarly disappointed that the then acting director of Planning, Brian Franklin, had presented that same information as fact to the Government Ombudsman, who made no attempt to interview her.

"This was erroneous information as Ms Simmons' opinion is not confirmation," insisted Mrs. Caines, who said she has a 1942 conveyance which proves the statement false.

"The Department of Planning could have rectified the situation by sending an inspector to the site and giving a 'stop work' order," while her allegations were verified, Mrs. Caines said.

And, she had harsh criticism for Government's building inspectors who approved the design of the right of way.

"(They) also erred because there was no up-to-date land survey that had been stamped by a Bermuda Registered land surveyor on behalf of the applicants. How could he officially verify that it was set out in the correct place?"

Contacted yesterday, Government Ombudsman Arlene Brock said Mrs. Caines had received due attention.

"All over the world there is a percentage of complainants who are very anchored in their own view, that the department is wrong," she said. "When they come to us, our job is to look at what's right and some people are disappointed that they do not get the recompense they wanted but I'm not going to pretend that an authority did something wrong."

Mrs. Caines disagreed: "Somebody needs to reimburse me," she said. "The points raised should not be categorised as a civil matter as they highlight the inadequacies of those involved in this process, of which Minister Butterfield is ultimately responsible, so she also erred in citing my complaint as a civil matter. Retrieving monies for the removal of my hedge and retaining where they cut, together with the three surveys I've obtained as a result of the applicants' constant tampering, and on occasion removal of boundary stakes on my property may be a civil matter, however approving this application without going through the normal process is not."

Such practice needs to be exposed, she added.

"I'm just one person going up against a host of people but I've never seen it happen where the judge orders the complainant to give the thief what they stole. He simply punishes them for doing it. Owing to these shortcomings, someone needs to take responsibility and compensate me for the expense, aggravation and frustration I have endured by simply seeking to protect the property I worked hard for and purchased, unlike the applicants, who are eager to steal a portion of my property to add to the desired right of way they seek, rather than negotiate correctly. I refuse to be intimidated by this unscrupulous behaviour, and I hope stricter measures will be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future."