A CONTROVERSIAL plan to build luxury apartments on Cavendish Road was probably rejected because of "technical" and "substantive" errors, which make the development unsuitable, not because of heavy-handed tactics by Government, an area resident has claimed.

And she said it was ironic that at least one of the "rundown" properties, which would have been destroyed to make way for the apartments, is now being offered for rent ¿ at $9,100 per month.

Property developer Kevin Cross launched a lawsuit after Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield vetoed his application to convert two "rundown" townhouses into 14 upmarket apartments.

The Minister's decision went against the recommendation of the Development Applications Board (DAB) and an independent inspector.

In an interview with the Mid-Ocean News last week, Mr. Cross said he was at odds to understand Ms Butterfield's ruling, saying it "goes against the laws of common justice".

"This was an extremely well-vetted procedure in which everyone was allowed to have their say ¿ the DAB even held a public forum."

Not the case, according to area resident Julie Preece. One of 40 objectors to the initial plan, she said the forum was by invitation only and that those who attended were better informed than members of the DAB.

"There was indeed a 'public' hearing, but it was by invitation only," she insisted. "You must have been a listed objector to get an invitation and your name was checked off at the door. It was not open.

"It was also a total farce as the DAB had never seen the plans so it was like asking them to do a book review on a book they had never read. This was probably not the DAB's fault as they had never been given the plans ¿ but it was obvious that most points / details / arguments were totally lost on them as they had never seen the plans prior to the meeting and there were insufficient plans to go around so they kept on sending them up and down the table."

Mrs. Preece said flaws in Mr. Cross' application should have prevented the DAB from granting permission for the development which she described as "inappropriate and excessive" for the neighbourhood.

"The Minister upheld the objectors' appeal and overturned the approval that had been given," she said. "We are so grateful to her and realise that the large number of objectors, 40 to the first application, must have played a significant role in her decision as well as the inadequacies of the application ¿ the excessive scale and density, etc. This development is so totally inappropriate and excessive.

"In making a planning decision there are two big picture elements ¿ the technical side and then the substantive side. Technically, each applicant should submit sufficient details to permit proper analysis of the application. Neither application submitted by Mr. Cross was technically compliant with the regulations."

Whitecross Development Ltd. submitted plans for a five-storey apartment house containing 14 residences, underground parking garage and amenities, at 9 and 11 Cavendish Road, Pembroke.

According to Mrs. Preece, the application doesn't include a height comparison of the proposed building and the hill behind it although it "appears, even from the scant details provided, that it will be higher than the top of the hill".

"Also, the proposed five-storey building is too big laterally on all sides, infringing the setback requirement of the Bermuda Plan for Residential One zoned land. The bottom line is it's too high and too big around, to fit onto the site within the requirements of the Bermuda Plan 1992, so it should never have passed at the (DAB) level. However, curiously it did. These technical deficiencies were also not picked up by the UK inspector. So on technical side, plans fail.

"Then on the substantive side we say equally the plans fail as they are not in keeping with the Bermuda image part of the Bermuda Plan. For that prominent a hillside, outside the city limits, a detached single/double unit development is out of place. If sustainable development is to be achieved in any sense of the words, then a fair balance has to be struck between the needs of development and those of the environment.

"Having a five-storey, 14-unit apartment building spanning two lots in that locations so that it projects above the top of the hill, is an overdevelopment ¿ particularly with historic Fort Hamilton at the top of that hill.

"This would be a massive development in the middle of a very visible hillside which is dotted with charming, traditional Bermuda houses. In all likelihood the Minister recognised this ¿ whether for the technical grounds or the substantive grounds ¿ and quite rightly granted the objectors their appeal.

The objectors "are a very diverse group of Bermudians from all walks of life, but with a common goal", she stated.

"We are all very passionate about it (and) from reading the (article which appeared in the Mid-Ocean News last Friday) ¿- I don't want to sound critical ¿ but the story was not correct, was misleading and one-sided.

"The Minister HAS stood up for the people / objectors / environment / sustainable development. She made a good decision.

"Also, you will appreciate the irony of the timing ¿ the same day that you lead story appeared, there was an ad in The Royal Gazette for No. 9 Cavendish Road, one of the purportedly 'rundown' townhouses, for a rent of $9,100 a month (while) No. 11 was recently receiving $9,000 a month rent. This shows that both houses are in good rentable condition."