A Somerset property owner who bulldozed a portion of a cliff face at Gilbert's Bay showed a complete disregard for the environment by carrying out the work without permission.

The Development Applications Board yesterday fired the accusation at PLP trustee Henry Talbot.

Mr. Talbot was denied retroactive planning approval after making alterations to a cliff face on Gilbert's Bay on land zoned as woodland reserve and green space.

A court case could be pending in the new year on behalf of neighbouring land owners who access the beach where the natural rock formations and long tail nests were destroyed during the construction work.

Neighbours and environmentalists called foul earlier this year when Mr. Talbot began the work without planning approval. He submitted a retroactive application on July 14 despite objections letters from residents of the area with access rights to the beach.

The DAB stated in its letter the controversial development did not protect undeveloped land and could damage the coastline and natural beauty of the setting.

The land was zoned as woodland reserve and green space in a setting with significant natural formations.

Mr. Talbot had applied for retroactive permission in July after the work had been carried out. The Planning Department is recommending Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield institute an immediate enforcement action.

Adjoining property owner Kathy Bromby, who has been a spokesperson for property owners in the area, said a legal case is also pending with law firm Conyers Dill and Pearman.

Mr. Talbot told the Department of Planning he carried out the work to clear up damage from Hurricane Fabian, however his actions were found to be environmentally destructive.

"The Board is of the opinion that the following forbidden act has been committed by the applicant, disturbing or destroying any soil, rock or other ground material and the Board is of the opinion the doing of the act has caused material damage to the woodland," said the DAB statement.

Mrs. Bromby said there were a number of violations in the act and she questioned what would be the next step in dealing with the violations and in cleaning up the area.

"There are multiple violations of the act. We have questions about what Planning's next move will be are they lumping all the items together or prosecuting on each violation?" said Mrs. Bromby.

She said the DAB's decision was satisfying for the Bromby clan who have access rights to Gilbert Bay but the battle was not over.

"This is somewhat rewarding since family and neighbours who have policed the situation," said Mrs. Bromby.

"There are lots of boulders lying around since he started this work. That is one of questions my family has in relating these items to our lawyer who will be taking the issues forward," she said. "The rocks, gravel and boulders all documented in objection letters but are question is what next, how will this be cleaned up?"

Making alterations to the cliff was found to disturb the coastline and was not "sensitive" to the physical characteristics of the land.

The DAB stated that although a boat house and jetty were approved for the southern area of the waterfront land, however the beach and cliff face that formed the northern portion of the waterfront formerly had the appearance of natural and undeveloped coastline and should be protected.

"The Board is not satisfied that the scale of the development undertaken is compatible with, and is sensitive to the physical and environmental characteristics of the land, has preserved al significant natural features, or is compatible with and is sensitive to the physical and environmental characteristics of the land."

Yesterday, director of Planning Rudolph Hollis said the Director of Public Prosecutions would decide when and how the case would be prosecuted in the courts. The legal decision which will be made in the case involves determining fines for the violations and how each violation will be prosecuted.

Mr. Hollis said an enforcement action means the person who carried out the work will have to restore the area.

Mr. Hollis said the work done without permission in the area dates back a number of years after Mr. Talbot cleared woodland to access the beach.

In the dispute neighbours had accused Mr. Talbot of using rubble from the bulldozing to elevate the level of the beach, thereby increasing the amount of land he owned above the high water mark.

The waterfront in this property was subject to a portion of the 1974 Planning Act which protects beach habitats and natural features. Violations under this act carried about by Mr. Talbot include wilfully burying or otherwise altering any sand or gravel on a beach. Flora and fauna was also destroyed in the area by the work including vegetation, rocks, sand, and nesting sites which are protected under this act.

Natural features protections in the act also forbid removing, destroying and disturbing natural features - the DAB considered the removal of natural rock outcrops at the beach a violation of a section of this act.

In their DAB's statement the applicant was found to show a complete disregard for the environment. "The Board wishes to express concern that the applicant has shown complete and utter disregard for the planning process in that the development was undertaken without planning approval."

Mr. Talbot had not returned calls for comment by Press time.