The brakes have again been slammed on the controversial development of multi-millionaire James Martin's Agar's Island home.

An application for retroactive planning approval to save the property's eye-catching atrium was refused during last week's meeting of the Development Applications Board (DAB).

And the board has recommended that Environment Minister Dennis Lister institute enforcement action as communication between the developer and Planning becomes increasingly acrimonious.

Yesterday, Planning Director Rudolph Hollis said the "stop work" order placed on some aspects of the development in March remains valid and no work should be taking place on the dramatic atrium at the southern end of the property or any other area covered by the refused application.

Mr. Hollis said there are other aspects of the development where work can still take place but the Department hopes property agents are complying.

"It is an island," Mr. Hollis said. "We cannot keep 24-hour surveillance on it."

The retroactive application for an addition to the atrium and an extension for the balcony was turned down during the December 5 meeting of the board.

In their decision, the board said the proposed design of the development is not compatible with the style and form of traditional architecture in that the scale and massing of the development is out of keeping with traditional forms of development.

And the board said, given the prominent location of the development facing the Great Sound, the design and appearance "will have a detrimental visual impact".

The "stop work" notice was originally slapped on the property after a Planning inspection found over a dozen infractions on the site where building had gone ahead without permission or contrary to submitted plans.

The height of the atrium - which Planning originally approved at 27 feet - has been the most contentious issue.

A site report on the property said the atrium is still at least one storey higher than approved.

The retroactive application sought to save the atrium from the wrecking balls by raising the ground in front of it to conceal steps along the bottom.

But Planning informed Erwin P. Adderley Associates - the development's agents - last month that the department would not support the application, prompting an angry response from Mr. Adderley in which he accused the department of behaving "unconscionably and unprofessionally".

"Virtually all of the solutions we submitted were suggested by your department at various meetings with us," wrote Mr. Adderley. "We felt we had reached some level of agreement on the solutions which came out of the meetings and that is why we proceeded with the final submission to the department."

And Mr. Adderley said that over five months of meetings with Planning officers, no issues were raised with regard to the design, massing and scale of the development.

"The plan approved on September 4, 1999 by your department is hardly more in keeping with the Bermuda image than the atrium as built. It is not substantially different," he said.

Despite the decision of the DAB, Mr. Hollis said Mr. Martin or his agents can still appeal to the Minister and challenge the decision in the courts.

No enforcement action can be taken against the property before all these channels are exhausted.

When asked if this was the last the public would hear about the atrium, he replied: "Probably not."