IT WAS just over 30 years ago that Bermuda finally recognised it was home to a number of buildings of architectural or historical significance - and that those buildings needed protection from future development. Legislators subsequently introduced laws in the mid-70s to ensure that certain historic sites would be shielded from the bulldozers, although it wasn't until 1991 that the Ministry of the Environment began designating certain structures as "listed". But in what now seems a remarkable oversight, the legislation bypassed the City of Hamilton boundaries, leaving many of the city's historic sites unprotected. With the island's capital increasingly resembling a giant construction site, the National Trust believes it is essential the loophole is closed. The Trust's Environmental Officer Dorcas Roberts spoke to reporter GARETH FINIGHAN about the organisation's concerns.

Q: Why is it so important to ensure that certain sites remain standing for future generations?

A: On small isolated islands like Bermuda, built heritage has evolved so uniquely that it can be likened to an endemic species.

Outside of the island our built heritage is one of the reasons Bermuda is distinct and unique. The National Trust believes it is one of our most important assets, which not only provides us with physical documentation of our past but also, as heritage is ever evolving, is representative of who we are today.

The National Trust believes that we and the Government have a duty to ensure that the best examples of Bermuda's heritage are preserved to tell the island's collective and complete story, historically and culturally, and to pass this story on to future generations.

It goes without saying that if the listing process does not extend to the built heritage in the city, this story cannot be complete. The capital of Bermuda since 1815, Hamilton refects the history of Bermuda's commerce, governance, community and trade. We all benefit from the preservation of our built heritage and the advantages of doing so range wildly. Bermuda's built heritage is referred to as Bermuda's only indigenous art form as the way we built reflects the changing environment, culture and economies of Bermuda over centuries and serves to educate us, both formally and informally about the island's past. It can add to the attractiveness of an area and as such provide a better place to live and work in conjunction with benefiting cultural tourism.

Preserving the best examples of all aspects of our built heritage, from national landmarks to a craftsman's cottage, is about balancing Bermuda's uniqueness and will avoid a feeling of uniformity within the city ensuring that Bermuda's culture is not dominated wholly by overseas influences.

This perhaps is the most important aspect; our heritage adds to Bermuda's uniqueness and sets us apart from other jurisdictions, providing a sense of identity for the whole country.

Q: How many buildings and structures are currently listed?

A: The Ministry of the Environment's 2005 State of the Environment reports listed 785 buildings as listed - but only one of those is in the City, the Most Holy Trinity Cathedral.

In 1992 the Bermuda National Trust compiled a list of buildings of special interest within the city that we felt should be considered for listing and presented it to both the Department of Planning and the Corporation of Hamilton. In 2006, a revised list taking into account the buildings already lost was further submitted.

We understand that the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee have identified 61 buildings within the City of Hamilton for inclusion in the list. Given current development pressures, we appeal to the Ministry of the Environment and the Corporation, as a matter of urgency, to complete the List of buildings to include the City of Hamilton as soon as possible before many more are lost.

Q: Why does the legislation not include historic buildings within the City's boundaries? A: With the exception of one structure in the city, the Most Holy Trinity Anglican Cathedral, the list regrettably did not extend to Hamilton.

The Trust believed that the list would be completed to include various structures within the City shortly after the completion of the City of Hamilton Plan 2001. It has now been five years since that time, however, and no buildings from the City have been added.

However, the Government's Historic Buildings Advisory Committee has identified 61 buildings to be included in the List and the Ministry of the Environment's 2005 State of the Environment Report states that the formal listing of these structures will to be pursued in the near future.

The City of Hamilton is not alone in attempting to balance the new with the old by creating a new economic use and viability for these historic structures. Although the current City Development Plan attempts to address this by designating historic areas, which would enhance and protect the historic character of parts of Hamilton, the Plan does not go far enough to preserve individual buildings or landmarks.

Q: If heritage is evolving and today's development is the heritage of the future, is it really true to say that built heritage is under threat?

A: Built heritage reflects Bermuda's changing environments throughout time and you are correct that new development today is the heritage of the future, the origins of which in part, is built on what came before.

In time the listing process should identify the important structures that best reflect Bermuda in this era. An example of a recent building that we feel is important to take sensitive care of would be City Hall, a 20th Century building designed by Wil Onions and probably the finest example of the successful adaption of Bermuda expression and artistic style to the needs of a large-scale building.

Q: Can you give examples of other buildings that should be listed?

A: Some examples of buildings that should be listed or where special care should be taken are obvious, such as the Cabinet Building and Perot's Post Office.

But some are less evident in areas such as north Hamilton where by the mid-19th Century Bermudian families built small, classical houses. Typified by their verandas where the family would have all but slept, many of these houses have disappeared to make way for new roads, warehouses and car parks.

However there are some beautiful examples that remain and they document an important part of Bermuda's history on streets such as Angle Street. Also there are historic structures like the home of Dr. E.F. Gordon on Victoria Street, Wantley on Princess Street home of Samuel D. Robinson founder of the Berkeley Educational Society a virtually unaltered example of Bermudian domestic Victorian architecture likewise, "Checkmate" on Court Street and the Progressive Labour Party headquarters, "Alaska Hall", which once served as a lodge.

Q: How many historic buildings have been lost from the National Trust list since 1992?

A: The list that the National Trust compiled was not asking for all the buildings to be listed but to be researched and considered for protection.

A number of these buildings are gone that were on that list such as the old Imperial Hotel on Church Street, Trimingham's, The Hamilton Co-operative Company building on Court Street and 31 Elliot Street but there are currently development applications for other buildings such as the Dismont Robinson building on Front Street which boasts one of the last substantial wooden verandahs to survive on Front Street.

Q: Do you think it's fair for Government or an organisation such as the National Trust should have the authority to tell the owner of a private building how they should maintain that building. What happens to the private individual who wants to convert his 19th-century townhouse into a set of money-earning condominiums?

A: We do appreciate that it can be seen to restrict a property owner to force listing upon their buildings but if, like many regulations, it is in the national interest to do so, then there are methods that have been applied elsewhere that mitigate any negative impacts. These include tax-breaks, compensation of development rights and conservation grants, all of which we understand that the Government is considering.

The Trust recognises that the listing of a building can be seen as restrictive and onerous on the owners. However, we believe the opposite is actually true.

The regeneration of our old buildings and their re-use is in all our interests. Development of a listed building is not precluded but controlled. The challenge faced by the owners of listed stuctures is to find a creative and appropriate way to untilise the building in today's world while retaining its character of special interest and cultural significance.

The Government has provided incentives for the owners of listed buildings, such as an interest free loan scheme for necessary maintenance, and the National Trust fully supports the putting in place of further incentives currently under consideration by the Government. However we feel that serious consideration should be given to a scheme that offers

Conservation Grants whereby the owner of a protected building is given financial assistance to undertake necessary works to secure the fabric of the structure. Such a scheme would go hand in hand with an initiative like that of the North Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone, North Hamilton being an area of the city which sustains many historically and culturally important buildings.

There are examples of historic buildings coexisting with the modern city such as "Hurst Holme" built by a Bermudian ship owner as a home, circa 1835, it now serves as business offices behind the new Maxwell Roberts Building on Par-la-Ville Road.

Q: Although the Trust is not opposed to all development, is there a concern that there's just too much development in Hamilton? And is the Trust concerned that Special Development Orders s are being handed out too easily?

A: You are right, we are not against development. As for there being too much development in Hamilton, we feel that there are benefits for developing Hamilton in such a way that it can actually reduce development pressures on sensitive areas elsewhere on the island.

Also, increased residential development within the City could help to regenerate the City and minimise traffic congestion by allowing City residents to walk to work.

The Trust also recognises also that there is a growing desire to "build up" within the City, which we are not blindly opposed to. Going higher could have potential benefits island wide as mentioned above.

But the 2001 City of Hamilton Plan does not provide for this and a decision to permit "high-rise" buildings in Hamilton, we feel, should only be contemplated after a careful assessment and review of the City of Hamilton Plan by the Department of Planning and a comprehensive consultation with affected stakeholders and the public so that this "building up" does not occur in the absence of appropriate planning controls and procedures.

If, following assessment and consultation, it is decided that the City can support "high-rise" buildings, it is essential that the Department of Planning identifies areas where these buildings would be permissible and the heights that should be allowed. More importantly, areas where such buildings would not be suitable it must be identified, such as areas where going higher would not be sympathetic to the historic environment.