About 32 anti-Southlands demonstrators lined South Road in Warwick yesterday to give morning commuters a version of ‘tunnel vision’.

Some members of the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) referred to their peaceful protest as tunnel vision because it was designed to show members of the public how the Southlands developers would tunnel part of South Road, if the resort proposal is approved by the Minister of the Environment. Hundreds, if not thousands, saw the display between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as they headed to work.

But there are some legitimate concerns now about whether or not those commuters got an accurate depiction of the tunnel’s length — which according to the developer is a total of about 184 yards, from entrance to exit.

Members of BEST stood on both sides of the shoreline road yesterday holding signs in 20 yard intervals for about a 400 yard stretch.

The signs told passing motorists when they were entering the tunnel, when they were still in the tunnel, and when they were leaving the tunnel.

BEST Chairman Stuart Hayward said: “This is a whole new thing for Bermuda where the main stream traffic has to go into a tunnel. We just want people to have an appreciation of how long this tunnel will be and where it’s going to be.”

At about 8.30 a.m. one of the developers, Craig Christensen, who lives on the Southlands property, came out to talk to the protestors.

He said he had no problem with the demonstrators, but did take issue with the demonstration because he felt it was an inaccurate representation.

Mr. Christensen said: “I would ask you to ask Stuart Hayward to explain what the size of the tunnel is, where it’s going to be, et cetera because I can assure you that he will not have the facts right on where it’s going to be. It’s not the Holland Tunnel, it’s something that’s going to be a spectacular entrance into Southlands.”

Mr. Christensen explained the tunnel as two underpasses totalling 430 feet in length, plus two tunnel openings which total 122 feet in length. Together that brings a final number of 552 feet from end to end or about 184 yards — which is shorter than the approximate 400 yards displayed in the demonstration.

The Southlands developer also said it would be 46 feet wide (including sidewalks), 18 feet high, with three traffic lanes. It’s also purposely designed to go around an historic Banyan tree on the road’s north shoulder.

After a closer review of the Southlands planning file yesterday The Royal Gazette could not find any mention of a specific tunnel length, which may explain why there is some confusion over the measurements.

Southlands is seeking a special development order to speed track the construction of a five star luxury resort on both sides of South Road. The proposal calls for a cliff side hotel, condominiums and a staff dormitory.

* Yesterday the Government’s Department of Information and Communication (DCI) put out a statement to “correct a number of inaccuracies” in claimed were in The Royal Gazette’s>front page story on Tuesday concerning Southlands.

The DCI statement said: “The Department of Conservation Services does not issue ‘rulings’ as stated in the article.... the Department of Conservation Services was requested by the Department of Planning to comment on the Southlands Development proposal.”

* The Gazett$>reported: “—had Ms. Butterfield not reopened (the public comment period) the file containing the two reports would have been off limits to the public”. The Ministry of Environment refutes that charge and says the cited documents have been part of the public record for at least three weeks.

The initial public comment phase for the Southlands SDO closed on January 5, 2007. The Minister reopened the public comment phase on March 9, 2007.

* The DCI statement said The Gazet<$>used the word ‘irresponsible’ out of context. Here is the excerpt from the Department of Conservation: “... we believe that it would be irresponsible to permit this construction.” The DCI statement explains that the word ‘irresponsible’ refers only to “the tourism units proposed to be built close to the shoreline” and not the entire Southlands project.

* The DCI statement said: “... the Department of Conservation Services did not recommend that the developers should not be granted a Special Development Order”. The Department of Conservation Services did not explicitly use the term SDO, but said it was “duty bound to object to the proposed development”.