A legal advisor for the National Trust and a leading environmentalist have called for sweeping changes in Bermuda's Development and Planning Act of 1974.

It's time the community and politicians debated whether or not they want their Environment Minister to be above the laws governing his department, said the Trust's Mr. Tim Marshall.

In the Trust's first reaction to this week's landmark Privy Council decision clarifying the Minister of the Environment's right to override Development Application Board decisions, Mr. Marshall conceded the decision was well reasoned: "But what it also seems to be saying is we should be looking at whether we want the Minister to have that much power. The Trust takes the view that the Minister ought not; we have seen in the past where Ministers have not handled it well. We take the view that section 57 should be revoked altogether.'' What is needed he said, is a public debate on the merits of section 57, the section of the Act that largely gives the Minister his discretionary power.

"We as a community have gone through a lot of effort to set up planning system whereby we are following a planning system; the Minister certainly should not be outside that.'' If the law permits the Minister of the Environment to override a DAB decision, the law needs revamping, agreed environmentalist Ian Macdonald-Smith.

Like the National Trust's Mr. Marshall, the co-chairman of Save Open Spaces (SOS) made the suggestion in the wake of Monday's landmark judgment by the Privy Council upholding the Minister's right to reverse DAB decisions under Section 57 of the Development and Planning Act 1974.

That judgment came after retired hotelier David Barber sued then Environment Minister Gerald Simons and Scarborough Property Holdings Ltd., the BF&M Ltd.

company that with ACE Ltd. owns the ACE building in Hamilton, because ACE's enlarged carpark invaded his privacy and blocked his harbour view.

When the London court determined the Environment Minister can override the DAB, "it was interpreting the law the way they saw it,'' Mr. Macdonald-Smith said.

This is just one of many Bermuda laws needing review, he added.

"Put Section 57 (of the Development Planning Act) and the review of the Act at the top of my list,'' he said.

At the heart of the matter is not the Privy Council's decision, it's the fact that the Minister can override the DAB, he said.

"The DAB is for objective decision making. It (a Minister overriding the DAB) has happened too many times. It's not the first time a Minister has exercised abuse of the privilege.'' He also said that though SOS's lawsuit against Government on Bermuda Properties Ltd.'s controversial Ship's Hill development differs from the Barber/ACE matter, the two actions share common ground in that they both centre on political and economic decisions which ignore the environment.

SOS has taken its case to the Supreme Court alleging that the Bermuda Properties Act 1958 has been broken. SOS alleges that if there is to be a change in usage of Marriott's Castle Harbour Resort's golf course, then permission is needed from the Senate and House of Assembly. SOS alleges that did not happen and has sued then Minister of the Environment Pamela Gordon.

SOS contends that Cabinet broke an Act of Parliament when it issued a special development order for the site.