Government's Development Applications Board (DAB) has rejected attempts by developers to substantially change approved plans to construct condominiums at Bostock Hill.

Government planner Anna Eatherley said the DAB stopped the changes after becoming aware that the revisions were not minor but rather attempts to change the plan to virtually the same development that was rejected on appeal in 1999, following objections by area residents.

She said the developers, Bostock Mews, would have to submit a completely new application if they wished to make such sweeping changes, which propose one new structure, a swimming pool and additional parking spaces.

Residents originally objected to the plans, which proposed the building of five three-bedroom condominiums, on the grounds that it would encroach on nearby arable land and negatively impact the environment.

Their lawyer Juliana Jack welcomed yesterday's development and said, should a new application be made, her clients would fight "tooth and nail" to stop it being approved.

"This stinks - they seem to have been trying to get through the back door what they couldn't originally get through the front door," Ms Jack said.

"But with retroactive planning like we have, I'm sure they thought that anything was possible."

Ms Jack also demanded to know why her clients had not been notified about the proposed changes before they even came to be considered by the DAB.

But Ms Eatherley responded: "Originally, the revisions went before the Board as an outstanding matter. When it came to light that there was a lot more involved, it agreed with the recommendation of the department to reject them.

"The developer will be told that he needs to make a whole new application."

The news was also welcomed by resident Mark Eldridge, who earlier this week urged the Planning Department that the changes were not "revisions" but in fact "a completely new set of plans".

He added that the revision request only stated that the developers were hoping to move a building 15 feet.

"It appears that (Bostock Mews) are arrogantly making an attempt to slide huge changes past the board," he told the DAB in a letter on Tuesday. "These are changes that are contrary to planning regulations.

"Now (the developers) are trying to slide through a move to build directly on top of agricultural conservation land. There are reasons why this type of land is protected by law - to protect it from developers like this who try to disregard zoning."

The original plan was refused on appeal in 1999 by then Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson, who was following the recommendations of an Independent Planning Inspector.

Ms Jack also wrote a letter to Planning director Rudolph Hollis on Tuesday, in which she said: "We do not understand why these revisions were not brought to the attention of the objectors in the usual way so that they could make representations on the proposals prior to the DAB being asked to consider the matter.

"This failure to notify the objectors constitutes a denial of natural justice in failing to inform our clients of what is really a whole new planning application, not a revision. The 'revisions' are so clearly in conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan that they could not lawfully be approved by the DAB."