equestrian centre, two voices of sanity have emerged.

The proposal by Devonshire South MPs John Barritt and Michael Dunkley to postpone a hearing by the Development Applications Board until debate on the proposal has been fully aired seems to be a wise one.

A public hearing in which both sides are able to state their positions on the proposed expansion would also be beneficial to the DAB, the residents of the area and the public at large in understanding the positions of both sides.

In the end, the DAB will have to make a decision on the proposal, but a breathing space in which some of the more overheated rhetoric is allowed to cool off will assist the board in making a rational decision -- not one based on emotion.

Messrs Barritt and Dunkley point out in their statement the paradox that environmentalists and equestrians -- two groups whose interests are often the same -- find themselves bitterly opposed over this issue.

It is easy to conclude, as the MPs do, that this confrontation has been caused in part by the nature of the Planning process when it comes to controversial decisions.

Whenever a decision is taken by a Minister behind closed doors without having consulted with those most likely to object, it is bound to raise questions about the decision's fairness.

In this case, Environment Minister Irving Pearman has said he lifted the zoning restrictions on the Vesey Street site because the DAB would not have been able to consider the proposal at all otherwise. The decision also removes the DAB's basic power -- with no zoning on the site, it is not easy to reject the plan.

The DAB must then make a decisions based on the merits of the proposal against the environmental cost without any reference to the zoning of the land; a decision which is certain to be open to question regardless of who is ultimately successful. And that decision can always be overturned or upheld on appeal -- by the same Minister who waived the zoning in the first place. It is quite possible that Mr. Pearman will not support the Vesey Street proposal, but if he does not, it makes the whole exercise seem pointless.

This is not to say that there are not times when changed circumstances and the greater public need require the Minister to use his discretion to override parts of the Development Plan and to issue Development Orders.

But this should be done openly after a full round of consultation -- not slipped through the back door. The current system -- carried out in secret and virtually unappealable -- isn't working and needs to be changed. Perhaps Mr.

Barritt and Mr. Dunkley can take this up as a cause.