The National Trust could appeal to the Privy Council after the Appeals Court ruled that covenants which protect land could be overturned by the Environment Minister.

National Trust lawyer Alan Dunch said if the judgment, delivered yesterday, prevailed it would be "a black day for environmentalists" and no covenant would be safe.

He said he would be meeting with the National Trust council next week to consider if the matter could be taken further.

He told The Royal Gazette: "Speaking for myself I am not satisfied with the judgment.

"I am inclined to the view of having the final court of the land make the ultimate decision but it is a matter for my client."

The decision came as Government sought to overturn a Supreme Court decision to block a controversial road scheme which threatened protected woodland.

In a ruling earlier this year, Chief Justice Austin Ward said former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson had given no weight to a restrictive covenant at the Chaplin Estate in Warwick after he granted permission for another access road in 2000.

At the time Mr. Justice Ward said the Minister had a public duty to protect woodland conservation areas.

The scheme had already been rejected four times by the Development Applications Board and twice by independent planning inspectors before the minister over-ruled.

However yesterday the Appeals Court ruled that the Environment Minister did have the right to overturn a previous covenant - known as a Section 34 agreement under the Development and Planning Act 1974.

Their written judgment said: "The contentions that a Section 34 restriction endures in perpetuity must be rejected.

"Even if expressed to be permanent, it can be extinguished by a subsequent agreement under Section 34 which provides for its extinction."

The court said that although the Section 34 did not have express powers to vary or extinguish earlier agreements, neither did it bar this from happening.

Planners and the original land owner, Charlie Chaplin's widow Lady Oona Chaplin had put the Section 34 in place to protect the woodland in return for allowing her to subdivide the lot before homes were built in the early 1990s.

The estate is currently accessed through a tribe road from Cedar Hill but in the 1990s home owners Keith James and Roger Raynor applied to get access from Harbour Road which would affect the covenant.

The appeals court ruled that the Minister and Planning Board should decide planning matters, not the law courts.

And they noted the Minister had offered a new chunk of woodland which would more than replace that lost to the new access proposed from Harbour Road.

Opponents of the road scheme said it would destroy woodland screening the densely-populated Cedar Hill area from Hamilton Harbour which was a habitat for the catbird, cardinal and the Bermuda white eyed vireo.

The appeals court ruled the Minister would be paid costs for both the appeals court and the Supreme Court paid by the National Trust while Mr. James and Mr. Raynor would get their appeal court costs and half their Supreme Court costs paid by the Trust.

In quashing the Supreme Court decision the Appeals Court ruled that planning permission stands but it did not remove the restrictive covenant. That would have to be done under the Section 34 by current Environment Minister Dennis Lister.

Mr. Dunch said the decision meant that any Section 34 agreement could be changed by subsequent owners and Environment Ministers.