The controversy over whether a beach bar should be allowed during the summers at Warwick Long Bay throws two different visions of tourism – and Bermuda generally – into sharp relief.

Those who feel, and there are many, that Bermuda lacks a fun quotient for visitors, see features like the beach bar as an inducement for people to come to the Island and to have an enjoyable stay.

And those who treasure the Island's intrinsic, but disappearing, beauty hate the idea that one of the Island's few remaining untouched beaches will now change. And they fear that those visitors who come to the Island for its natural beauty will now be put off.

Both points of view have merit, and to be fair to Belcario Thomas, the man behind the beach bar, he has worked hard to ensure the bar will not be a permanent structure and will be as unobtrusive as possible.

But environmentalist Stuart Hayward's argument that a large number of beaches already have concessions, and it is hard to make the case that the Island's last "pristine" large public beach should have a concession, is also right, and is more persuasive. Why not improve the concessions already in place (and some could use a great deal of improvement) before adding another one?

In this kind of case, it is important that the right processes be followed. Mr. Thomas submitted his application to the Development Applications Board, which turned it down on the basis that it was too obtrusive, and that Warwick Long Bay was indeed the last untouched public beach and should stay that way.

Mr. Thomas, as is his right, appealed the decision to Environment Minister Glenn Blakeney.

That appeal was referred to the independent planning inspector, who upheld the DAB's decision.

Apparently, he noted that the Parks Commission, which oversees Warwick Long Bay, had failed to comment on the application, which would appear to be a glaring omisson.

In any event, the application then reached Mr. Blakeney's desk, and last month he overruled both the DAB and the Planning Inspector and allowed the development to go ahead, setting down conditions aimed at reducing the environmental impact.

He has since stated: "This initiative highlights Government's commitment to sustainable development.

"As has been said in the past, sustainable development doesn't mean 'no' development. It means responsible development that benefits Bermuda environmentally, socially and economically.

"As the Minister responsible for this application, I am convinced that the social and economic benefits of this project are important to the continued revitalisation of Bermuda's tourism product, as well as fulfilling Government's desire to encourage Bermudian entrepreneurs."

He added: "Indeed the Ministry of Tourism and Transport voiced their support for this initiative from the very beginning. The development is subject to very strict guidelines to ensure minimal impact to the environment."

As a matter of good governance, Mr. Blakeney should show that there is a public interest that outweighs the land use laws passed by Parliament.

And although the Minister has wide discretion, meeting this test should be demanded before laws put in place to protect the environment are waived. Failing to do so essentially makes a mockery of the planning laws.

In this case, he failed to meet the test. The tourism industry will not rise or fall depending on the success of the beach bar (unlike, say a hotel development) and Government's desire to encourage Bermudian entrepreneurs, while correct and laudable, does not mean that every idea should be approved.

It is worrying that Mr. Blakeney seems to justify his decision at least in part on the basis that the Ministry of Tourism (run by the man who made him Minister, incidentally) backed the idea.

The inference that just because one Ministry supports something means that the Environment Ministry should back it too is not just nonsense; it makes the Minister and the Ministry nothing more than pawns for others' ambitions. Bermuda's environment does not need a pawn right now; it needs a champion.