Hill.

And a change in the ownership is becoming a strong possibility. Of 439 questionnaires the Planning Department received after requesting public input on the Tucker's Town property, 383, or 87 percent, favoured an open space zoning, Planning Director Mr. Brian Rowlinson told The Royal Gazette .

The other 56 favoured development on the land.

The department also received questionnaires filled out by the Mid Ocean Club on behalf of 227 land owners there, many of whom live overseas. They all favoured open space zoning for Catchment Hill as well.

All of that is on top of a 4,000-name petition opposing Catchment Hill development that was presented to Environment Minister the Hon. Gerald Simons this summer.

When the House of Assembly passed the 1992 Bermuda Plan earlier this year, a promised review of the plan's proposed zoning of Catchment Hill was key to its passage.

As approved, the plan would allow residential development on more than half of the 38-acre site. But there is a strong feeling among the public and many MPs that the hill's wooded area should not be disturbed.

In July, Sen. Simons invited the public to air its views on the future of Catchment Hill, which is owned by Bermuda Properties Ltd.

While the questionnaires were never looked upon as "ballots,'' the results do show "strong support for protecting the site as open space,'' Mr. Rowlinson said.

"The next stage is that we will look at zoning alternatives and an amendment will in due course be published for further comment,'' he said. "We would hope to have some thing before the public within the next month.'' Once advertised, the proposed amendment will be subject to a two-month objection period.

In addition to wooded areas, the site contains water catchments and quarries.

The 1983 plan zoned 26 acres of Catchment Hill for low-density development.

If Government bowed to popular sentiment and zoned the land for open space, the question of compensation for the owners would be raised.

A source told The Royal Gazette that Government acquisition of the land through direct payment or some other exchange were among possible options.

Writing in the 1992 Plan Tribunal Report, Sen. Simons said it was "almost amoral to enact legislation that prohibits development of large land areas (as well as small ones) resulting in some cases in severe financial handicaps.'' Sen. Simons went on to say that more restrictive zoning does not necessarily amount to a loss of development rights and that the Development and Planning Act 1974 provides for compensation in appropriate cases. But he called for a complete review of the question of compensation in 1995.