Southampton is "bureaucracy gone mad.'' That is the view of lawyer Mr. Saul Froomkin who is acting on behalf of developers Somers Villas in Supreme Court.

Somers Villas filed a writ against the rejection of the plan for 40 condominiums off St. Anne's Road, in Southampton.

The Minister the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto turned it down stating that it could not be justified because of overbuilding in the real estate market and the large number of vacant homes.

Mr. Froomkin and Mr. Wilhelm Bourne are representing Somers Villas while Mr.

Philip Holder is representing the Government and Mr. Tim Marshall is appearing for local objectors.

Mr. Froomkin said: "This is a case of considerable importance particularly as it's the best example, I can think of, of bureaucracy gone mad.'' He explained the development of the 12.6 acre site west of Gibb's Hill Lighthouse would involve nine buildings with 40 units of one, two or three bedrooms.

The application for planning development was first made in 1989 and Mr.

Froomkin pointed out that departmental technical officers had recommended approval of the 40 unit plan.

And he added that although he did not want to refer to her as "schizophrenic'' Mrs. DeCouto wearing her Minister of Agriculture "hat'' had also approved the application.

Speaking to Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade, Mr. Froomkin stressed that his clients had gone overboard to ensure that they complied with the Government planning regulations and more than eight acres of the site would actually remain undeveloped.

He said the first mention of a "glut of properties on the Island'' was during an earlier statement by Mr. Marshall.

He also claimed that the Bermuda Plan and other similar documents were not in existence when the application was made. Mr. Froomkin said: "The appeal was decided in June 1991 then suddenly out of a clear blue sky appears a document called "Report of the Chairman of the Development Applications Board.'' This was one of a number of documents the appellants claim they had not had an opportunity to see, but had been quoted by the Assistant Director of Forward Planning.

Mr. Froomkin said: "It was improper for the board to bring information which the appellants did not see. The Minister found that there was a denial of natural justice.'' However the Minister also found that if Somers Villas had been given a reasonable opportunity to state their case the application could still be rejected.

Quoting a number of cases backing his claim he said that the objections to the appeal should be dismissed.

Mr. Froomkin said if bureaucracy is slow and incompetent and, for example, does not deal with matters for 25 years, a developer cannot predict what changes there will be to planning laws.

He added that the planning authority should not become "paternalistic'' and concern themselves with whether an application would be a business success.

Mr. Froomkin said: "If there is any doubt it should be resolved in favour of the property owner and not the Government.'' The case continues today and is expected to finish tomorrow with a decision by Mrs. Justice Wade later in the year.