Objectors to the Bank of Bermuda's plans to build a seven-storey building on the site of the former Trimingham's department store have good reason to celebrate today after the Development Applications Board rejected the application.

But they should remember that this is merely the first stage in what could be a lengthy process.

Despite its protestations, it is unlikely that the bank expected to get approval for the building, which it admitted breached a number of planning regulations, not the least of which was a storey more than the City of Hamilton Plan permitted.

In that sense, its application has been headed for appeal since it was first submitted.

What the bank is likely to be disappointed over is the scope of the rejection.

The DAB said: "The siting, scale, massing, height, setback encroachments, appearance and layout of the proposed development is not considered to be appropriate for this site and will not enhance the surrounding area."

That did not leave much that the DAB did like, and begs the question of what it would have said about the bank's first application, which was even more ambitious, and arguably much less attractive.

Indeed, the bank deserves some credit for modifying its plans, which included making the building less modern and saving much more of the original Trimingham's Front Street location.

Apparently, that did not impress the DAB much, which again demonstrated its independence and unwillingness to bow to anyone, regardless of their importance.

Now the bank says it will consider its options, which include an appeal to Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield, whose word is effectively final.

It is possible that Ms Butterfield will refer the appeal to an independent inspector and will consider his or her recommendation carefully, along with the DAB's decision.

She has much wider powers to override the Planning rules than the DAB does, and can make a decision on the basis that it is in the wider public interest, an out that numerous Ministers — both United Bermuda Party and Progressive Labour Party — have used in the past, sometimes to the detriment of the Island.

Whether she will in this case remains to be seen. This is a politically difficult decision, lining up the wealth and power of the bank and its parent, HSBC against widespread public opposition.

The bank has not yet made a very convincing argument that this development as it stands is in the public interest, and chief executive officer Philip Butterfield's statement that Hamilton needs to become like other cities when what sets Hamilton apart is its very uniqueness must go down as one of the public relations disasters of the decade.

So the bank will have to make a much stronger case if it wants to get approval at the appeal stage.

The hope here is that this decision will be allowed to stand. It could well be that the bank could get approval if it made a real effort to stay within the confines of the City of Hamilton Plan, as have other Front Street buildings, notably A.S. Cooper's. That in turn would send a valuable message to the public that it is prepared to play by the rules.