The news that former Premier Sir John Swan has won approval for his ten-storey building at the entrance to Hamilton is disturbing, because it suggests development in Hamilton will follow a piecemeal approach in which the admittedly outdated City of Hamilton Plan will be ignored at will.

Now it has also been revealed that in upholding Sir John?s appeal against the Development Applications Board?s rejection of the plan, Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield rejected the recommendation of the Planning Department?s own independent planning inspector, who recommended that approval be given for a seven-storey building.

Last year, when Bank of Bermuda-HSBC was attempting to get the planning regulations overridden for its proposed building on the site of the former Trimingham?s building, an editorial in this newspaper said the plan should be rejected because it breached the rules on how many storeys a building should have. The same principle applies here.

That?s not to say that there isn?t a good case to be made for increasing the heights of buildings in Hamilton. As demand for offices and living space grows, Hamilton, as a ?brown site? should be used to concentrate development, both for new housing and for other space. the alternative is the kind of urban sprawl that is already occurring to the west of the city on Pitts Bay Road, along ?doctor?s row? on Point Finger Road and so forth.

So there is certainly room for growth, and North Hamilton, where, much to his credit, Sir John pioneered city apartment living with the Atlantis development, is especially ripe for redevelopment, with the caveat that the architectural gems in the area should be preserved.

In general, the whole City of Hamilton Plan needs rethinking. The heavy development of the last decade means that the city?s infrastructure is under strain. This is not only true for traffic and parking, but also for electrical power, sewage, parks and so forth.

Again, Sir John deserves credit for making provision for parking on his site, and no doubt will argue that on-site parking is only economical if the building goes up. That may well be true, because below ground parking is notoriously expensive and cannot achieve the financial return that residential or office space can.

Nonetheless, as the planning inspector said, the Seon Place site marks the gateway to Hamilton proper, and getting the right building there is vitally important.

That?s why case by case decisions on which buildings should be allowed to go beyond the height limits laid down in the City of Hamilton Plan and which should not is bad policy and worse practice.

Ms Butterfield?s apparent failure to provide reasons is even worse ? why did Sir John get approval when the Bank of Bermuda did not? What are the guidelines for the future? No one knows and that gives rise to the belief that the Island?s approach to planning is capricious and cavalier.

That view is reinforced by the current series of special development orders which shows, again, that the Island?s planning rules are not worth the paper they are written on.

This may be too much to hope for, but Ms Butterfield should make new development plans for Bermuda as a whole and Hamilton in particular an absolute priority and in the meantime, she should ensure that plans now being submitted should adhere to the current planning regulations.