THE Corporation of Hamilton has hit back in the wake of recent allegations of corrupt dealings, promising that the City's parks and green spaces will only ever be developed "as a last resort".

In last week's Mid-Ocean News, former councillor Graeme Outerbridge slammed the Corporation for a number of allegedly "illegal" activies. He claimed that the Corporation granted permission for a temporary transformer to be placed in Par-la-Ville Park "outside the meeting process and outside the committee process".

Corporation Secretary Edward Benevides has responded to Mr. Outerbridge's claims, stating that the decision to build the Belco structure in the park was "not a board policy issue".

"The Corporation City Engineer approved the temporary site, which was required as the power would have been interrupted to three building lots upon construction of the Orbis building," he said. "This was an operational issue ¿ not a strategy or board policy issue. Unfortunately, the development of the other two sites ¿ either of which will house the transformer ¿ has been delayed, so the temporary period will be extended.

"There is no health hazard to the site, and once the Orbis building is complete and the hoarding is removed, we expect to create a screening effect to reduce the impact until it is removed."

Mr. Benevides also denied Mr. Outerbridge's assertion that the transformer represents an "illegal structure" in its current situation.

"An Illegal structure is generally described as a permanent building or the like of it which does not have a town or city council's permission," Mr. Benevides explained.

"By definition, therefore, the current pad transformer does not meet the conditions and would therefore not be considered an illegal structure."

Mr. Outerbridge also called Par-la-Ville Park a "green area inviolate", meaning every effort should be taken to avoid construction within its bounds.

Mr. Benevides supported the notion that Par-la-Ville should be protected from any "permanent injury". He added, however, that due to the growth in Hamilton and an increased need for electricity, the idea that the park should be completely left alone is "not realistic".

"The word 'inviolate' is interesting but has a number of meanings, so to be clear, the idea of a permanent injury would be an acceptable meaning in our context," he said.

"The Corporation would not likely support anything that would permanently injure the parks. This, of course, is somewhat diminished from some of the other meanings such as 'sacrosanct'. That applies to an approach that ¿ regardless of whatever the cost to the City ¿ the parks could not be affected in any way. This is an extreme that is great in theory but is not realistic in a living and growing City."

Mr. Benevides added that the Corporation certainly deems Par-la-Ville Park worthy of protection from development, but that temporary construction ¿ such as the Belco transformer ¿ is "justified by the benefits to the City".

"The issue should be: what is the impact and the permanency of that impact?" he said.

"When the development has no other reasonable or feasible alternative and involves a temporary impact, and the park is restored; is the development transparent to the use and visual enjoyment of the park? Is the temporary negative impact to the use and visual effect justified by the benefits to the City and it's residents?"

Mr. Benevides added that any more development, Belco transformers or otherwise, would only be done in Hamilton's Par-la-Ville, Jubilee and Victoria Parks as a "last resort".

"It would be our choice that no development outside of the park work take place in a park," he said.

"Any impact to a park should only be entertained as a last resort, and then the impact should only be temporary to the use and visual effect of the park."