The National Trust yesterday launched a Supreme Court bid to block a controversial road scheme rejected four times by the planning board but passed by former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson.

Two homeowners on the Chaplin Estate off Harbour Road, Warwick, had repeatedly applied to build an access road through protected woodland to let them access Harbour Road.

Their appeal was finally granted by Mr. Hogson in July, 2000.

National Trust lawyer Alan Dunch said the Minister did not have the right to overturn a previous covenant between planners and original land owner, Charlie Chaplin's widow Lady Oona Chaplin to protect the woodland in return for allowing her to subdivide the lot before the homes were built in the early 1990s.

Government planners and the Development Applications Board had used this argument to block the first 1998 bid by Keith James and Roger Raynor to build the road.

Twice independent planning inspectors rejected the scheme. One said overturning the covenant, or Section 34 agreement under the Development and Planning Act 1974, should only be done if there was a very powerful case indeed - not simply to provide another access route for visitors, alongside the usual access to Middle Road via Cedar Hill and Tribe Road number six.

Mr. Dunch pointed to statements made by then Government Conservation officer Dr. David Wingate who said large quarrying similar to that needed for a house would have resulted from the road plan.

Dr. Wingate said it would disrupt roots for casuarina trees and make them prone to being blown down in the storm while exposing others to wind damage.

He said the woodlands had native and endemic species and was a habitat for the catbird, the cardinal and the Bermuda white eyed vireo.

One independent inspector's report voiced concerns about woodland fragmentation.

It said: "Fragmentation is the primary cause of woodland degradation and loss of carrying capacity for woodland bird species."

Mr. Dunch said in court yesterday: "We are here today because in the face of four separate applications, in the face of four separate rejections by his department, his board, his permanent secretary, his inspectors and himself on one occasion, for some reason the Minister did an about face and completely rejected or ignored all the advice given to him by professionals."

The Nationals Trust's appeal is being launched both against the Ministry of the Environment and the two home owners Mr. James and Mr. Raynor.

Acting for the Government Crown Counsel Melvin Douglas said the section 34 cannot be used to restrict the actions of the Minister or board and that because the National Trust was never party to the section 34 it had no right to try to enforce it.

In a legal summary obtained by The Royal Gazette Mr. James said the Minister was aware of numerous access problems in letting cars pass each other which could result in cars making a dangerous reverse into a major road or uphill.

He said Mr. Hodgon's had been satisfied the proposal would not hurt specimen trees and the potential eyesore would be diminished with existing vegetation and new planting.

Mr. Douglas said Mr. Hodgson had attached conditions limiting damage to trees and limiting the width of the driveway.

He said the National Trust was wrong to say Mr. Hodgson didn't address the section 34 covenant but said Mr. Hodgson was clearly conscious of it because he had overturned it to sanction the road building.

He said Mr. Hodgson had addressed the single most important controversial issue in this case - the impact of the development on the Woodland Reserve.

The hearing before Chief Justice Austin Ward is set to continue tomorrow.