A partially-built waterside house -- branded an "atrocious eyesore'' -- has touched off a fierce debate about Bermuda's planning controls.

At the heart of it are the powers of the Minister of Environment to dictate development.

And questions have been raised over whether political clout and financial muscle are influencing planning decisions.

"The power of the Minister is...in place for extraordinary decisions, but like so many of our politicians, the power is being misused,'' former Development Applications Board member Mrs. Susan Curtis told The Royal Gazette in a letter. Mrs. Curtis pointed out she quit the Board after becoming fed-up with Ministerial decisions.

The controversial property at Darrell's Slip off Harbour Road, Warwick, was approved in principle by Acting Environment Minister the Hon. David Saul in 1993.

He upheld the proposal by Mr. Joe Tee, and his wife, Carole, on appeal -- even though the Development Applications Board had rejected it because of its size, and residents and the Bermuda National Trust had raised objections.

Months earlier, the DAB had turned down another bid by the Tees to develop the site. And the refusal was backed by Environment Minister the Hon. Gerald Simons on appeal.

Dr. Saul said he had reached his decision after speaking with technical officers from the Department of Planning.

With construction of the two-storey home nearing completion, some nearby residents voiced outrage at what had cropped up along one of Bermuda's most scenic routes.

They say the property is far too big for the foreshore, blocking the views of the water for homes opposite.

And neighbouring houses may even have been devalued.

"It is an atrocious eyesore, and has made Harbour Road appear like something from the Grand Canyon. The route has lost all its charm,'' said one resident.

"As a Bermudian I am absolutely horrified that planners allowed such a development.'' She added the property at the old Darrell's Wharf boat yard stood 10 or 15 feet above the wall lining the road.

For many residents -- even those not directly affected by the proposal -- there is a wider issue at stake.

What is the point of the DAB, if the Board's decisions are going to be brushed aside? Mr. Michael Hutley, who lives across the road from the property, told The Royal Gazette : "I am disturbed by the lack of aesthetic consideration displayed by the Department of Planning in supporting the development, as well as the Acting Minister in approving it.

"Is this a pattern of future development on the Island?'' He added: "It makes a mockery of the process of going to the Development Applications Board.'' Mr. Hutley believed the DAB had been set up as a democratic body to avoid abuses of power and conflicts of interest.

Other nearby residents, who asked not to be named, also lashed out at the development.

"I think the whole structure is much too tall, and is a very poor example of architecture,'' said one householder.

"I wouldn't be surprised if some of the nearby properties had been devalued.

"It is an atrocious building for the site, and is very bad for the shoreline of Bermuda.

"Planners seem to spend their time hair-splitting over little items, and let big things like this go through.'' One resident said tourists travelling past the site on a ferry had commented on the development.

"One man said `gee, look at that. How on earth was that property allowed to be built there?'.'' Protesters have pointed to several examples of Ministers pushing through proposals on appeal, despite DAB objections. These include: The house on Hinson Island; The ACE building extension in Pitt's Bay Road; and The Underwater Exploration Institute on East Broadway.

In her letter, which made no reference to the Harbour Road development, Mrs.

Curtis said: "I spent ten years sitting on the DAB and watched numerous examples of Ministers overriding Board decisions.

"It was a frustrating experience and did much to influence my decision to step down.

"So many of the projects we refused for legitimate planning reasons have now been built!'' Mrs. Curtis went on: "It would seem that anyone can get anything passed given enough time and influence in the right place...I find it all extremely discouraging for Bermuda in general.

"We are such a tiny country and in order to keep the special quality that we have, we need to keep the whole picture in focus and not allow ourselves to be taken in with the whims of a selfish few.'' Assistant director of the Department of Planning, Ms Aideen Ratteray Pryse, said the powers of the Environment Minister were very wide-ranging.

She highlighted two key parts of the Development and Planning Act 1974.

Section 57 (3) stated: "The Minister...may allow or dismiss the appeal, or may reverse or vary any part of the decision of the Board whether the appeal relates to that part or not, and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.'' Ms Pryse also pointed to Section 57 (7).

This stated: "In the exercise of his functions...the Minister shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan for the area where the land in question is situated in so far as those provisions are material to the development of that land and to any material consideration.'' Ms Pryse said it was not uncommon for members of the public to voice concern over new developments.

But she pointed out a development could not be refused because it blocked other people's views.

"Nobody has a right to a view,'' she said.

The Royal Gazette had acquired copies of the 1993 appeal decisions by Mr.

Simons and Dr. Saul.

Mr. Simons stated the proposed Harbour Road development, which included a swimming pool, covered too wide an area.

"Further, I have noted that in addition to the facilities normally considered for a three-bedroom house, the proposal includes a maid/housekeeper's apartment and an artist's studio.

"It is my opinion that the inclusion of these facilities, along with the inclusion of covered porches...has contributed significantly to the excessive site coverage proposed...'' Mr. Simons believed "the elimination of these elements would go a long way to bring the site coverage'' in line with what was permitted.

In his ruling, Dr. Saul said the new application by the Tees had removed the covered porches.

"I have also noted that the matter of massing, scale and height of the development, were the reasons the Board gave for refusing the previous application, and that in dealing with the previous application, the Minister did not find it to be offensive.

"Therefore, it is my opinion that the proposal, as submitted, now complies with the direction as suggested in the Minister's previous letter.'' Yesterday, Dr. Saul said he adhered to a standard drill when stepping into the Environment Minister's shoes.

"I ask the technical officers for their advice, then I visit the site, and after that I see the technical officers and the director of Planning.'' Dr. Saul said appeals to the Minister were a normal part of the planning process.

He added he "empathised'' with residents who expressed shock at the Harbour Road property.

But he stressed: "I would say they should wait until the building is finished and landscaped.'' See story on Page 6 A SITE FOR SORE EYES? -- The controversial Harbour Road property.