the remaining green areas of Bermuda.

And lawyer Mr. Tim Marshall says proof that large housing developments are needed should be provided before planning permission is granted.

Mr. Marshall is representing objectors to a planned 40 condominium development by Somers Villas.

Originally made in 1989, the application for nine buildings on land off St.

Anne's Road, to the west of Gibbs Hill Lighthouse in Southampton, was refused by the Development Applications Board. That refusal was upheld on appeal to the former Minister of the Environment the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto.

In Supreme Court this week the developers have been appealing against the Minister's decision.

Representing the developers Mr. Saul Froomkin claims the Government did not reveal documents referring to housing need to Somers Villas.

But Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder refuted the claims stating that all documents had been available to the developers.

Mr. Holder added that figures showed there is an unprecedented 10 percent of properties vacant in Bermuda, hence removing the need for large housing developments. He pointed out the usual figure was nearer to four percent.

He said: "It is not sufficient just to grant planning permission and leave it to market forces to fill the units.'' Mr. Marshall started by attacking Mr. Froomkin's arguments that technical officers in the planning department and Mrs. DeCouto speaking as the Minister of Agriculture had agreed to the plan.

The Minister had supported the fact that the condominium would have no effect on local arable farmland on another part of the 12.6 acre site.

Mr. Marshall said: "The reality is that eight of these acres were zoned arable and woodland. What the Board and the Minister had to consider was that the 40 units were going on the top 4.1 acres on the hillside as opposed to valley and the agricultural land.

"This is the last large area of open space in that area. It is right underneath one of the most historical and important features of the Island, Gibbs Hill Lighthouse.'' Mr. Marshall said that a crucial point of the case is that the company said they were surprised by the criteria of "need.'' He said objections put forward mentioned need and they were available in the planning records.

He said the developer had appealed "at their peril'' as they had an opportunity to get proof that there was a need for the 40 units. Proof, he said, would be there if the company could get people to put deposits on all 40 units.

Concerning the Bermuda Plan, Mr. Marshall said: "The whole intent of the plan and planning legislation is to regulate development to balance the needs of this society and for a natural unspoiled island environment.

"This is not the United Kingdom. The UK has lots of land while we are dealing with Bermuda which is 21 square miles.'' Mr. Marshall said the Board had made mistakes by not making documents available but added that the appeal to Minister had rectified the situation.

He said: "In this day and age we should not blindly accept a development because it falls into a residential zone in the plan. The onus should be on the developer to provide a requirement for the development.'' Mr. Froomkin is supported by Mr. Wilhelm Bourne for the appellants. The case, which has taken up three mornings in Supreme Court, is expected to end early today with a decision from Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade later.