Environment has the power to override decisions of the Developmnent Applications board will have caused environmental organisations a good deal of grief this week.

The DAB had refused permission for an addition to the ACE building on Pitt's Bay Road. On appeal to the then Minister, Gerald Simons, permission was granted and the addition was built, much to the unhappiness of David Barber whose home privacy was invaded and whose view of Hamilton Harbour was blocked.

Mr. Barber has lived at Jacaranda off Woodbourne Avenue since 1961.

The Supreme Court quashed the Minister's decision which was restored by the Court of Appeal and has now been confirmed by the ultimate court, the Privy Council.

Under the Development and Planning Act of 1974, the Development Applications Board cannot deviate from the plan. Mr. Barber argued the Minister could not do so either. The Privy Council upheld the Minister's right to deviate, having regard to the provisions of the development plan. The Minister's decision has to be seen as "reasonable''.

Clearly if the Privy Council had ruled against the Minister and ACE, whose building is 60 percent owned by BF&M Ltd., there would have been a very complex situation. Mr. Barber would doubtless have wanted the addition to the building removed and the owners would have argued that it was built with permission and therefore Government was responsible.

The Privy Council decision brings into question whether or not the Minister's powers are excessive, given the fact that ministers tend to make politically expedient decisions rather than what might be best for the environment, or in this case, Mr. Barber.

There are many people who feel the ACE decision was unfair and that it violated Mr. Barber's rights but was probably done to assist a major international company with a large Bermudian staff which contributes widely to Bermudian causes and which is very valuable to Bermuda. From that point of view the Minister's decision might well have been expedient.

However, that is not the point.

The decision will cause concern that other ministers might agree to large developments like Ship's Hill which are of much wider public concern. The reality is that the ultimate decision rests with one person whose considerations might be political.

That is not reassuring and it does not seem to make the environment very safe.

We think that the Development and Planning Act of 1974 should be looked at very carefully. The Act was designed to protect Bermuda's image and to prevent unnecessary and undesirable development and should be administered accordingly. It is something of a shock to find that it can be upset on important decisions by the Minister acting alone.