plans for "cluster developments'' of houses.

And, according to Government lawyer Mr. Philip Holder, any injustice against a developer can be overridden if the public interest is affected.

Mr. Holder was making a submission on behalf of former Minister of Environment the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto in Supreme Court.

Developers Somers Villas are appealing against the Minister's rejection of a plan to build a 40 unit condominium on land off St. Anne's Road, in Southampton.

The decision followed a refusal by the Development Applications Board of the plan which involves nine buildings on the 12.6 acres west of the Gibbs Hill Lighthouse.

Mr. Saul Froomkin, acting for the developers, described the decision to refuse the application, which he says follows Government guidelines, is "bureaucracy gone mad.'' Mr. Froomkin said: "The Minister and the Board said we do not care what the situation is or whether you comply with all the planning guidelines in the world, we will not give you permission unless there's an assurance that there is a need for these units.

"Who gives that assurance? Can the developer give you an assurance that he can fill these units?'' Mr. Froomkin continued to attack the Minister for making her decision on documents which were not available to his clients when the application was first made in 1989.

He claims the arguments of "need'' and "sustainable development'' have been introduced "out of the blue'' and have not allowed his clients time to prepare a defence. He said: "How can it be said that they had a fair crack of the whip.'' Mr. Holder told the court that the Minister was entitled to act on any information she received. He said the appellants had plenty of opportunity to see documents, such as the Bermuda Plan 2000 which mentions sustainable development, looking at housing needs with environmental and economic concerns.

Replying to Mr. Froomkin's claim that the application should have been decided under previous guidelines, Mr. Holder said: "One has to realise that the philosophy and thinking behind the 1983 plan is old and stale.

"The ultimate decision lies with the Minister. She has a wider discretion to deal with these matters.

"Sustainable development was within the public realm through various public documents and the Board and the Minister were entitled to use these documents for consideration of the plan.'' He said the developers had ignored this. He added: "This is not the US where you can get your property zoned and are entitled to planning permission. Under the English system the Development Plan does not give you permission.

"The Development Plan is not law and there's no forgone conclusion that because a developer falls within the zone he has permission.

"In fact there is no legal obligation, as in England, to provide reasons for any approval or refusal.'' Mr. Froomkin is supported by Mr. Wilhelm Bourne for the appellants, Mr. Tim Marshall appears for local objectors.

The case is expected to end today with a decision from Puisne Judge the Hon.

Mrs. Justice Wade later.