Marriott's Castle Harbour Resort has been upheld.

Environment Minister Harry Soares yesterday announced his decision on an appeal of a Development Applications Board (DAB) grant of planning permission to Castle Harbour owners Bermuda Properties Ltd (BPL).

"I have upheld the decision of the Board, and confirmed the Board's approval of February this year which followed the in principle permission granted in July, 1995,'' he said.

The DAB granted BPL final planning permission on February 4 for 26 dwelling units, a communal pool, tennis courts and a water storage tank at Ship's Hill, Paynters Road which is within the 192-acre Castle Harbour property.

BPL general manager Peter Parker said: "We're delighted but the truth is that the only news is the decision is finally made. This is just one more step in rebuilding the resort.'' Mr. Soares distributed a copy of his decision which included an appendix listing 21 stringent conditions BPL must comply with to ensure environmental safeguards are in place to protect the structural stability of the caves on the site and the quality of the water in them.

They are the same conditions the DAB imposed originally, noted Mr. Parker. Ten are standard planning submissions, six are conditions BPL suggested themselves and five are conditions imposed by the DAB.

Appeals of the decision were launched by Save Open Spaces (SOS) and the National Trust.

When contacted last night, National Trust environmental committee chair Edith Robinson said: "We are not pleased at all with the decision, even with the conditions from the Minister.'' If the cave water was contaminated then it would be ruined forever, she warned.

Ms Robinson noted that the Trust had called for an independent inspector to handle the appeal but were denied.

"It seems pretty obvious,'' she continued, "that there is one streamlined planning process for people with influence and another for everybody else.'' SOS spokesman Stuart Smith could not be reached for comment yesterday.

His organisation appealed the decision on the grounds that the development would harm a significant cave system on the site and endanger rare marine life.

Cave protection, argued the group, outweighed the development's importance to the success of the tourist resort.

The National Trust voiced these concerns and raised issues with respect to land development by non-Bermudians, property zoning and the possibility of BPL developing another site.

BPL replied that its environmental impact statement indicated the development would not damage the caves and noted the environmentalists' concerns raised issues which had already been considered by the Planning Department and the DAB.

In his ruling, Mr. Soares pointed out that then-Environment Minister Gerald Simons granted in principle planning approval to BPL on July 12, 1995, through a Special Development Order.

The plans were originally for a new cycle livery, a 30,000 square foot retail complex, 27 two-storey townhouses and ten two-storey attached houses with pools.

He noted the in principle approval left only planning details to be dealt with at the final application stage and meant the development of the Ship's Hill site could not be denied.

"In other words, the appellants' submissions with respect to such matters as Government policy, the zoning of the land and an alternative site, given as reasons to prevent the development of the Ship's Hill, have been superseded by the in principle permission and are not relevant to the consideration of an application for final permission,'' said Mr. Soares.

Turning to the issue of the development and the resort master plan, Mr. Soares recognised the concerns of SOS and the National Trust who question BPL's commitment to the scheme as part of an overall plan to develop a world-class, high-quality resort.

BPL has said the Ship's Hill development is a key component of the resort master plan as it will generate capital required for resort improvements.

Mr. Soares said it was too easy for SOS and the National Trust to say they did not believe BPL.

"Such claims must be supported by facts, figures and substantial evidence if the Board, on application, or the Minister, on appeal, is expected to question the evidence of an applicant,'' he said.

"In this case, no supporting evidence has been submitted to refute the applicant's statements.''