Environmental campaigners have called for a protective planning measure to be revoked because it can be amended "at the whim of a Minister".

The Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) wants Government to scrap Section 34 agreements, arguing amendments by Environment Ministers in recent years have equated them to "nothing less than a sham".

Section 34 of the Planning Act 1974 protects a piece of land from future development for a specified period or forever, by way of a covenant between the landowner and Minister.

It works by an exchange, whereby permission is granted to develop one portion of the land on condition the other part is protected. The covenants are then passed on to subsequent landowners.

In 2003 however, the Court of Appeal ruled the Environment Minister could alter these agreements with a landowner, therefore ending the permanency of protection.

At the Draft Bermuda Plan 2008 Tribunal yesterday, BEST called for Section 34 agreements to be scrapped under new planning legislation to come into effect next year.

BEST chairman Stuart Hayward said: "For the first two decades after the 1974 Development and Planning Act came into effect, Section 34 agreements were treated as sacrosanct, with the Government holding convenanted land in the interest of the greater good.

"More recently, the result of amendments of revocations have amounted effectively to the reneging on a contract not in the interest of the spirit of Section 34, nor in the public interest, but rather in the narrow interest of a subsequent landowner or developer.

"As an example, in our initial submission we cited the Chaplin Estate wherein a section of woodland reserve/conservation protection zone was destroyed by the undoing of the overlying Section 34 agreement.

"In our recollection, the Government went to court to asset its right to break the agreement.

"This led to the extraordinary situation where ordinary citizens were fighting to protect the environment from the Environment Minister."

Mr. Hayward said: "While we are supportive of the principle of Section 34 Agreements, the recent practice reduces any offers of protection under Section 34 to nothing less than a sham.

"Section 34 agreements may indeed be a 'valuable tool for restricting or regulating development' as the DOP claims. If however, in the process, a promise is made or implied that the Government's side of the agreement will be kept in perpetuity all the while knowing full well that at the whim of a Minister the agreement can be amended or overturned resulting in precisely what the agreement purported to prevent then the making of such a promise is a fraudulent practice.

"Unless and until the promise held out by Section 34 agreements can be guaranteed delivery, we would recommend the use of Section 34 agreements cease."

A Department of Planning spokesman said: "There are 130 agreements and they have been very valuable tools, and within the Planning process they can be very useful.

"There have been amendments to Section 34 agreements but the Minister has authority to do this."