Government has not yet given this newspaper answers on why roadworks went ahead in a national park without planning permission.

The Royal Gazette is awaiting a response to questions dating back to November 27 as to why works went ahead at Coney Island Road, and what action will be taken to rectify the situation and whether it is true that Works and Engineering staff demolished stonework dating back hundreds of years.

The Development Applications Board (DAB) criticised the Ministry of Works and Engineering in November for its "blatant disregard for the planning process", as it refused a retroactive application for a road realignment.

The works, in the spring of last year, have impinged on both national parkland and coastal reserve. Planning officials criticised the roadworks as contrary to the Draft Bermuda Plan 2008, as the site in Wilkinson Memorial Park is protected under the National Parks Act 1986.

In an e-mail to the Planning Department on September 19, Conservation Services director Jack Ward also suggested Works and Engineering staff had demolished stonework dating back hundreds of years.

He said: "It does seem to be a huge shame that they destroyed the amazing stonework of the old wall at the site, it could have at least been relocated.

"I'm sorry (surprised really) that it wasn't considered a historic structure like the associated breakwater on Coney Island, it had been there for hundreds of years."

Works and Engineering permanent secretary Robert Horton submitted a retroactive planning application on July 9 for the realignment of Coney Island Road, plus foreshore repairs at the north-east edge of Bailey's Bay Cricket Club.

When technical officers visited the site however, they "learned that the road had already been installed, (and) fill materials were placed in the waters of Grotto Bay just to the north of the cricket field".

This appears to be the dumped materials to which Mr. Ward refers in his e-mail to senior planner Christine Rickards on January 20.

The foreshore stabilisation works – yet to be undertaken – were subsequently withdrawn from the retroactive planning application and re-submitted in the 'final' application earlier this month.