---

Dear Sir,

“Why did the Trust back the bank plan?” you asked on November 25, at the end of a report headlined ‘Is Nat. Trust too tight with the bank?’ The clear implication of the report was that the Trust had attached more importance to its relationship with the bank than to its Mission.

I know all the people involved well and am certain that it would never enter their minds to compromise their principles in that way. Indeed even to suggest that it might is insulting.

Whether you are right to suppose that they intended to ‘back’ the bank plan may depend on semantics. Steve Conway’s letter of October 13 to John Gardner (presumably the written statement which the report in your paper said expressed “support for a design which others say contravenes planning regulations”) can certainly be interpreted in that way.  

But it can also be interpreted as simply welcoming the consultative process which provided an opportunity to influence design at an early stage.

However that may be, many of the Trust’s members — including two of its past Presidents, both very well respected — have clearly been upset by what has happened.

That is unfortunate; and no doubt the lesson to be learned is that the Trust needs to take very special care when considering how to handle any application that is likely to provoke such public interest and such controversy.

(It is perhaps worth noting that there was little or none of either when Coopers were granted permission to rebuild their Front Street store seven storeys high.)  

To return to the question which you asked, historically the Trust felt it was the sole real watchdog here, with an obligation to act as ‘objector general’.  

So that was what it did; and as a result it was often criticized for objecting to everything. In recent years, after prolonged lobbying by the Trust, there have been two significant developments. First, many buildings of the greatest historic and architectural importance have been listed. Second, a Historic Buildings Advisory Committee has been appointed by Government to examine applications to alter listed buildings before planning permission is granted.  

These developments have freed the Trust to try and play a more positive role. 

I believe that it was in an attempt to play one that the Trust agreed to become involved at so early a stage in considering the bank’s plans. Its Mission Statement emphasizes its preservation role; and it was therefore concerned to ensure that buildings which have long been Front Street landmarks were preserved.  

Technical matters are for the Planning Department to deal with and matters of taste are for the general public in conjunction with Planning.

But there needs to be a much wider debate before the next Hamilton Development Plan. (The sole listed building in the City of Hamilton at present is the Anglican Cathedral so, during any such debate, agreement ought to be sought to list more buildings there).

This is a long letter. I make no apology for that: You have rightly raised a matter of considerable public concern which deserves to be thoughtfully debated. Moreover it is a matter in which I have a close personal interest.

I am not a member of the Trust’s council and was not privy to its discussion about the bank’s plan. But since returning to live here over eighteen years ago I have devoted the greater part of my time to researching Bermuda’s Architectural Heritage in the hope of convincing my fellow Bermudians that we should conserve and preserve it.

Margaret Lloyd    

[[In-content Ad]]

---