had any ulterior motives when he granted approval for a Rosemont Avenue development which neighbours alleged violates health codes.

"Absolutely not,'' he said, "and all one would have to do is look at the planning files because there were a number of applications that came via Mr.

Adderley which I turned down.

"The decision taken at the time would have had nothing to do with Mr.

Adderley at all. In fact, I did not know him well. I was not close to him,'' he said.

The planning file shows that Mr. Pearman's decision was in keeping with advice from the planning inspector.

Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson said he could not fault Mr. Pearman on the action he took.

"It is clear, in this case, that the Minister had the support of his technical officer,'' he said.

Mr. Adderley refused to comment on the matter saying only that he was sad to see that the neighbours had decided to try to turn it into a political affair.

"I see they want to try and make this political. I have no comment,'' he said.

Environment Permanent Secretary Brian Rowlinson last week sent a letter to Mrs. Samuels and Mr. Charles explaining that Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson had no power to intervene at any stage after Mr. Pearman had granted approval.

Mr. Rowlinson wrote: "You may well disagree with the Minister's decision, however your difference of opinion does not justify allegations of an `abuse of power' some 28 months after the decision was made.'' Pointing out that Mr. Hodgson had "no legal grounds on which to intervene'', Mr. Rowlinson also wrote: "Government Ministers have no knowledge of building permit applications and have no role in issuing such permits.'' While defending the Minister's decision, the letter advised Mrs. Samuels and Mr. Charles that they had an option of taking their grievance to the Supreme Court.

Erwin Adderley