Two government departments yesterday refused to answer questions from The Royal Gazette about the controversial removal of the roof at the Old Post Office in St. George's.

The newspaper faxed questions to Works and Engineering and Planning on Tuesday asking if planning permission was needed for work on the listed building and whether there would be an application.

The St. George's Preservation Authority was granted an injunction, which it later agreed to have lifted, after Preservation Authority chairman Henry Hayward said Works and Engineering contractors did not have Authority approval for the work. Works within the preservation area need to be approved by the Authority.

Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott told the House of Assembly on Friday that he had a one year blanket approval for his department to carry out work, including that at the Post Office.

But last night Opposition MP Erwin Adderley, who was Director of Planning between 1972 and 1994, rejected this, saying Government departments were not exempt from the Planning Act and had to apply for specific planning permission.

In a bid to clear up the confusion over whether planning permission was needed for the work in the Post Office, The Royal Gazette faxed the questions to the departments on Tuesday. By last night, there was no reply.

The unanswered questions to Planning were:

1. Following the statement issued by the Planning Department on June 7, has the Department decided whether replacing the roof of St. George's Post Office constitutes 'making a material alteration to the external appearance of a listed building'?

2. If yes, is this work covered by the blanket (one year) approval referred to by Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott in his statement to the House of Assembly on Friday?

3. If not, is it development that requires planning permission and should an application be submitted to the Development Applications Board?

4. If yes, what role does the St. George's Preservation Authority and the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee play in this process?

5. If you consider the removal of the roof to be "development"' which requires planning permission, would the approval of the Preservation Authority and/or the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee be sufficient?

The unanswered questions to Mr. Scott were:

1. Will you or your department be seeking planning permission for the work done to the roof at St. George's Post Office?

2. If so, why?

3. If not, why not?

Last night Mr. Adderley, the shadow Transport Minister, said in answer to question one to Planning, the removal of the roof did indeed constitute making a "material alteration to the external appearance of a listed building".

When asked if this was covered by the one year blanket ban referred to by Mr. Scott, he said: "Section 14 of the Planning Act defines "development". No-one can give you blanket approval for anything.

"If you want to amend what 'development' constitutes, you have to amend the Act. It is not within the ambit of the Act to give blanket approval for something not specified. Government is not exempt from this Act, so Government has to make an application."

To question three, he replied: "Yes, in my opinion it is development that requires a planning application."

On question four, he said planning officers would have to consult the St. George's Preservation Authority and Historic Buildings Advisory Committee before a decision is made, although these bodies do not have the power to refuse.

On question five - would the approval of these bodies be sufficient to allow this development - he answered, "No. It is a matter that needs planning permission and requires the approval of the Development Applications Board."