|
I refer to MaltaToday’s article about the ‘illegal’ mosque in Tower Road, Sliema.
The original complaint referred to an existing situation where a residence had been converted into a public place of worship and the owner had applied to install a sign advertising the premises. This application was refused as enforcement action had been initiated against the owner for change of use of the premises without permit. My investigation was limited to consider why the MEPA failed to take any direct action to stop the illegal development (change of use to a public place of worship). My recommendations to MEPA on the matter were of a general nature, to insist with MEPA to shoulder its responsibilities, and take effective action to ensure observance of the provisions of the law. I was informed that the owner eventually complied with the enforcement action and that the public use of the premises ceased.
My arguments were based on what constitutes a public place of worship. If a place is open to the general public for specific times of the day where anybody can enter and participate in the activities carried out, whether religious or otherwise, then a change of use application is necessary. If the activity is limited to a number of acquaintances and their guests who use the premises for their activities, then obviously no change of use application is necessary.
At present the site inspections carried out do not provide sufficient evidence that the current use of the premises is such that can justify defining the place as one of public worship.
The fact that people meet there on a regular basis is not in itself sufficient proof. Several people invite guests on a regular basis to their residences for a variety of activities, generally of a social nature.
I am informed that MEPA had requested legal advice on the matter and also contacted the Police Authorities: the Attorney General has advised that constitutional and human rights issues may be involved and the Police Authorities made it clear that they were not in a position to approve or participate in any direct action in relation to the activities being carried out within the residential unit. Any action to close down the premises may be tantamount to a breach of human rights in relation to the enjoyment of property as well as the right to practice freely one’s religion.
As this stage, in view of the change of circumstances, I do not believe that when all the circumstances of the case are considered, there should be any intervention from MEPA. If the users of the building create unreasonable inconveniences to the residents by noise or other unsocial activities, it is then the function of the Police authorities to intervene.
Perit Joseph Falzon
MEPA – Audit Officer
Floriana
Editorial note: This letter contradicts what the office of the MEPA Auditor wrote in his report signed by Mr Falzon himself, which concluded:
“The statement of Mr Toutangi (the man behind the organisation of the mosque) clearly indicates that the premises are open to the general public. This is confirmed by the application PA 4282/01 for the installation of a sign.
“The Authority has a duty to ensure that all development is carried out according to a valid permit. The decisions of the Authority have to be enforced, if it has to retain any credibility. Irrespective of the level at which a decision has to be taken, the Authority has a duty to stop illegal developments.
“It has been shown that the use of the premises in question is illegal and, therefore, the Authority should take the necessary action to stop this activity.”
All other comments are superfluous.
|
