It does not bode well, in an effort to divert the heat away from the promised reforms at our Environment and Planning Authority, that the tide has turned to discrediting the auditor who has repeatedly brought to our and the authorities’ attention the wrongs at MEPA.
It seems to me that the powerful development lobby has got at someone and there is a move to get Joe Falzon chopped, hung and quartered, since attempts to having his wings clipped did not work.
Be careful people and do not fall into the knee jerk trap. Do not be distracted to what the real issue is about now. Developers are worried that the PM, having promised to reform MEPA, will at least have to curb their greed and take into account the public’s outcry to protect our environment and our heritage.
And don’t forget architects make a lot of money out of big projects too! And good luck to them when the projects are worthy of their profession, but not when they ignore the country’s interests.
This government is saying it will not tolerate private gain at public expense on roads; let’s hope this worthy philosophy is also applicable to building development.
'Someone' told The Times that Mr Falzon, who was the chairman of the only DCC board in 1994, “had approved the redevelopment of a dilapidated farmhouse in Mistra – less than 100 metres away from the controversial Spin Valley development – against the recommendation of the case officer.”
So what was the motive of this ‘someone’ spilling the beans of a case in 1994 now? Will bringing to doubt Mr Falzon’s integrity on a case14 years ago, while heading the DCC, take away the value of his reports now?
While reading the story, I wondered whether Mr Falzon had encountered an “On the road to Damascus” experience and was converted, leading him to getting rid of the snakes. But reading on he explained why he had taken the decision.
Unlike the MEPA responses to criticism, there was no mystifying verbiage and patronising arrogance, no faffing about or excuses. His reasons were as clear-cut as his reports.
“I think, honestly, even if I was on a DCC board and had to take a similar decision now, I would take the same decision, though now the legal situation has changed as a result of the Habitats Directive and there are more legal constraints,” he told Mark Micallef.
The 1994 case – a farmhouse that was converted into a recording studio and restaurant facility - was different in that the area in question was “occupied by a dilapidated structure while the disco project would have been developed on virgin land...
“There is very little negative impact on the surroundings and even the light pollution is minimal. I am not sorry about the decision, in effect, considering that there was a building there in the first place”, he said.
The only alternative that had been offered by the opposing case officer was to have the building converted into an information centre.
“I pointed out that this was private property and could not see anyone developing it into an information centre. So I believe that a good compromise was reached,” he said, adding that it was thought at the time that “a restaurant would not generate much impact, particularly in terms of traffic and, in fact, judging now, I would say that it didn’t”.
I take the point that the area was outside the development zone and that the development conflicted with the then Structure Plan.
And although personally, I would have preferred the bay to retain its uninhabited state, it must be conceded that in terms of impact on the area the existing development does generate little traffic and minimal noise.
As far as I am concerned, noise and high-rise are the worst kind of negative impacts you can have on any area of natural beauty. And anyway, even if you do not agree with the decision taken by Mr Falzon in 1994, do not let it cloud your judgement on much more damaging environmental issues today.
That was brought home to me the next day after the story attempting to discredit the auditor appeared.
The Times on Monday carried an impressive public relations feature for the Midi projects of Tigné and Manoel Island with an imposing photo of a heritage structure, which gives a completely distorted picture of what Tigné Point really looks like today.
I read with interest that the internal works to the barracks and casemate blocks at Fort Manoel were drawing to a close and the reconstruction of the chapel of St Anthony of Padua was well underway.
I am looking forward, as a visitor to the site, “to spot the difference in the state of the two impressive forts that were lying derelict, vandalised and, in some cases, in danger of collapse for decades up until the commencement of works”.
I am sure that Mario Farrugia, Fondazzjoni Wirt Artna’s chairman is right in claiming “The quality of restoration is very high”. Mr Farrugia is extremely impressed by the amount of money spent by Midi: “I have been doing this work (acting as a heritage monitor) for almost 25 years now and I can tell you that the challenges the developers faced on the two sites were enormous and the amount of money that has gone into the two forts is also, proportionately, enormous. Had it not been for this, both forts would never have been tackled and restored and, now that they have, the Maltese public is going to have its cultural and historic inheritance returned in a much better state.”
Now of course we should be grateful that a big developer (Midi Consortium) is giving something back and that some of our heritage that would otherwise be lost is being restored.
But unlike Mr Farrugia, I do have caveats at all this largesse and I am extremely anxious that Manoel Island will metamorphose into another Tigné Point monstrosity, where the restoration work has been all but drowned by the money spinning development.
We should be using EU funds available to restore our heritage rather than rely on the private sector that exploits the need to preserve our heritage to further its own interests.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com