Updated | MEPA hits out at FAA, ‘a disservice to the public’

Adds FAA's reaction

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority accused FAA coordinator Astrid Vella of making "slanderous allegations and unfounded and incorrect public statements vis-a-vis MEPA and its officials whenever a planning decision taken by the Board does not go her way".

MEPA was referring to statements made by Vella with regards to the Villa Mekrech case.

Defending its position on the issue, MEPA said that FAA had praised it when the authority refused to grant a planning permission for the Portomasso and St Augustine School extension.

"Now, Vella did not agree with a planning decision taken by the Board in the case of Villa Mekrech in Ghaxaq, she ditches all she said in the statements her group issued and accuses the Authority with all forms of slanderous allegations," the authority said in a statement.   

"The Authority calls on Ms Astrid Vella to constructively criticize Mepa with statements that are factually correct, even when planning decisions do not match her group's interests. Misinforming the public and using 'slanderous' language on TV stations is a disrespectful and a disservice to the public," MEPA said.

MEPA went on to list a number of points:

-       Villa Mekrech and its gardens were not scheduled on the 31st August 2012. On this date, the Authority issued an Emergency Conservation Order (ECO) on this site. This ECO was issued for the necessary studies to be carried out including the verification of existing permits so as to consider which areas within the site merit scheduling. The Villa and its formal garden was infact scheduled by the Mepa Board at the end of September 2012. So it is incorrect to state that the Authority within the matter of a month, revised, overturned or downgraded the scheduling of this site.

-       In 2008, an outline development permit had been issued on an area of land measuring 569m², which was outside the recently scheduled formal large garden of the villa, yet directly adjacent to it. In the outline permit, there was a condition which stated that no trees from the site in question, can be removed unless a permit is sought in accordance with legal notice 12/01. In 2009, following clearance from the agricultural department, a permit was issued for the uprooting and relocation of three olive trees from one end of the site to another. This was carried out by the applicant in October 2009. Subsequently, an enforcement officer carried out a site inspection and confirmed that the trees had been uprooted and relocated. One of the trees that had been uprooted and relocated did not survive.

-       The statement that according to law, a planning permit is automatically nullified should a permit condition is not be adhered to, is not only incorrect but misleading.

-       The claim that aerial photos Mepa provided FAA with, confirming that protected trees from the site which forms the subject of the outline development permit were destroyed, are totally unfounded. The site on which an outline development permit and subsequently a full development permit was granted, only had three protected trees, the remaining vegetation was only the undergrowth of alien plants, which are a detriment to protected trees or other common trees which are not protected by law.

-       The decision made by the Mepa Board on the 25^th October 2012, to grant a full development permit for the construction of six residential units with underlying garages, was based on the outline development permit that had been granted in 2008. Various court judgments have confirmed that the outline development permit has a legally binding effect on the Authority and that the Authority consequently cannot refuse to grant a full development permit which is compliant with the outline development permit. Moreover, it is pertinent to note, that the site covered by the full development permit measures 569m²  and does not form part of Villa Mekrech and its formal gardens which measure 6982m² and which were scheduled by Mepa. The formal gardens of Villa Mekrech remain untouched.  

FAA reacts

Reacting to the statement, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar coordinator Astrid Vella accused MEPA of being "intolerant of members of the public who speak the inconvenient truth".

The environment NGO said that it could corroborate everything that the NGO has stated.

FAA said that while it has often praised MEPA where praise was due, yet many negative cases were surfacing now in the run-up to the elections. 

"Contrary to what has been claimed that FAA issues public statements 'whenever a planning decision taken by the Board does not go FAA's way', FAA has not commented publicly even where MEPA has admitted to its serious shortcomings as in a recent Wardija case," the NGO said.

FAA said that instead of arguing whether an Emergency Conservation Order regulated by the Scheduling Section 81 of the Development Planning Act, is technically scheduling, MEPA should be explaining why it downgraded the protection of the garden, when its heritage experts insisted that any form of development "will entirely destroy the existing garden".

"MEPA's statement that the site covered by the permit was 'beyond the garden of the villa' is shockingly untrue, and belied by MEPA's own website shot which shows the garden path, trees and even pond within the permit area which has been stripped of protection and is now due to be built upon," FAA said.

FAA added it was shocked by MEPA's insistence that no trees were destroyed on this site, just as it is shocked by the failure of its enforcement officers to report the stumps of the destroyed hundred-year old protected olive trees on site.

"Why did the MEPA Board refuse to take into account the photographic evidence of destroyed trees presented by FAA during the hearing?

"According to the Case Officer report 'in case of confirmation [of unauthorised destruction of trees] the outline permission becomes invalid' and yet the MEPA Board voted in favour of the permit that the Case Officer had just asserted "was still in violation of the Local Plan and would inevitably lead to the destruction of the garden'."

FAA said that rather than "holding the DCC Board accountable for issuing an abusive Outline Permit which violated every tenet of the Local Plan and of our local and international sustainable development obligations, MEPA prefers to lose this priceless piece of Malta's heritage."