Ombudsman calls on MEPA to act on illegal printing press

Planning Ombudsman David Pace is calling on the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to take immediate action against a printing press operating without a permit in Luqa, whose operations are disturbing the sleep of some nearby residents.

In his investigation, Pace found that no action has been taken by MEPA in the past two years despite a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2012, which confirmed the validity of an enforcement notice against the illegal printing press issued in 2010.

Andrew Spiteri, who presented the complaint to Pace, has complained that over the past few years, he was unable to sleep properly because of the noise coming from the Miller Distributors printing press in Tarxien road in Luqa.

A medical consultant has prescribed pills to Spiteri and his daughter to help them sleep at night.

Since 1995, MEPA has issued three enforcement orders against illegalities on the same site. The enforcement issued in 1995 was later withdrawn after the illegality was removed two years later. In 2009 another enforcement order was issued against the use of the premises as a “digital” printing press. Another enforcement order was issued a year later.

The owner of the printing press appealed against the enforcement order issued in 2010 against the use of part of the building as a printing press. MEPA’s appeal’s board turned down this appeal in June 2011. 

Subsequently the owner presented an appeal in the law courts against this decision but this appeal was turned down in February 2012.

In the appeal, the company contested the validity of the enforcement order, arguing that it should have been delivered by hand to one of its officials, and not by post.

Pace concluded that MEPA should immediately take “direct action” because its enforcement action was ignored and the illegal activity continued even after the decision of the court of appeal.

MEPA justified its delay in taking action against this illegal development by referring to a decision of its DCC board in 2010 to grant the owner a permit to construct offices on the same site. The permit was issued “in view that the evidence was enough to show that the operation is not related to a printing press.”

The Enforcement Directorate claimed that this put it in an ambiguous situation as the board had concluded that activity taking place on this site was not that of a printing press.

But Pace concluded that there was enough evidence that the building was being used as a printing press as confirmed by MEPA’s own position in the appeal.

[email protected]