Thursday, 28th February 2008 - 12:55CET
Safi supermarket permit: Ministry backs call for legal change
The Environment Ministry this evening referred to the report by the Mepa auditor who found that the granting of a permit for a Safi supermarket was "a gross irregularity".
The ministry noted that the auditor had remarked that:“The Mepa is advised to propose an amendment to the Development Planning Act to allow for the modification or withdrawal of an approved permit if it is shown that a particular development application has been approved contrary to official policies.”
The ministry said it awaited Mepa action on this recommendation so that it could then consider the proposals made to it.
The ministry also pointed out that this administration had a record of moving legislation to ensure that the planning process was transparent.
The members of Mepa's Development Control Commission resigned en bloc on Wednesday evening after the auditor's damning report. The Safi surpermarket was granted a permit for development on agricultural land outside a development zone.
The members of the commission insisted that they had acted "with diligence, without any personal interests and with a clear conscience in the best of their abilities".
In a statement issued in the Mepa website, the commission members said:
"In spite of having submitted the auditor with clarifications and valid justifications to the conclusions in his Preliminary Report, the DCC 'A' feel aggravated that the auditor proceeded to censor their unanimous decision. The DCC feels that this leaves them with no alternative but to resign after always having undertaken their responsibilities with diligence, without any personal interests and with a clear conscience in the best of their abilities."
The project belongs to Polidano Brothers. All the members of the DCC voted in favour of the proposed development despite a recommendation for refusal by the Planning Directorate.
The government, meanwhile, today appointed a new Development Control Commission.
RSS
Comments
I note that this is not the only case of issuing permits in area supposed to be in an OUT OF DEVELOPMENT ZONE area. Today another case was made public. The destruction of MISTRA , a special area of conservation -international importance (EU Code - MT0000010).
Application No. 05880/05 with MEPA shows all the details about this application. First refused then granted. Now they are saying an outline permit was issued. Today we find out that the land is owned by the MP who pretends to be the environment guru. He said that he leased the land less than a year ago to a third party and this third party is now developing it. So he wants us to believe that this 3rd party is investing all the money in developing this project on a land which he doesn't own. IDDAHAQNIEX!!!! Honestly if there was one MP whom I admired was this cool guy but it seems that he also followed the rest . They are all the same so we better change them every five or ten years.
What's another U turn - he is so accustomed to them he should be named king of U turns.
If an error was made by the authority which is supposed to control the issuing of permits, then it should be liable especially if the developer had started the project.
Anywhere else such a situation would be handled either by withdrawing the permit and coughing up actual and legal expenses incurred by the developer including possibly the granting of an alternate site suitable for the project OR if the problem is the site itself which encroaches on land marked as a green area and such site does not impact the green area to a large degree, then an amendment is made to accommodate the project. Such an action is called 'granting of a variance'. In other words, the permit has been granted in variance of the present zoning regulations. By calling it a 'variance' it makes it clear that no one else will be permitted to infringe on the green area, otherwise why designate green areas to begin with?
Mistakes happen for many reasons. They happen in Malta and they happen in much more sophisticated countries where such zoning regulations exist in the strictest forms and compromises are always reached, most often leaning to the developer's interest. Such is the nature of the beast!
Ministers should not have anything to do with authorities' decisions.
Can anyone ,for a moment imagine a minister imposing his irrevocable decisions on the Broadcasting AUTHORITY?
Will the political parties implement what the auditor is recommending in one week's time after the election?
Somoeone has to be responsible for this fracas and I wouldnt blame it on the developer (although he is a giant) it is the fault of who issued the permit!
If it weren't for the PN in Government you would not have such open spaces to go to, you will loose the chance to openly be invited to Castille to discuss the budget for your country, you will loose all the credibility as a Maltese with all the Europeans (as Dr Sant will re-open negotiations), your kids (if you have any) will have to repeat an extra year, you will loose the chance to live in a country which is deficit free, you will loose the chance to have your income tax reduced, but above all MALTA will lose the chance to implement a vision which will create more jobs and a better environment for us all.
Mind you, I agree with you that certain things were not right and need to be changed asap. But when you compare, these are petty things.
All, let's try to put the right things into perspective.
Let us remember that unless it was for MEPA, Gozo would not have maintained its pristine conditions. So at least some good comes out as well.
As for the PN, the only thing I can say is that in the past five years they closed Maghtab, restructured St Antnin recycle plant, built sewage treatment plant in Gozo, introduced recycle system for glass / plastic / metal, afforestation of 4 areas around Malta, planting of thousands of trees, environment landscaping across the country etc etc etc etc.
Not to mention the €300m from the EU Funds allocated for the environment.
Who said the PN is not a green party?????
Investment from developers should not be blocked as they are the drivers of our economy.
However there are laws which state that it is not the developers fault here, but of the responsible people who issued the permit!!!
If the site was not suitable, other suitable sites should have been suggested without delays!! Investors for this supermarket in this case will just say WHAT ALLOT OF RED TAPE, why should we invest in Malta!
Beware GonziPN ordered to keep Super1 hostages with arrogance for a long time so that they won't ask any questions to him.
What a farce will be tonight on Xarabank!!!
This means that, after all, AD believes in an office that was created by the current PN administration - which implies that AD agrees with the PN's policy in this area.
So I guess I won't need to vote AD to drive their green agenda. If what the PN has done so far is ok with them, then a vote for PN come March 8 suits me fine as well.
I tend to agree with Daniel P . Xuereb where the environment and planning should be two different entities.MEPA has grown into a monster which needs to be tamed .The fact that the MEPA auditor presented his report on the eve of an election ,only proves , if proof is needed , that the government is not pulling any strings in MEPA.The Mepa auditor was free to publish his report anytime he wanted to.
Sadly, Mr Caqnu seems to rule, and us poor(er) citizens have to endure his unaesthetic developmental bullying.
Not to mention the fact that this supermarket is being built right across the road from Skola San Benedittu, which will cause further congestion in a previously unperturbed piece of land.
This IS sad.
Now, he is backing calls for the introduction of a provision that would enable the revocation of a permit if it is issued against official policy. If this provision had been in place, a substantial amount of permits would be revoked, basically all the applications that are approved by the DCC in spite of a negative recommendation by the Directorate.
Though the need for such a provision has been felt for a long time, minister Pullicino has belatedly endorsed such a change. To be fair, I have never heard such a proposal being made by the Opposition and if I am not mistaken, the original Development Planning Act allowed for the revocation of a building permit until it was amended during the Sant government.
When people talk about reforming Mepa, they usually mean ensuring that there are fewer obstacles to the approval of permits. However, true reform entails less political interference in the workings of Mepa and structural changes that would give real standing to objectors, ensure speedy and effective appeal proceedings and the curtailment of arbitrary and inconsistent decisions. It is high time these objectives are spelt out in some detail and Mepa is allowed to discharge its mission in the manner originally envisaged.
Hopefully the permit will be revoked!... MEPA & the govenment need to understand that Malta is a pebble and our green areas are NUMBERED!!!!!
This proves why a coalition government is direly needed by this country.
To name some other achievements are the decision not to build a golf course in Ghajn Tuffieha, the decision to stop the villas being built in Ramla l-Hamra, the revelation of the MEPA auditor's report in Sant'Antnin.
A vote for Alternattiva Demokratika ensures that the most beautiful places in Malta remain there for the benefit of all Maltese citizens and coming generations. "With actions and NOT WORDS"
To think that elswhere in previous comments on this same website there were people who claimed that AD has never done anything tangible for the environment ! For AD this is just another achievment in a longer list, even though without a parliamentary representation.
Don't you think that we all should beef up AD a little bit more. They are our ONLY real shield against Emperor Polidano and his political apologists. Let our vote do its part.
Thanks AD. Thanks Harry and Co.