The Malta Environment Planning Authority this evening strongly denied claims of irregularities made earlier in the afternoon by the environment NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar.
The FAA had focused in particular on two houses, one on Windsor Terrace and another in Amery Street in Sliema for which, it said, permits for demolition or alteration were issued 'against Mepa policies'.
In a press conference FAA coordinator Astrid Vella said that at Windsor Terrace, MEPA had issued an outline development permit for the demolition of a house and its redevelopment into a block of flats, even though this house was set in the midst of seven old houses, with typical early post war architecture and Maltese balconies.
MEPA policy, Ms Vella insisted, laid down that when there were three such consecutive houses on a street, these should be conserved.
The Development Control Commission in question approved the application against the recommendations of the case officer, despite there being more houses and despite the area being a two-storey area.
Ms Vella added that the case of the house in Amery Street was potentially more serious in that both the heritage advisory committee and the board that approved part of its demolition recognised the architectural and heritage value of the property.
The board, however, had now approved the full development permit, which would allow the building of an additional floor on the property and demolish the house internally.
She said MEPA's boards remained riddled with such irregularities that went against the authority's own policies.
MEPA in its counter-statement said the FAA claims were "riddled with inaccuracies".
"Suffice to say that the decision taken on the Amery Street application respects height limitations and retains the house, which the Board considered to merit retention nearly in its entirety. Contrary to what was alleged, the house is not scheduled."
MEPA also pointed out that the allegations about the Windsor Terrace application, which was approved on 18 July 2006, had already been rebutted by the DCC commission C board members in a letter to the press at the time.
The Development Planning Act allowed boards to decide against the Directorate's recommendations, MEPA pointed out.
Furthermore, decisions taken in the two mentioned cases in Sliema were in accordance with set procedures.