Developers call on Mepa auditor to withdraw report

The owners of a restaurant in Qala have filed a judicial protest against the planning authority's auditor calling on him to publicly withdraw a report that criticised the conversion of their establishment into apartments.

Joseph and Kevin Xerri, owners of Xerri l-Bukett restaurant in Gozo, said Joseph Falzon had overstepped the powers granted to him by law when he investigated a case that was still pending before the Malta Environment and Planning Authority appeals board.

In November, Mr Falzon had lashed out at a development board for the way it had interpreted planning law to issue a permit for an "insensitive development", allowing a restaurant which overlooks the picturesque Mġarr harbour to be converted into apartments.

But in the protest, filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, the Xerri brothers said the investigation should have never taken place because there was a pending appeal on the case.

After the Xerri brothers changed the original plans following a number of issues raised by the authority and objectors, the planning board approved the development. But soon after, in 2009, the objectors took the case before the appeals board.

However, in the meantime, a number of environmental groups, including The Ramblers Association, Nature Trust, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, BirdLife Malta and Friends of the Earth, asked Mr Falzon to investigate the case.

In his report, Mr Falzon said the people who drew up the local plan for the area had shown a lack of sensitivity in zoning the site for such development.

The planning authority had reacted sharply, pointing out that Mr Falzon had been warned by the Ombudsman - a higher authority - not to investigate planning cases that were being appealed.

Following this public criticism, Mr Falzon even considered resigning, saying he could no longer work in a "hostile" environment. However, he had changed his mind and stayed on.

But in their judicial protest, the Xerri brothers said Mr Falzon insisted on this point, stressing that the auditor had wrongly prejudged the case when he investigated the matter despite a pending appeal.

They said that in so doing, Mr Falzon had hindered the appeal process, compromising their position, and accused him of having overstepped his remit.

They referred to the planning authority website that specified that complaints could not be investigated if a case was pending before the appeals board.

Finally, they called on Mr Falzon to withdraw his report and publicly declare it null, holding him personally responsible for all damages.

Lawyer Malcolm Mifsud filed the protest.