Mepa decisions

Peter Gingell, marketing executive, Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Floriana, accused me of delivering "a gratuitous opinion betraying emotion rather than knowledge of the planning system". (Architect's Resignation From Mepa, January 23).

Far from being what Mr Gingell calls a "gratuitous opinion", my assertion that the Catherine Galea application at Santa Maria Estate should never have been approved is based on the opinion of the case officer who recommended its refusal due to the number of regulations that this application infringed. The fact that the DCC saw fit to ignore the recommendation of the Mepa official, who is trained to apply these regulations, is highly questionable. It is for this reason that the issue of conflict of interest has been mentioned in relation to this case, as Ms Galea being the chairman of the same ODZ DCC board to which she submitted her application gives rise to most serious ethical concerns, in spite of what Mepa or the Ministry of the Environment may say.

Much as Mr Gingell would like to dismiss this inconvenient writer, the fact that the Maltese planning system is based on the British model, means that anyone who has worked within the system in the UK is far from ignorant in matters of Maltese planning or lack of it. However, it is typical of Mepa's arrogance to dismiss any dissenting voice as "emotional" or "hysterical" or, if all else fails, "nimby", as certain top Mepa officials can't stand any member of the public pointing out the truth.

This arrogance goes beyond Mr Gingell or Sylvana Debono's attitude, to Mepa's staged "public hearings". According to the 2005 Auditor's Annual Report, these so-called public hearings are preceded by a hearing just for the Mepa board, held behind closed doors, during which, it is reasonable to assume, decisions are taken. In his reply carried on the Mepa website, Andrew Calleja didn't even deny that this is done but claimed that it's a necessary part of the process! No wonder there is very little discussion during the second, public session! No wonder the board members always look so bored! So much for an educated verdict and public consultation!

It is clear to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of EU law, that this procedure renders any decision of the Mepa Board invalid and likely to be successfully challenged at law.