Mepa's audit officer calls on officials to resign

A report by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's audit officer accuses one of the authority's Development Control Commissions (DCC) of having wrongly approved the building of a six-storey apartment block in Sliema and says that its members should resign in such cases.

The report was drawn up by Joe Falzon after the environmental NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) filed a complaint about the approval of a development consisting of a six-storey apartment block plus garages in Windsor Terrace Street, Sliema, in an urban conservation area.

The DCC, division C, approved the application on July 18, 2006 but only after two previous refusals, one by the same board a year earlier and by the Planning Directorate.

The authority's Heritage Advisory Committee had commented negatively on the project when consulted as part of the original application process. It had pointed out that the area was protected and that the house which the apartments were to replace formed part of a row of houses which, "in their present context", had a prestigious and authentic aesthetic.

The development application report recommended a refusal claiming, among other things, that the proposal would "disrupt the scale and rhythm of the streetscape and badly affect the urban environment".

The DCC division C turned down the application on March 7, 2005. The Planning Directorate re-assessed and refused the application for the second time after the developer lodged an appeal.

A second appeal was lodged. This time, the same DCC chose to inspect the site. "The house is the third in a row of seven traditional houses, all in a good condition...," the DCC noted. "On the back of the site there is a commitment (from Tower Road) on six floors, as well as to the side of the site (next corner and five sites to the right)".

The DCC approved the application on July 18, 2006 on grounds that the existing façade would be retained (except for garage access), there were other buildings of similar height in the area, and because it would cover the eyesore of a building behind it.

The auditor noted that the same board changed its mind just over a year after it had refused the application, without, however, addressing the reasons for which it had turned down the application in the first place.

What is more, the local plan approved only last August set a height limit of two storeys for the area.

"The DCC knew well enough that the local plan for the area was due to be published shortly (within days!). Yet, they did not take the precaution to consult the finalised local plan so that by their action they will not compromise its provisions," he said.

Mepa was now committed to issue a permit for six floors and there was nothing that could be done about it, Mr Falzon added.

"This is an extremely serious case...," he continued. "The DCC division C should shoulder the responsibility".

The auditor said there had been several other instances in the past when the audit office censured the different divisions of the DCC relative to decisions taken.

"It seems the appointed members of the Mepa board/development control commissions are reluctant to face facts, shoulder their responsibilities, and in such cases submit their resignation."

When contacted, FAA spokesman Astrid Vella said the NGO would be preparing a formal response to the report, adding however that the NGO now expected action to be taken.

"This is an evident case of residents being denied environmental justice. The audit office has stated that it seems that appointed members of the Mepa board/development control commissions are reluctant to face facts, shoulder their responsibilities, and in such cases submit their resignation. We would like to know whether Mepa intends to act upon these recommendations and, if not, the public has a right to know why."

She added: "If the DCC members had been so negligent in applying Mepa regulations, what is George Pullicino, as minister responsible for Mepa, going to do about these repeated bad judgements by the DCC boards?"

A Mepa spokesman said when contacted that contrary to what the audit officer states in his report, the outline development permit actually allows for four floors and a penthouse, and not six floors and a penthouse.

The permit further emphasises that no balcony projection will be permitted beyond the cornice line above the first floor, Mepa said.

Additional floors have been designed to respect the characteristics of an urban conservation area and no projecting rooms will be permitted.

The issue of internal planning, including any demolition, is kept a reserved matter in the permit and will be judged when the full development permit application is submitted. This too should have been noted by the audit officer, the Mepa spokesman added.

The permit also states that should internal demolition be permitted, the excavation of the basement should be adequately set back from the façade so as to ensure its stability. Before taking a decision at reconsideration, the DCC board decided that a site inspection was necessary. During the site inspection the DCC noted that various sites in the area around the proposed development were committed with permits for six floors, the spokesman said.

"It is clear that the DCC shouldered its responsibility in taking the appropriate decision in a fair, reasonable and just manner."

Environment Minister George Pullicino told The Times that the auditor was incorrect to state that six floors and a penthouse will be developed. He was also incorrect in concluding that the board's decision on the outline application included internal demolition.

The minister said that during a meeting with DCC board members held after the approval of the remaining local plans, he emphasised the need for all decisions to be justified in the context of all relevant policies and taking into account the specific characteristics of a site. The minister pointed out that DCC board members are subject to public scrutiny.