MEPA's public relations officer (The Sunday Times, December 11) does not deny any one of the specific abuses I quoted in my letter to Pamela Hansen (December 4). I do not deny the right of an abusive developer to "his democratic right of a full course of law".

What I object to is MEPA conniving with the abusing developer to make a mockery of the law with deliberate procrastination in deciding quasi-identical applications while refraining from taking meaningful, direct action against proven non-compliance with the regulations over 12 years.

I object when MEPA follows up its delaying tactics by formulating new regulations so that what had been illegal in 12 years suddenly becomes legal. The PRO ignores MEPA's role in this developer's success in obtaining a permit for a public service garage at a time when MEPA had placed the offending garage under a Stop & Enforcement notice and when it had insisted that the garage would not be put into use before it issued a full compliance certificate.

I object to being lectured about MEPA's commitment to abide by the decisions of the Appeals Board when I had just given proof that MEPA never showed any interest to ensure that the abusive developer was actually complying with the decision of the Appeals Board, within the stipulated six months.

These conditions have not been fully complied with up to now after two and a half years, and after being brought to the notice of the MEPA audit office. These are very solid grounds on which to acquire a forma mentis that MEPA favours the moneyed abusive developer at the expense of the ordinary citizen and his concern to preserve his residential environment.

MEPA's support for this particular abusive developer is very deep-rooted. He was evidently dissatisfied with the concessions which the independent Appeals Board was about to approve. It was a secretary from MEPA itself who had the gall to intervene on his behalf, trying to persuade us to close our eyes to his proposed infringements of the regulations. Try to reconcile that with the claim that MEPA abides by the Appeals Board decisions!

I am also fully aware of the much touted independence of the Appeals Board from MEPA. However, I am unable to reconcile this independence with the proven fact that the MEPA secretary had prior knowledge of the Appeals Board decision.

There are two options: first that these two bodies are not as independent as it is claimed or, secondly, MEPA was turning the proceedings before the Appeals Board into a sham. In fact, behind the scenes, MEPA had already decided not to support the decision of its own Development Control Commission. During the procedures before the Appeals Board, the MEPA representatives remained ominously silent and we, the abused residents, were silenced.

MEPA's public relations officer attempts to justify these abuses on the ridiculous pretext that a neighbour was seeking space to store his boat during the winter. Evidently she does not know that this enormous garage is but one of a conglomeration of abusive garages - two of them actually on public property.

Is she so gullible to believe that all these abuses are being committed to afford winter accommodation for a single boat? Are not the abused residents justified to conclude that in the eyes of MEPA the greed of an abusive developer prevails over the protection of the environment in their residential area?

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Support Us