A good summary of current MEPA practices.

From the Times of 30th June, 2009,

Letter from Alfred E. Baldacchino, Attard.

Lack of checks and balances at Mepa

Edward A. Mallia and Marco Cremona made a number of comments and suggestions regarding Mepa's reform (June 26).

A lot is being expected out of this promised reform; expectations from all strata of society whose one and only interest is the protection of the ever dwindling national and natural heritage, both rapidly disappearing.

Mepa is an authority formed of two directorates: the Planning Directorate and the Environment Protection Directorate, which, as has been officially declared, are two different and distinct directorates within one authority, contributing to one decision, taking into account planning and environment protection.

Mepa has a healthy percentage of scarce, motivated and dedicated, academically qualified personnel, who very well know both the national and international obligations of their authority. The crux of the problem are Mepa's boards and committees who take final decisions, and who lag far behind such technical and academic expertise. Very often they tend to by-pass or completely ignore the recommendations of the technical staff, which recommendations sometimes are far above the boards' and committees' grasp. Judging from the number of permits which were publicly scrutinised and criticised, these were all recommended for refusal by the technical staff, but overturned and approved by the Mepa boards or committees. Such permits, among others, include:

The Xagħra l-Ħamra golf course application;

The Ramla l-Ħamra, Gozo, development;

The Safi application for the building of a supermarket;

The Mistra valley disco;

The Baħrija villa development;

The Nadur cemetery in Gozo;

A number of high-rises in Sliema.

When the recommendations of the technical staff are blatantly dismissed and reversed, resulting in such a waste of resources and energy, one must indeed ask what the role of the technical staff is, and the role of the board and committees. In the past when the EPD was still a government department, it had a representative on the Mepa board, who also had a vote. Today with the EPD as part of Mepa, the EPD director is just a spectator, hands tied, without a vote. In some of the above cases, following a public outcry, the political side had to intervene and back-track on such decisions, without any action being taken as if nothing happened, meaning that if it was not for the public and some of the NGOs, the development would still have taken place.

One has also to keep in mind, that besides the lack of technical and academic background of some of the board and committee members, there are some with known political leanings whose only qualification is the extension of their master's voice. It is pertinent to point out that on the Mepa board and most committees, if not all, there is not a single member with environmental credentials. When such technical recommendations are ignored or reversed, it becomes a political decision, and it is not any more a technical one. One cannot but seriously ask if Mepa is just a smoke screen for political decisions. If it is true that there is going to be a reform of this unbridled authority decision-making-machinery, the above has to be the main issue addressed.

Another convenient loophole is the issue of appeals. It is true that on paper, the public can appeal, but it is also true that until the appeal is concluded the applicant can carry on with his works. One can mention the appeal that was lodged against the pulling down of a particular historic building, and the building of the Nadur cemetery in Gozo. The construction of both projects carried on regardless, to finalisation in one case, and the appeals were, or still are being deliberated. If the public is not to be taken for a ride, as soon as an appeal is lodged against projects which leave irreversible damage, the works should be immediately stopped until the appeal is concluded.

Without a doubt, the EPD and the PA are not bedfellows at all, and do not see eye to eye. Checks and balances cannot be met and executed. And when a decision is taken by the Mepa board and committees, the EPD is dragged into the decision as if it has approved the project, irrespective of whether it objected or refused. This is very convenient to the Mepa's decision-making-machinery, who would otherwise have to shoulder all the accountability (if such a terminology exists within the Mepa's vocabulary) on their own.

One of the best measures to be taken for Mepa's reform is to completely separate the two directorates once again as was originally planned before the merger of the two became a takeover by the one. Naturally this can be done if the reform is to really benefit the public and the national interest.

From the Times online, Sunday, 28th June 2009

NGOs slam architect, demand investigations

A number of environmental groups have slammed Siggiewi mayor Robert Musumeci for his request to the police to investigate environmentalist Astrid Vella.

The NGOs BirdLife Malta, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar, Friends of the Earth Malta, Gaia Foundation, Nature Trust Malta and the Ramblers Association said the authorities should investigate the notorious planning applications from the mayor's district that went against planning policies and were approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority boards, and not environmental campaigners who brought these cases to the public's attention.

Mr Musumeci is the architect behind a controversial project in Bahrija valley belonging to Nationalist Party president Victor Scerri. Besides his request to the police about Ms Vella over a comment submitted on timesofmalta.com, he has also filed a libel suit.

The NGOs said that in 2005, Mr Musumeci had 23 planning applications most of which were outside development zones in Siġġiewi.

These were recommended for refusal by Mepa planning officers but were approved by different boards within the authority. There were other cases since.

"This means that Mepa boards approved planning applications that were against theauthority’s own policies," the NGOs charged.

The NGOs asked if the authorities had initiated investigations about Mr Musumeci’s private business activities during his mayorship.

“Mr. Mussumeci should set an example as a mayor and is obliged to adhere to a strict code of ethics as established by the Local Councils Act.

"Instead he seems to be using technicalities to replace ethical considerations on environment, and deploying bullying tactics to silence environmental campaigners” they concluded.

NGOs slam Siġġiewi Mayor and demand investigations

Press Release 28 June 2009

The environmental NGOs BirdLife Malta, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar, Friends of the Earth Malta, Gaia Foundation, Nature Trust Malta and the Ramblers Association today slammed the Siggiewi Mayor Perit Musumeci for his request for the police to investigate FAA Coordinator Astrid Vella.

The NGOs stated that the authorities should investigate the notorious planning applications from the Mayor's district that went against the MEPA policies and were approved by MEPA boards, and not environmental campaigners who brought these cases to the public's attention.

The NGOs drew attention to the fact that in 2005 alone Mr. Musumeci, who is an architect and the Siġġiewi mayor, had 23 planning applications, most of which were outside development zones in Siġġiewi, that were recommended for refusal by MEPA planning officers but were approved by different boards within the authority. There were also several other similar cases since 2005. This means that MEPA boards approved planning applications that were against the Authority’s own policies, the NGOs charged.

The NGOs asked if the authorities have initiated investigations about Mr. Musumeci’s private business activities during the period he has been the Mayor of Siġġiewi.

“Mr. Mussumeci should set an example as a mayor and is obliged to adhere to a strict code of ethics as established by the Local Councils Act. Instead he seems to be using technicalities to replace ethical considerations on environment, and deploying bullying tactics to silence environmental campaigners” NGOs concluded.

Wied is-Sewda walk Sat 27th June 2009

For today’s walk, 30 ramblers woke up early, in time for the 5am start. We headed towards Wied is-Sewda, crossed the same valley and reached Mriehel. After walking along the aqueduct built by Granmaster Wignacourt, we passed by the Attard cemetery, descended again towards the valley, and continued upstream till we reached Wied Incita.

Here we had a rest, but it was quite short since it started drizzling quite a bi t… and started rambling again towards the outskirts of Zebbug, passing through secondary roads till we reached Tal-Hlas Chapel. After another short break, we headed towards our starting point, passing by Stagno Palace in Qormi.

Walk Leader: Simon
Duration: 3hours 15 min (0500-0815)
Distance: 12.5 km

Some pictures below, courtesy of Marcel Pisani.

Statue of Our Lady

Tal-Hlas Chapel – the façade

The portico with benches & tables for pilgrims

Bahrija case - Set for a foregone conclusion

From the Times ofFriday, 26th June 2009

Set for a foregone conclusion

Alex Vella

Any law-abiding citizen with some sensitivity to the environment was disillusioned, depressed and saddened by the Prime Minister's answers to the questions put to him by The Sunday Times regarding the Baħrija case in the interview carried last week.

It is clear that Lawrence Gonzi is all set to accept an "all legal" answer by the Mepa investigators to give Victor Scerri the go-ahead for the spoliation of this splendid valley in spite of its level one protection status. Why? Because it is legal: "Apparently the permit is validly issued... This is a permit that was issued in 2000, nine years ago... I am trying to get Mepa to respond to the realities of today and for the future. We have an economic situation..."

For Heaven's sake, what does the economic situation have to do with this? How can Dr Gonzi even talk of the realities of today and the future and forget that this valley is going to be lost forever?

What seems to matter to Dr Gonzi is the law, only the law. If Dr Scerri has broken the law, Dr Gonzi will ask for the withdrawal of the permit and will ask the Nationalist Party president to resign. The big talk on the necessity of being sensitive to the environment, that ODZs will be tenaciously protected vanish into insignificance in contrast with the almightiness of the law.

Does it need to be said that legal systems everywhere are rife with loopholes, easy prey to the sly and wily. Facta lex inventa fraus, as the Romans discovered 2,000 years ago. Is the Prime Minister now intimating that this development is to be condoned if it is legal?

Should we admire Robert Musumeci because he is "consistently successful with applications with Mepa, despite there being a refusal by the case officer" and that "defending applications till the very end is precisely what my profession entails?"

Should we hold Mr Musumeci in high esteem because, with his "expertise and knowledge of planning procedures", he almost always persuades the DCC board to overturn the numerous valid objections of the case officers?

Does the Prime Minister expect us instead to denounce the case officers for their lack of knowledge of the law and reject their valid arguments conforming to the structure and local plans?

Should we shame them because in the Baħrija application they found the proposal so "objectionable in principle" that they felt no need to communicate with Mr Musumeci because the issues involved "cannot be addressed through revised drawings"?

If Mr Musumeci, with his expertise, managed to somehow avoid breaking the "body" of the law, the "spirit" of the law was manifestly mocked to such an extent that even the Directorate of Mepa remarked: "This is unacceptable as the safeguards that seek to protect the environment against urban sprawl are being bypassed through a succession of piecemeal applications resulting in a development that is by far in excess of the originally envisaged 'reconstruction of existing structures with very minor alteration to facilitate use'". Is this not tantamount to an accusation of irregularity (if not illegality)?

By what stretch of the imagination can this case be considered legally regular when the outline development permit for it was issued in the year 2000 "to reconstruct the existing structures with very minor alterations to facilitate use" and end up, eight years later, with a fully-fledged development for which no justification was given as required by the Structure Plan policies?

It was no whim that three NGOs called for the Prime Minister's direct intervention in this case and were backed by the more important environmental NGOs. They did it precisely because the case highlights the widely-known deficiencies within the Mepa structure that nobody can address. It is sheer nonsense that the directorate, with its corpus of case officers, experts on the intricacies of the policies of the Structure Plan, can be overruled by the DCC board, mainly composed of part-time government appointees.

That the Police Commissioner or Mepa itself should take up Dr Scerri's challenge to investigate whether he exerted any pressure is a waste of time and money. Everybody knows why. The Prime Minister knows this. But only he can put a stop to a damaging foregone conclusion. Yet, the early signs are that the way is being prepared for another deadly blow.

Still, the NGOs are neither crestfallen nor disheartened. They have a good case and an admirable cause and will pursue it to the end. If needs be, take it to the EU. It is high time the government stops paying lip-service to the NGOs and the interested public and starts listening carefully to the environment's present and future needs. The sensitivity here is still sorely lacking.

Fomm ir-Rih Update

This results from the meetings between RAM and PS Jason Azzopardi, the last one on 16th June 2009. From the Malta Independent on Sunday 21st June 2009 Fomm ir-Rih and coastal areas to be rendered accessible’ – PS Jason Azzopardi

by ANNALIZA BORG The lawyer of the Lands Department and the Bahrija Trust’s legal representative are to meet on 1 July to “amicably” discuss access to Fomm ir-Rih Bay, which to date cannot be enjoyed by the public because a path leading to the beach has been blocked. Speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Lands, Jason Azzopardi, said that the land in question was definitely private. However, a dispute on who is supposed to remove obstacles from the path is currently going on. Dr Azzopardi pointed out that the Government Property Division has left no stone unturned and hopes that good sense will prevail. In fact, GPD officials looked up records dating back 1715 in order to identify the owner of the land in question. The case has been going on since last summer when the Ramblers Association of Malta lodged complaints and held protests that public access to Fomm ir-Rih Bay was denied. GPD carried out a complicated research process, which went on till April, and found out that the Bahrija Trust, administered by BOV, was in charge of the matter. The department thus sent a letter calling for them to clear the path. However, no reply was given. In May, GPD filed a judicial letter and the Bahrija Trust said in reply some two or three weeks ago, that they had agreed to meet and discuss the matter. Following the 1 July meeting, parties hope to reach agreement on how to restore the path leading to Fomm ir-Rih Bay. However, if no agreement is reached, the government might take action against the different parties involved with the ultimate aim of making the area fully accessible to the public. The Fomm ir-Rih case is not an isolated one because in September last year, Dr Azzopardi received complaints of an alleged illegal development close to Gnejna. Thus, the GPD decided to register a vast stretch of land between Gnejna and Bahrija since title of land was not clear. The stretch included foreshore and coastal areas. In October, GPD started to receive cautions that substantial parts of the land were owned by the private sector. Individuals produced records and wills showing ownership of land, some even dating back to 1695, a century after the Great Siege. Dr Azzopardi thus asked for specific legal advice on the way forward since after a tedious process of record verification, wills and claims seemed valid. Only last week, the government was advised to return the privately owned land but not the foreshore. Dr Azzopardi himself feels very strongly that the foreshore or coastal areas should remain government property and therefore accessible for public enjoyment, even though a particular individual has claimed that some of the foreshore belongs to his family. Further details will be published in an interview with Parliamentary Secretary for Revenues and Lands, Jason Azzopardi in tomorrow’s issue of The Malta Independent

Bahrija Valley Ruin 20 June 2009

NGOs welcome halt to Bahrija Development

by di-ve.com - editorial@di-ve.com
Local News -- 20 June 2009 -- 14:25CEST

The excavation for the 2-storey rustic house to replace 3 tool-rooms that is thought to be in excess of the excavation footprint permitted by MEPA, leading MEPA to stop the works pending investigations

Ramblers, Flimkien ghal-Ambjent Ahjar, NatureTrust and MOAM welcome the news that development on the Bahrija valley site has halted as investigations into the granting of the controversial permit take their course.

Reacting to remarks made by PN president Victo Scerri, the NGOs said that at no time was any reference made to the permit being issued after the election. It was other permits that were mentioned as being granted recently, referring to areas Outside Development Zone such as Wied il-Ghasel, contrary to Dr Scerri's impression that he had been singled out for attention.

"The NGOs have no interest in attacking any individual but choose rather to focus on the Development Control Commission which approves permits recommended for refusal by the Case Officer. The NGOs will also continue to challenge architects who specialise in obtaining dubious permits, regardless of which side they sit in Parliament," they added.

FAA, Ramblers and Nature Trust said that they are not against agricultural, infrastructural or other bona-fide development in the countryside which respects planned policy and environmental constraints as well as honouring European and international obligations.

The NGOs reiterated their positive response to the suspension of works and trust that a thorough investigation will be carried out by the MEPA Auditor whose role it is to investigate such cases and who enjoys the trust of all. They furthermore call on MEPA to handle this matter speedily so that justice will be done to all parties.