Objections to development applications

The efforts by Mepa's public relations officer to explain what should happen, in theory, when a citizen objects to a development application does not refute anything which I had stated in my previous letter.

She is not quite correct when she claims that objectors are given the right to participate during the applications stage. That is absolutely not true for the first hearing. In our case, during that first sitting, the Development Control Commission had actually refused the application and there was no appeal from that refusal at any stage. As a result, the registered objectors were taken completely by surprise when, at a later stage, an identical proposal, this time unopposed by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, was raised before the Planning Appeals Board.

At this stage we were completely muzzled and we could only pray and hope that the Mepa representatives would act consistently with the previously announced decision of the DCC against the development application and in favour of the residential environment.

Mepa's PRO is absolutely incorrect when she claims that the Planning Appeals Board provides the "citizen" with redress from decisions taken by Mepa.

The PAB is providing redress only to the abusive developers, their architects and their lawyers. Those other citizens who fall under the category of registered objectors are barely tolerated to be present; they may just as well not exist at all. As to the much vaunted autonomy and independence of the Planning Appeals Board, I draw attention to the decision by the Constitutional Court that this has still to be demonstrated in a court of law.

These qualities were not evident during our case. We have amply reported that, even before the Planning Appeals Board came to a decision, a prophetic Mepa board secretary had approached us and predicted that the PAB would be approving the enlargement of the garage doors which the Development Control Commission had previously refused.

To add insult to injury, he even tried to convince us to turn a blind eye to the intended enlargement of the garage doors even beyond those which he prophesied that the "independent and autonomous PAB" would be approving later!