Objecting to developments

The version (May 24) of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's public relations officer of the theoretical procedure when a citizen objects to a development is very different from our experience. We challenge her statement that objectors are given the right to participate during the applications stage. Registered objectors are not even allowed to be present during the all-important first hearing.

In our own particular case that first sitting was also the last one because during that first sitting Mepa's Development Control Commission had actually refused the development application (2591/02) and there were no subsequent hearings because the refusal was not appealed. Imagine our surprise when this identical application resurfaced before the Planning Appeals Board in the guise of a "proposal" from an unidentified source. Mepa's PRO must admit that before the Appeals Board the registered objectors are reduced to the humiliating role of impotent and muzzled spectators.

We found ourselves debarred from making any representations during all the stages of this application, both before the Development Control Commission and before the Planning Appeals Board! We were placed at the mercy of the Mepa representatives and had to rely on them to defend the rejection of this application by their own DCC and from which the abusive developer had decided not to appeal! They did nothing of the sort! When we protested at this lack of interest we were haughtily informed that they were there to represent Mepa not the objectors!

Mepa's PRO is very misleading when she states that the Planning Appeals Board provides the "citizen" with redress from decisions taken by Mepa. The PAB provides redress not to all the citizens but rather to a small section of unscrupulous developers who make a habit of collecting stop and enforcement notices. The much greater number of aggrieved citizens who report building abuses to Mepa are denied all rights of redress where the Planning Appeals Board is concerned. They are barely tolerated to be present as impotent, muzzled, observers of the shenanigans between the abusive developers, their architects and Mepa. They might just as well not be there at all.

As for 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 of independence and autonomy were not much in evidence in our case. When the Planning Appeals Board was still deliberating, a prophetic Mepa board secretary had already approached us and predicted that the PAB would be approving the enlargement notwithstanding the fact that Mepa's Development Control Commission itself had already refused it and even though the abusive developer had not appealed that decision!

To add insult to injury he even tried to persuade us to turn a blind eye when this unscrupulous developer would later enlarge the garage doors even beyond the size which he prophesied accurately would be approved later by the "autonomous and independent" Planning Appeals Board.