Mepa called upon to observe its own rules

A number of persons owning bungalows at Santa Maria Estate, in Mellieha yesterday filed a judicial protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court calling upon the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to observe its own laws and regulations.

The protest was filed against Mepa by Winston and Karen Azzopardi, Charles and Antonia Dalli, Silvio and Antonia Debono, Yvette Chetcuti and St Catherine's Co Ltd.

The owners said their bungalows were adjacent to the land known as Tas-Sellum. This land was to date a white area in terms of the Building Area Temporary Provision schemes approved by the House of Representatives in 1998. As such, any development in this area was to be considered on its own merits in accordance with need and in the light of the particular environment. No permit for development could therefore be issued without detailed scrutiny.

In January 1995 an outline permit was issued for the construction of a 174-room hotel on this land with a height limitation of three storeys above existing levels. The DCC meeting held prior to the approval had emphasised that the development could not exceed this height limitation.

However the owners claimed that in October 2003 Mepa had approved a change in the outline permit whereby 13 purely residential blocks, constructed on an area of 6,472 square metres and consisting in 117 residential units, could be built in three phases.

This permit, the owners said, exceeded the terms of the original permit. Mepa had also approved the construction of five blocks of 36 apartments and 10 duplex units for the first phase of the project.

The owners added that Mepa had received an application for the development of the second and third phases of this project, which application was not acceptable to the owners as they claimed it could damage their property and was in violation of the structure plan and the north west local plan. They added that as this had not been brought to the notice of Mepa's members before the approval of the first phase, the owners feared that the directorate would once again not mention that this application was in violation of the local plan for this area.

Various judgments of the Planning Appeals Board had established that no development could be approved if it compromised the issue of a local plan. The owners added that the local plan for the Tas-Sellum site established that development could not exceed 40 per cent of the total site and that the development had to be sensitively located. Furthermore, in terms of the local plan, the proposed development could not overlook the bungalow area of Santa Maria Estate and it was to be based on existing levels and not on the highest site levels. The owners added that the plan established that the development could not exceed 12 metres at all levels and had to be terraced and reduced on the portion of the site adjacent to the bungalows.

None of these points had been included in the report submitted to Mepa's board by the directorate and the owners submitted that the proposed development violated all the contents of the proposed local plan for Tas-Sellum. The proposed development was to cover 45 per cent of the site and it would jar with the adjacent bungalow area. The owners added that the proposed construction would be sited only four metres away from their bungalows and could not be classified as sensitively located. The height limitation on the proposed development was to be calculated from the highest point on the site.

The owners added that although the final development permit had not yet been issued, Mepa had authorised the developer to excavate the site, even though the outline development permit stipulated that no development could take place until the full development permit was approved.

Mepa had told the owners that the authorisation had been issued as it resulted that the land in question was clay and sliding. However, the owners submitted that this was common knowledge and the excavation was not necessary. Mepa had in effect committed the site for development before deciding upon the applications for the second and third phases of the development.

No mention had been made by Mepa of two legal notices that prohibited the removal of rubble walls and which protected carob trees. It was therefore absurd that Mepa was entrusted with the protection of the environment and the enforcement of these regulations.

The owners submitted in their protest that they expected Mepa to ensure that the development respected the contents of the north west local plan and planning regulations.

They concluded by calling upon Mepa to observe the laws, regulations and decisions it had issued when considering the application for the second and third phases of the development. Mepa was also called upon to ensure that the correct legal position was included in the report prepared by its directorate on this application and to establish why the facts had not been given to the individual members of the Planning Board in the report on the first phase.

Mepa was also called upon to investigate whether the regulations protecting rubble walls and carob trees had been observed.

Dr Franco Vassallo and Dr Norval Desira signed the protest.