When a financial figure is mentioned at the outset of an article, one may rest assured that the thrust of the rest of the argument is a eulogy to mammon and the devil take the hindmost. In this case, the hindmost are most normally the citizens and the small businesses. Several allegations were made by Alex Montanaro (January 13). I shall deal with these one by one.
Mr Montanaro accuses Mepa of delaying on his application when this was "... pretty straightforward". Mepa concludes straightforward applications within the 12 weeks prescribed by law. This is so in 90 per cent of the applications. The statement is also confusing as to date four applications were filed on the same site. Moreover, the applicant is seeking to construct a receded floor over the existing building in full knowledge of the fact that such a request exceeds the height limitation of the area. Is there a suggestions that a Lm1 million investment may supersede regulations and subvert all the studies and preparations for the local plans?
Next, the allegation "... despite the time you lost awaiting the first building permit from Mepa". The developer had two applications preceding the current ones. PA 3329/01 was validated on July 13, 2001 and the permit issued on August 30, 2001. This is half the time prescribed by law within which Mepa is due to give an answer.
A second application, PA 6558/01, was validated on January 24, 2002 and a permit issued on January 2, 2003. During this period a number of requests for fresh plans were made to comply with existing policies. The "time lost waiting" was in reality Mepa repeatedly (eight times) requesting plans/information to comply with existing planning policy. One must point out that all this takes up time and has a real wage cost.
At some point, the developer maintains that "... it becomes necessary... to make simple modifications" to the approved plans. In reality two planning applications were submitted. If the applications were limited to "simple modifications" they would have qualified as minor amendments, a procedure adopted by Mepa in 1998 to deal with minor amendments to permission and approved plans such as a shifting of an internal wall.
The first one proposed the construction of a receded floor and effect minor internal alterations (PA 2418/04) and was filed on May 13, 2004. The second one, PA 3266/04, was filed on July 27, 2004, proposing to change the use of two floors from a language school to a retail outlet and effect internal alterations.
These in no way qualify as minor alterations.
Mr Montanaro says that "it takes months for Mepa to process your application". This is certainly not the direct experience of the author in the case of the application submitted with the correct information. That application, as stated previously, took just six weeks to finalise.
PA 2418/04 was filed with a speculative request for a receded floor, in full knowledge that this could not be acceded to since it rises above the current height limitation of the locality (Mosta - three floors). It is in the interest of the future development of the area to await the outcome of the local plan to avoid jeopardising the implementation of the policies it advocates rather than consider applications in a piecemeal manner. A refusal is therefore being indicated by the directorate in the interests of the future of the locality.
Prior to taking a decision on the case, the development control commission requested the Planning Directorate to compile a report verifying any commitments of a receded floor that exist along the stretch of road. As Constitution Street, Mosta is one kilometre long, therefore having two kilometres of building, a reasonable boundary was delineated. The findings did not identify any receded floor covered by planning permission in the immediate vicinity. The application is currently pending a decision and no further comment may ethically be made.
With regard to PA 3266/04, the delay implied by the applicant was a priori instigated by the submission of incomplete information. On receipt of the correct submission of the plans, the directorate immediately consulted external bodies as required by both the Development Planning Act and the Equal Opportunities Act. On their part, the National Commission for Persons with Disability twice found fault with two sets of proposals since they failed to conform with their standards and guidelines. To date, Mepa is still awaiting fresh proposals from the applicant, in conformity with Access for All guidelines.
The comment that "... even an internal wall you have to construct..." requires permission actually refers to a not so small amendment as it is actually the displacement of the secondary stairwell for the entire building. However, had this been the only amendment it would still have qualified under the section pertaining to minor amendments. Mepa reiterates: the construction of a receded floor and a request for change of use are not minor matters.
Finally, the claim made by the applicant that buildings in the vicinity have permits for four floors. The report compiled by the directorate noted no buildings in the immediate vicinity covered by planning permission for a receded floor. In any case claims of other development in the surrounding area, whether they be legal or illegal, is immaterial. This can never be used as an argument to justify an additional floor.
In conclusion, no matter how many requests for meetings with holders of public office are made, the application can only be decided respecting current planning policies.