Need to substantiate allegations

Mr Alan Deidun's article (The Sunday Times, February 20) in reply to my letter the previous week may be divided into three parts. In the first part he "concedes that not all architects are cut from the same cloth" (which is precisely why my letter was penned), even though he immediately falls back into tarring with a broad brush by alluding to "a circle of architects whose names are connected with sanctionings and ODZ applications".

In the third part he "appreciates... endorsement of my efforts to curb ODZ and illegal development" (the endorsement still stands). The second part is what he refers to as "letting off of so much steam" at what he perceived as my branding of his claims as frivolous.

I'm afraid that the steam was let off in the wrong direction as it missed the point completely. My letter stated, and I quote: "the Chamber will take responsible action against any behaviour by architects which goes against the proper practice of the profession or the interest of the community. It however demands that the claim is not frivolous and that the claimant can produce verifiable evidence of misdemeanour."

It is not "my efforts" as he calls them which are frivolous but an unsubstantiated complaint of misdemeanour directed at an individual practitioner which would be considered as such. Mr Deidun's articles, however well meant they may be, so far only contain allegations which merely serve to put the whole of the profession in a bad light and that is why the letter was written.

On the matter of ODZ applications, nowhere in the Structure Plan or related documents is there a blanket prohibition on ODZ applications. On the contrary, the planning system provides for certain types of development in ODZ sites, and one of the DCC Boards deals specifically with applications on ODZ sites.

Suppose that, instead of the application on the Dingli barracks site that he quotes, there was an application for the setting up of an observatory, would that not also be an application for development ODZ? Or suppose that the hide at the bird sanctuary at Ghadira needed modification, wouldn't that also entail another application ODZ?

With the kind of prohibition Mr Deidun envisages, there would be no camping site, no rural structures (a revised policy for agricultural buildings and stables has just been issued for public consultation by MEPA), and Hagar Qim would not be able to have a protective structure to preserve it.

As to the behaviour of DCC members, all MEPA board members are bound by a code of ethics. Those who are architects moreover, also have their professional code of ethics to observe.

Again, rather than make gratuitous assertions, Mr Deidun should investigate the cases he quotes in more detail and should raise sustainable claims in the appropriate quarters before rushing to print.