Demonising Mepa

On reading Astrid Vella's article of November 5 (Of Nimbyists And Mud-Slinging), one would be forgiven for thinking that demonising the Malta Environment and Planning Authority was the author's aim. This is borne out by the multitude of issues and cases the article espouses as Gospel truth. No shadow of doubt as to who is right and who is wrong in the cases mentioned by Ms Vella.

With regard to the cases of the Hamrun shelters and the illegal excavations in Mark Causon's house in Rabat, little remains to be said. Mepa stands by what it has said. Ms Vella would do well, before rushing into the fray, to check Mepa's website for the following information:

On the Hamrun shelters case:

¤ the enforcement notice issued for the illegal removal of a timber balcony in Triq il-Kbira, Hamrun by the same persons accusing Mepa of laissez faire;

¤ the subsequent recent application by the perpetrators to regularise their position.

On the Rabat case:

¤ to verify from the website that the enforcement notice 718/03 and subsequent application to regularise the illegalities, PA 7378/03, are on the same site.

¤ that the description of works to be carried out in the application confirm that an illegality was committed on site.

¤ that the applicant and owner of the site is Mark Causon.

Who is slinging mud here? Is a simple statement of facts easily available and verifiable by all on website a crime?

As for the so-called recent attack on architect Martin DeBono, Mepa would like to categorically state that, from its end, there is no pending complaint, official or unofficial, with the Chamber of Architects, against Mr DeBono. What is true is that during April, in a series of morning programmes on Super One Radio, he made a number of accusations and allegations of corruption directed at Mepa personnel which included various architects in the authority. After receiving a number of complaints from the staff and their representatives, Mepa assessed its position with the aim of protecting its good name and that of its staff.

The authority decided to forward transcripts of the programmes, together with its own analysis, to the Chamber of Architects for its information. This was followed up through a meeting at the authority with Mr Debono. It was clarified that, from its end Mepa would not be following up the case with the Chamber of Architects.

So perhaps, after all the repeated clarifications from the authority, one can acknowledge the facts and conclude that Mepa is not the sinner in the cited cases.