Late objection

I refer to the case reported by Pamela Hansen (The Sunday Times, June 11).

According to this column, and relying on the evidence Ms Hansen had, one would hardly fail to feel sympathy with the objecting residents of Triq Wied Blandun. These residents were objecting to the application for a change of use from a clothes shop to an Internet café.

The development application notice for PA 6605/03 stated clearly that for objections to be legal, they had to reach MEPA's offices by December 14, 2003. The objectors sent their letter on December 22, 2003 and therefore could not be considered as registered objectors. The letter quoted by Ms Hansen in fact is the standard acknowledgement letter and says explicitly:

"Provided that the representation was received within the statutory timeframe, as indicated in the local press".

Only in this circumstance is the Authority obliged to answer and keep the registered objector informed. Normally, when objections are received out of date, the substance of the letter is considered if it is relevant from a planning point of view, as was the case here.

However, there is no obligation for the residents to be informed as in this case they sent their objection well outside the time limit.

The permit was granted as the DCC limited the use to an Internet café as this use was considered similar to the kazini of yore. Moreover a Planning Gain to the equivalent of three parking spaces was levied.

This may serve to educate further on the need to be prompt in replying to the development notification notices.