Article 39A

Astrid Vella (June 19) is factually wrong when she argues about the invocation of clause 39A of the Development Planning Act by the Malta Enforcement and Planning Authority (Mepa).

Ms Vella would do well to check and verify her information before presenting it as facts. It is regretted that, for want of a simple e-mail, her assertion would have been checked. She would be interested to note that there were other instances where article 39A was invoked.

Mepa applied article 39A and modified permits PA1786/03 (Triq il-Qasira, Mosta) and PA2455/01 (Triq San Alwigi, Msida). In both cases, the permit was modified because of incorrect information submitted in the application. For both applications, the Mepa board meeting were held in public (January 20, 2005 and May 26, 2005 respectively). In the latter case, the applicant was requested to submit Lm1,500 as a planning obligation in accordance with article 40 of the Development Planning Act. For application PA6537/98 (Triq il-Palm, Santa Marija Estate) the Planning Directorate had recommended the revocation of the permit. On May 24, 2004, the Mepa board decided that there was not enough evidence to apply the provisions of article.

For general information, it should be noted that two other cases will be heard tomorrow by the Mepa board: PA 0287/04 and PA3544/04, both for sites in Birzebbuga.

It must be reiterated that the applicant and his architect have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that all the information submitted is correct. When Mepa processes applications it works on the assumption that the information submitted is correct in fact and submitted in a professional and factual manner.

Editor's note: For the record, Ms Vella said thus in her interview: "Basically, I was being told by Mepa officials that the law is redundant because it has never been used".