Mepa audit officer behind 1994 Mistra development

A Planning Authority board led by Joe Falzon in 1994 had approved the redevelopment of a dilapidated farmhouse in Mistra - less than 100 metres away from the controversial Spin Valley development - against the recommendation of the case officer, The Sunday Times has learnt.

The news comes in the wake of a damning report by Mr Falzon - who is now the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's audit officer - into the process which led one of Mepa's Development Control Commission boards to overturn the recommendation of case officers to refuse the outline permit in the Spin Valley development case.

The recent controversy erupted after the Labour Party revealed that an open-air disco was likely to be developed on ecologically sensitive land in Mistra that belonged to Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.

The two cases differ on a number of counts, not least because in 1994 the area was already - as Mr Falzon stressed when contacted last night - occupied by a dilapidated structure while the disco project would have been developed on virgin land.

Nonetheless, there are parallels which could make the case embarrassing for the audit officer who has harshly criticised a number of high-profile cases of bad planning.

The 1994 case goes back to when Mr Falzon, as deputy chairman of the Planning Authority, also headed what was then the only DCC board. It was dealing with one of the only standing structures in the area - a farmhouse that was converted into a recording studio and restaurant facility.

In his reasons for refusal, the case officer pointed out the area's ecological sensitivity and the impact of traffic on the bay as well as the fact that the area was outside development zones - all of which painfully echo the points listed by the case officer in the Spin Valley case. The proposed development conflicted with the Structure Plan, the case officer had noted, pointing out that it did not allow urban development outside the existing committed built-up areas.

"The development does not fall into the category of development which may be permitted outside existing or committed built-up areas..." the case officer wrote.

But beyond the final recommendations, the case officer and the planning directorate had consistently opposed the project in the notes filed before the decision was taken.

Moreover, the case officer made reference to another planning application, which went back to 1987, for development at a nearby site that was refused, among other things, on the basis of a report by the then liaison officer for environmental affairs at the Environment Ministry, Carmel Cacopardo - who more recently served as Mr Falzon's investigating officer and was a staunch ally.

In his letter dated October 1987, Mr Cacopardo outlined the ecological value of the area and "strongly urged" that no building permits or renewals be issued in the area.

In one of the final notes inserted in the case file before the project was approved in 1994, the Director of Planning and the Major Projects Group are said to deem the final plans as "unacceptable".

Nonetheless, the DCC approved the project noting the recommendations of the case officer but adding that the "proposed building would upgrade the site and provide the necessary services for a public beach".

Mr Falzon stressed that the case related to the redevelopment of an existing structure and did not involve virgin land.

"I remember speaking to the case officer and asking what sort of use he could see for this building and he suggested an information centre. I pointed out that this was private property and could not see anyone developing it into an information centre. So I believe that a good compromise was reached," he said.

He also said it was not thought at the time that a restaurant would generate much impact, particularly in terms of traffic "and, in fact, judging now, I would say that it didn't".

"There is very little negative impact on the surroundings and even the light pollution is minimal. I am not sorry about the decision, in effect, considering that there was a building there in the first place.

"I think, honestly, even if I was on a DCC board and had to take a similar decision now, I would make the same decision, though now the legal situation has changed as a result of the Habitats Directive and there are more legal constraints."

He pointed out that local planning law at that time was still in its infancy, and every decision boiled down to a basic interpretation of the Structure Plan.