Juan Ameen
Mepa postpones Mosta 'bungalows' decision
A decision on a permit for a series of reservoirs-turned-"bungalows" in Mosta has been postponed again after the planning authority asked the owners to apply again. The authority asked the owners to file fresh applications for sanctioning, this time listing the correct description of the properties, which were previously described as "pumps, stables and water reservoirs".
Owners of four fields had originally filed applications in 2006 to build stables and agricultural reservoirs in an area known as Ħbuliet Moni, where only agricultural-related forms of development are allowed. But after the applications were approved, the authority was alerted that structures had been turned into little pretty bungalows, complete with lawns and terraces. Enforcement notices were issued and the developers submitted applications to sanction the irregular structures.
However, in their application, they did not ask for the sanctioning of what had effectively become dwellings but insisted on defining them as pump rooms, stables and reservoirs.
After the board saw for itself the bungalows during an onsite inspection, it decided to postpone any decision on the sanctioning before the owners change the description.
Previously, the board had already postponed its decision when it decided to inspect the site.
Environmental NGO Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar, which had alerted the authorities about the irregularities, pointed out that the whole sanctioning process should have been stopped over a year ago.
FAA spokesman Astrid Vella expressed her amazement that the case officer did not give a true description of the irregularities in his report. "Although it is clear that Mepa's new chairman is set on changing things, he is not being backed by all the staff," Ms Vella said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Astrid Vella
Dec 20th 2008, 23:08
In all fairness it must be said that although MEPA was slow to react to reports of the illegal activity, the property is now said to be sealed, therefore the owners cannot derive any benefit from it, or from the fact that the decision is now postponed by a few months.
lgalea
Dec 19th 2008, 18:18
Gonzipn, is this how YOU run MEPA since YOU yourself took it under your control?
Are they blue-eyed boys, friends or friends of friends?
Well, one can easily see that it's a reflection of how the Gonzipn Government is run.
c.camilleri
Dec 19th 2008, 17:26
This case reminds of a similar one in Gozo some years back. A member of Parliament went beyond the legal permit in converting his farmhouse. How the matter ended few knows. Perhaps members of Mepa may refer to that shameful case.
c.camilleri
Dec 19th 2008, 17:08
The owners of the bungalows have cheated by building bungalows instead of reservoirs as stated in their applications. So what is stopping Mepa to act. Are the owners included in the list of untouchable. Exceptions are dangerous as they may replace the rule.
Louis Gatt
Dec 19th 2008, 17:02
Two weights and two measures. One set for the law abiding citizen and the other for those who abuse and manage to get advantage. This is not right.
James A. Tyrrell
Dec 19th 2008, 16:16
MARK MIFSUD BONNICI you ask when will MEPA ever get its act together and start being considered as a serious fair institution? Well I think the answer to that rests with this case. Mepa are right to ask for the wording to be changed in order to correctly describe the buildings as they now are. As the application presently stands Mepa are being asked to sanction structures, which do not exist.
This sort of illegal practice has been rampant in Malta for years now. How often do you see someone applying for a two-storey structure with a washroom on the roof, which then becomes a three-storey structure with the top one being a penthouse? Gonzipn has promised to reform Mepa. He has promised to put an end to these types of practices. So let’s see what happens.
If these "bungalows" are indeed sanctioned then we can rightly say that things at Mepa are back to normal. If indeed things are going to change then they must be seen to change. In this case it means a bulldozer turning these structures into rubble and the land returned to its former state at the expense of course of the applicants.
Emanuel Bajada, Xlendi, Gozo
Dec 19th 2008, 15:31
During the application process it is reported that they gave a description that does not tally with what there is effectively. Is this not a fraudulent application case or is it not? Is Mepa handing over the case to the Police Fraud Crime Squad for investigation? Recently you did with another case why should you not with this case?
MARK MIFSUD BONNICI
Dec 19th 2008, 14:58
Can I please ask MEPA whether I can apply to build 6 overlying reservoirs each with two stables and a pump room. Following which, after having turned them into luxury flats worth thousands would I be able to apply to sanction my development.
I am prepared to keep horses in them for the first couple of weeks, just to look genuine.
Cases like this only go to show the waste of public funds squandered on an outright joke.
When will MEPA ever get it's act together and start being considered as a serious fair institution.
Eman Formosa
Dec 19th 2008, 14:48
For the att. of Dr Gonzi as minister responsible for MEPA. If you can accept this decision by Mepa then 'Mario Tabone-Vassallo' is very much right to write "Parole, parole, parole; parole, parole, parole". All contributors who say the the case should have been dismissed outright seem to have more sense than your appointed members. What about calling the architet who signed the application to appear before the MEPA Board and be asked to explain this leg pulling. I suggest the applicant should bear all the unnecessary expenses to inspect the site etc etc.
D. Borg
Dec 19th 2008, 11:21
MEPA should have dismissed this case outright. Does this mean that after submitting a new application the bungalows will be sanctioned? Shame on you MEPA
Mario Tabone-Vassallo
Dec 19th 2008, 10:50
Parole, parole, parole; parole, parole, parole
Joe Morana
Dec 19th 2008, 10:19
Since the MEPA Board found out that the buildings( bungalows) where not according to the original scope of the development application submitted , does this not mean that the bungalows were conbseqeuntly built illegally? If this not a clear case of blatant abuse by the bungalow owners, what is ? Can the MEPA Board please enlighten us? Is this the MEPA reform?
D Vella
Dec 19th 2008, 10:09
If MEPA thinks it is doing it's credibility with the general public any favours here . . . . (!) This is a no-brainer ! ! These illegal developments should not even be considered and applications for their sanctioning rejected outright . . . followed by Direct Action from the enforcement team! The Public expects no less and has a soverign right to see justice done!
D.MANGION
Dec 19th 2008, 10:03
Outrageous !
m attard
Dec 19th 2008, 09:39
So Mepa is actually considering sanctioning these applications? Unbelievable!