The Victor Scerri-Bahrija Valley story runs as an intriguing whodunnit as environmentalists try to understand how this permit slipped through the planning authority's carefully woven net.
Policies which the relevant section of Malta Environment and Planning Authority is tasked to defend were originally drawn up by the authority itself to stem development in this sensitive gem of a valley.
The latest environment fiasco reflects poorly on the political party which senses it could flounder in the next general election. An electoral pledge to set the environment right, made after the economy had been hauled back on its feet, has fallen flat. The public is tired of waiting for the long promised reform and is in no mood to entertain excuses.
The Prime Minister washes his hands of the Bahrija case, leaving it entirely in Mepa's lap.
The final decision on a well-researched planning application report was left up to a board not too dissimilar to a kangaroo court. Had due process been exercised this would have ensured the exclusion of irrelevant evidence.
A technicality over the number of permissible square metres sweeps aside basic planning precepts.
The procedure by which this institution is trusted to prevent construction sprawling into countryside areas has run wildly out of control.
The Development Control Commissions (DCC) are a delegated arm of the Mepa board and so answerable to the authority chairman, making them form part of Mepa.
The public rightly expects the DCC to live up to its name and control developments that are clearly in breach of Mepa's own policies to protect the environment.
Landowner Victor Scerri insists he has done nothing wrong. As president of the Nationalist Party, he thinks that dissent over construction in the valley can be lightly discarded as malevolent and politically-motivated.
Dr Scerri makes a telling statement that the permits would have been issued to anyone in the same circumstances, "as is done regularly". His pronouncement only furthers the suggestion that the system is twisted, while the will to change this state of affairs appears to be lacking. This is precisely what has been going askew at Mepa.
Unremarkably, a token handful of applicants may consider it unfair that their attempt to gain a building permit in the same way did not enjoy similar treatment.
Mepa engages case officers to size up planning applications. A spokesman for Mepa explained: "The duties of a case officer include the processing of applications for development permission. These are allocated to the respective case officer by the area team manager or by a senior officer. The case officer is also responsible to carry out consultations and negotiations with applicants and their architects/professional advisers, and liaise with representatives of other agencies, statutory bodies, community organisations and with the general public.
"The case officer can make recommendations to applicants and their agents on the changes required for an application to be recommended for approval, having regarded the policies and proposals of current Structure/Local Plans. The case officer also prepares a report with recommendations for the Planning Directorate that is endorsed by his superior that will then get presented to the Development Control Commission."
The case officer lists a number of solid reasons for the refusal of the Bahrija development. It does not conform to a policy which states that proposals on fresh land require strong justification and that loss of agriculturally-rich land will not be permitted.
Development control guidance for outside built-up areas dictates that the need for a new development outside the building zone must be clearly explained and justified.
The case officer advises against such a development since it would lead to urbanisation. He finds that this development is directly opposed to the structure plan's strategy to constrain further inroads into undeveloped land.
The development on the valley floor also goes against the local plan's provisions for soil protection and landscape value. Planning policy certainly does not permit new development in areas of ecological and scientific importance, as Bahrija is listed. One acceptable variance to this rule would be maintenance of existing rural structures, particularly if this secures better nature management.
A limited scenario in which a development might be permissible in Bahrija valley would be within the context of a management plan for this Special Area of Conservation as designated by Mepa itself. The case officer's report concludes that the proposed application cannot be accepted as it is in breach of the law. (Article 13.1 LN 257/03)
Without going into how questionable this extension is on a number of grounds, the floor space argument is upheld simply because others have got away with it thanks to an astonishingly loose approach by the DCC. Mepa holds that any extension to existing buildings must not create a total floorspace which exceeds 150 square metres.
The architect responds with a debatable formula, which presumes to floor the case officer's catalogue of reasons for refusal of the permit. Two wrongs appear to make a right as the architect deftly recalls similar extensions accepted by the DCC in its unique variation on the 150 square metre rule.
This is highhandedly applied only to the ground floor, not the entire building, disregarding the guideline's reference to total floorspace.
Admirably, this move is squarely debunked in an insert from Mepa's own planning directorate: "The issues raised in the Development Permit Application Report remain valid and the application should be refused accordingly."
It is this position which should have been upheld by the voting members of the development control board. Instead, they voted 4-1 to grant the permit.
That Mepa is internally concerned about the DCC is not to be disputed, even if the prevailing attitude is: "What can be done about it?"