Nationalist Party president Victor Scerri is insisting he will not be held accountable for mistakes made by others in granting a controversial permit for the reconstruction of a farmhouse on land he owned in Baħrija.

Denying any wrongdoing and clearly pointing his finger at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Dr Scerri said: "I will not shoulder the responsibility for the mistakes of others".

Dr Scerri spoke for the first time yesterday on the controversy surrounding his development in the pristine Baħrija valley, which erupted just the June 6 European Parliament elections.

On Sunday, the Prime Minister placed the onus of the tenability of Dr Scerri's position in the Nationalist Party (PN) on the lap of the party president himself after the Mepa auditor was quoted saying the last permit the authority granted was irregular because it failed to abide by its own policies.

Dr Scerri argued that the draft report by the auditor faulted Mepa.

He referred to an interview Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi gave to The Sunday Times in June, where he said that if it transpired the Baħrija permit was issued irregularly, the person involved should shoulder responsibility and resign.

"Based on what the auditor said in public, it is Mepa that should shoulder responsibility for its misdeeds. The ball is now in Mepa chairman's court and that of the Prime Minister. They should make the necessary decisions. I will not shoulder the responsibility for mistakes done by other people," he insisted.

He denied having any internal pressure from the party to relinquish his post and said he had not spoken to Dr Gonzi about the matter so as "not to influence him" or "be perceived to influence him".

Dr Scerri objected to what he described as "mob rule" when referring to the protests by various environmental groups to his development.

"Mob rule was supposed to have ended in 1987... It is wrong to have all this public pressure on the Prime Minister to intervene because 300 people have decided there was something illegal," he said.

Dr Scerri defended his actions saying he had done everything according to procedure and at no time did he pile any pressure on anybody.

"I am not only legally correct but also morally because I spoke to nobody about the permit, which took a whole nine years to be issued," he said.

Since the controversy erupted, Dr Scerri has been conspicuous by his silence. Apart from a press release issued on the same day that a protest was held by environmental groups on the site, he refrained from entering into the merits of the case.

"There have been a number of incorrect allegations but I have remained silent because all I am interested in is that my name is cleared and the truth comes out. That is why I asked Mepa and the police to investigate," he said.

According to Dr Scerri, one of the incorrect impressions given by the environmental groups was that the old building on site was a simple two-room structure. In fact, he said, it was a dilapidated six-room farmhouse, which rose to two storeys high in certain parts. The building had a fig tree growing in its centre and the structure was dangerous, he said.

He applied for the building to be demolished and replaced by a new structure on the same footprint in 2000 and the permit was issued in 2002.

However, the full development permit for the reconstruction of a farmhouse contained two conflicting conditions. The first condition said the development had to be according to the method statement stipulated by Mepa, which said the farmhouse had to be demolished, new foundations constructed and the structure rebuilt on the same footprint. The second condition said that if the building was totally or partially demolished the permit would be withdrawn.

"We pointed out this discrepancy and, in 2004, Mepa withdrew its second condition, which would have made it impossible for us to satisfy the first," Dr Scerri said.

In a bid to convert the farmhouse into a three-bedroom place, another application was filed in 2006 for an extension that included two new rooms, one on the ground floor and another upstairs. The permit granted last year would see the habitable area increase from 134 square metres to 198 square metres.

Dr Scerri took exception to the criticism made by the environmental groups about the extent of the excavation works, which were larger than the required building footprint.

The excavation work was required to construct the foundations because of clay in the area, he said.

"But the excavated area is larger than the footprint because Mepa required me to build an underground cistern. I did not ask for this myself. I cannot be held accountable for excavating to build the cistern when it was Mepa that asked for this in the first place," he said.

Dr Scerri said he would stick to rebuilding the farmhouse on the same original footprint if the Mepa auditor concluded that the permit issued last year was invalid and had to be withdrawn.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.