(Adds Dr Scerri's reaction)

The Development Control Commission completely ignored all policies meant to protect and safeguard the environment in the case of a farmhouse on land in Bahrija owned by the former president of the Nationalist Party, Mepa’s auditor has concluded.

Dr Scerri resigned his post yesterday but is to continue fighting his case as a private citizen.

In his report following an investigation requested by the former PN president himself, auditor Joe Falzon said that members were bent on seeing that the application was approved, irrespective of any policies.

In a reaction following the publication of the report, Dr Scerri said he was considering legal action.

In his report, published by the government, the auditor general said:

“The assessment of this application, particularly by the DCC, should read: How to damage the natural environment with the blessing of the authorities responsible to safeguard it.”

He said that “the extreme arrogance shown by the DCC in ignoring all policies and advice from the properly constituted bodies of Mepa without giving any plausible justification for such action is unbelievable.”

The auditor goes on to say that the submission of the application “was a puerile attempt at misleading Mepa”.

The applicant, he said, described the existing buildings on site as an existing dwelling when the photographs submitted indicated a building in a state of partial collapse.

The development, the auditor said, was described as the rehabilitation of an existing dwelling but what the applicant wanted was to demolish whatever existed and rebuild a new building.

“The application should never have been accepted in the first place...”

The auditor general said that in the outline application, the case officer had listed several reasons based on official policies why the development was unacceptable.

“As this file is misplaced I cannot be certain as to the motivations which led the DCC to accept the application. But whatever they were, the application was clearly in breach of policies, and I cannot see how this application could possibly be acceptable under any circumstances.”

Mr Falzon saiod that the DCC chose to ignore the fact that the development was located in an area of ecological and scientific importance and “in flagrant disregard to the provisions of the law issued the required permit”.

“Once the application was approved, the DCC went out of its way to ensure ambiguous information being relayed to the application.”

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Later in his report, the auditor points out that no action could be taken against the members who took this decision because they had since been replaced.

He said that the applicant should be required to submit an amended application to comply with the topography of the site. This should be assessed on its own merits.

The development permit, he concluded, was invalid as the DCC had no authority to issue it. The application should be referred back to the DCC for proper assessment as required by law for a special area of conservation. The applicant should be informed immediately and all works on site suspended.

The site should be monitored continuously to ensure that no further environmental damage was done. Mepa should insist with the owner to take appropriate measures for the environment of the locality to be protected.

In its reply to the report, Mepa said that it had already taken action in relation to these recommendations.

Mr Falzon also concluded that the Environment Protection Department should commence proceedings against the developer as reuired by law for infringing the provisions of a legal notice.

He said that if the applicant failed to submit an amended application or if the applications submitted were required, he should be required to reinstate the site under the supervision and according to the instructions of Mepa.

These recommendations, Mepa said, in its reaction, were premature and would be assessed at a later stage.

REASONS WHICH COULD HAVE LED TO SITUATION

In his report, Mr Falzon said that in view of the urgent need to put a stop to the continuous environmental damage that was taking place, he was attempting to list reasons that could have led to the situation.

These included that the DCC was completely insensitive to the need to protect the unbuilt environment, it believed it could set policies rather than enforce them, its members were grossly incompetent and there could be collusion between the applicant, directly or through third parties, with one of more members of the DCC.

MEPA’S REACTION

In its reaction Mepa noted that the proposal of the first application on site had to be read in conjunction with the drawings submitted and it was ultimately the approved permit and drawings that prevailed, and not the proposal.

As such, the DCC based their decision on the drawings rather than the wording of the proposal.

Mepa agreed that the proposal could have been worded differently to better indicate the development but when considered together with the documents submitted with the application, gave enough information as to the extent of the development.

The impact of the proposed development on the site and its adjacent environment was the same, irrespective of the proposal and any interested party could still have raised objections.

Mepa noted that the directorate had clearly identified all the policies which were relevant to the development but the applicant rebutted the observations and identified similar applications which were ultimately approved by the authority.

The DCC held a site inspection and seemingly upheld the applicant’s submissions based on the fact that:

* The building was within 150 metres of another;

* It was possible to replace the rooms using the same stones;

* There was an existing building on site.

Mepa noted that it had already investigated the matters surrounding this permit and had informed the applicant that it was considering its revocation.

DR SCERRI's REACTION

In his reaction, Dr Scerri said he had not yet received a copy of the report but welcomed its publication as confirmation of the transparency in the operation.

At first glance it seemed that although it was clear that he had not done anything irregular, the report still made assumptions and unfounded allegations which could give the impression that what the auditor was saying took place in other applications, could also have taken place in this case.

As such speculation could reflect badly on his integrity, he was seeking legal advice and reserving the right to take legal action.

Dr Scerri said that, in the meantime, he was waiting for the results of the investigation he had requested from the police for the truth to prevail.