'Damaging the environment with the authorities' blessing'

The planning authority auditor has accused the Development Control Commission of completely ignoring all policies meant to protect and safeguard the environment when it approved four permits for development at Baħrija valley.

"The assessment of this application by the DCC should read: How to damage the natural environment with the blessing of the authorities responsible to safeguard it," auditor Joe Falzon said in his report, which was published yesterday by the government.

The report also reveals that it was the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and not Victor Scerri that stopped the works on the Baħrija site in June, contrary to what the former Nationalist Party president had said in public.

It transpired that on June 15, Mepa asked the applicant to stop the works until fresh plans were submitted giving a clearer picture of the development at hand because the approved drawings did not show the exact location of a water cistern and ignored the fact that the site was sloping.

Four days after works were stopped by the authority, Dr Scerri had said he gave instructions for the work to stop after he had asked for an investigation by Mepa and the police to clear his name from allegations of wrongdoing.

The report is a scathing attack on the conduct of the DCC board.

Mr Falzon concluded that the first outline development permit granted in 2002 was issued "illegally" as the site was in a protected area but the permit was otherwise valid.

The file for this application was misplaced.

He pointed out that the plans submitted by the architect had indicated the area as being level land when in fact it was sloping. He recommended that Mepa determine whether this omission provided sufficient grounds to invalidate the permit because it could have had a bearing on the outcome of the process.

The applicant's lack to clearly indicate the topography of the land in the approved plans was one of the reasons why Mepa stopped the works on June 15.

In his reaction to the auditor's conclusions, the Mepa chairman said the authority asked the applicant to stop the works on site until she (Dr Scerri's wife, on whose name the application had been made) clarified the "exact sloping of the site and its effects on the approved drawings" and to clarify the location of the water cistern, which was not indicated on any of the drawings.

Mr Falzon said that the approval of the outline development permit against Mepa policies made it difficult for the DCC later on to refuse the full development permit, which he also described as "illegal".

"The application should have never been accepted in the first place," he said.

The biggest fault however, was with the permit granted in 2007 for the extension of the farmhouse.

Mr Falzon said the permit was invalid because the DCC acted ultra vires when it approved the application because it had not referred it to the Environment Protection Department for screening as was required by law.

It was noted that the site had in the meantime been accorded special conservation status, which required an additional level of screening that was ignored.

In his comments, the Mepa chairman said the authority was considering the revocation of the last permit issued as there was a "clear error" in the granting of the permit.

Mr Falzon said the fault for what happened lay with the DCC Division A but no action could be taken because board members had since been replaced.

The auditor did acknowledge that the DCC "went out of its way" to ensure "ambiguous information" was being relayed to the applicant.

However, in trying to find justification for the DCC's behaviour, Mr Falzon listed some "plausible" reasons, which he admitted were borne out of experience from other cases and might not necessarily apply to Dr Scerri's case.

The more serious allegation made by the auditor was that of "collusion between the applicant, directly or through third parties, with one or more members of the DCC".

Mr Falzon said it was beyond his competence to investigate such an issue although he did say police investigations were underway. Mr Falzon did not say that the police investigations were requested by Dr Scerri himself.

Dr Scerri, who stepped down as PN president on Tuesday night, yesterday welcomed the publication of the report even though he had not yet received a copy of it.

Dr Scerri said that, although the report found no wrongdoing on his part, it included a number of unfounded "insinuations" and "assumptions" that gave the impression that wrongdoings the auditor said happened in other applications also applied in this case.

"This speculation can reflect badly on my integrity and I am reserving the right to resort to court proceedings," Dr Scerri said.

He also said he awaited the outcome of police investigations, which he himself had requested.

Baħrija development timeline

May 26, 2000
Marthese Said (Victor Scerri's wife) submits application 2835/00 for an outline development permit "to reconstruct the existing structures with very minor alterations to facilitate use".

January 12, 2001
The case officer concludes the DPA report with a recommendation for refusal.

May 28, 2001
DCC refuses permission and applicant asks for reconsideration.

July 10, 2002
Architect submits method statement, which states that the applicant was proposing to "demolish completely" the existing building, retain the stonework and rebuild the façade with original stonework

August 26, 2002
DCC overturns the negative recommendations of the Planning Directorate and approves outline application.

November 12, 2002
Ms Said submits a full development application for the "demolition of existing dwelling and proposed farmhouse".

December 16, 2002
DPA report is concluded with a recommendation for refusal.

January 30, 2003
DCC overturns DPA report and approves application on condition that architect submits declaration that instead of "demolition" applicant would engage in "rehabilitation".

March 3, 2003
Architect complies and says proposal is to read "rehabilitation of existing dwelling".

October 13, 2003
Applicant submits application 5846/04 to delete a condition in the permit, which said demolition should be kept to a "bare minimum", contradicting the scope of the permit to demolish and rebuild the farmhouse.

April 5, 2005
DCC accepts DPA report that recommends approval of application and condition is removed.

December 7, 2006
Applicant submits application 7719/06 to increase the building footprint from the previous application.

April 4, 2007
Heritage Advisory Committee says applicant must be required to submit a more detailed method statement and the footprint should not exceed the existing one.

May 18, 2007
Environment Protection Department in memo to case officer recommends refusal of extension on environmental grounds.

May 24, 2007
Natural Heritage Panel advises against increase in the footprint as approved.

June 23, 2007
The DPA report is concluded with a recommendation for refusal. The architect replies by quoting precedents when DCC approved extensions in ODZ areas.

September 19, 2007
DCC approves application and justifies decision "in view of previous permit".

April 15, 2009
DCC replies to a request for guidance from the enforcement section after applicant demolishes original structure. Enforcement section unclear whether this breached permit or not. DCC says work is being carried out according to approved conditions.

June 15, 2009
After another query from the enforcement section, the Mepa legal adviser informs enforcement that applicant needs to submit an amended application to indicate existing site levels in relation to development and to identify location of water cistern. Pending this, applicant had to stop works

June 15, 2009
Dr Scerri says he wrote to the Mepa chairman and to the Police Commissioner asking them to investigate the case.

June 18, 2009
Environmental groups stage a protest against the development on the site in Baħrija.

June 19, 2009
Dr Scerri says that as of June 15, he stopped the works on his site to give the authorities the chance to investigate.

June 25, 2009
Auditor passes on draft copy of investigation report to Mepa chairman for his comments.

July 17, 2009
The Times carries comments of Mepa auditor Joe Falzon indicating that the last permit issued was irregular. On the same day, the Mepa chairman sends his reply to the auditor indicating what action is being taken on some of the recommendations made.

July 19, 2009
In a radio interview, Lawrence Gonzi says it is up to Dr Scerri to decide whether his position in the party is tenable or not.

July 21, 2009
The Times reports Dr Scerri saying he would not be shouldering the responsibility for the mistakes made by others, pointing his finger at Mepa. In the evening he announces his resignation from the post of Nationalist Party president to be able to defend his case as a "private citizen".

July 22, 2009
The government publishes the auditor's report.

The four applications

PA 2835/00 - Outline development permit
Auditor's conclusion: Permit issued illegally as site was protected. Permit was otherwise valid. Site plans submitted by applicant did not say land was sloping and Mepa had to determine whether this provided sufficient grounds to invalidate permit.

Chairman's response: Stood by DCC's decision because the board had all the information at hand to reach its conclusions, which were based on the fact that the building was 150 metres away from another building, the replacement of the existing rooms with the same stone was possible and that there was already a building on site.

PA 6321/02 - Full development permit
Auditor's conclusion: Permit issued illegally for the same reasons cited in the previous permit. Mepa should start action to withdraw/ modify permit after an assessment of amended application. Works should be stopped pending outcome.

Chairman's response: Mepa stopped works on June 15 and has asked applicant to submit fresh plans for processing through the normal channels.

PA 5846/04 - Request to remove conflicting conditions
Auditor's conclusion: Permit was of no real relevance because the conditions in the permit were clearly in conflict.

PA 7719/06 - Application for extension
Auditor's conclusion: Permit is invalid as DCC acted outside the law. Application should be considered still pending and be referred back to DCC.

If it confirms the decision to consider extension, then it should be referred to the Environment Protection Department for screening as required by law.

Chairman's response: Applicant has already been notified of the authority's intention to apply article 39A for the withdrawal of the permit because it was issued erronously.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com