Kurt Sansone
Victor Scerri to press on with his application
Scerri 'not to blame' for failure to screen site
Lawyer Franco Vassallo making a point at the planning authority hearing yesterday. Mr Scerri is on left. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
The planning authority yesterday revoked the controversial permit issued to former PN president Victor Scerri to extend his planned farmhouse in Baħrija - but the whole affair is not over yet.
The revocation means that his application for the extension will now have to pass through an environmental screening process due to the sensitive nature of the site, a necessary step that was ignored when the permit was approved in 2007.
The revocation of the permit was just the beginning of the process, Dr Scerri said when contacted after the board had made its decision.
"We will allow things to take their due course but we will definitely not be withdrawing the application since my wife and I have done nothing wrong," he insisted.
The decision does not affect an earlier permit, issued in 2003 and amended in 2005, for the reconstruction of a dilapidated farmhouse on the site of natural beauty.
That permit is still valid but the planning authority's Environment Protection Directorate (EPD) yesterday cautioned that any negative impact on the area from the work would have to be mitigated.
The controversy over Dr Scerri's planned development, to which environment NGOs had objected vociferously, came to a head in June when he resigned from the post of PN president in order to be able to defend himself outside of his political ties.
In a report published the next day, Mepa auditor Joe Falzon concluded that the last permit issued, for the extension of the farmhouse, went against the law.
Mr Falzon also raised doubts about the legality of the original permit since the plans submitted by the architect did not take into account the sloping nature of the site.
Acting on a recommendation of the EPD, the authority's board yesterday agreed that an important screening process had been ignored on the Natura 2000 site.
With eight votes in favour and one against, the board applied Article 39 (A) of the Development Planning Act which allows it to withdraw a permit if the application process is found not to have followed the procedure set out at law.
The Nationalist Party representative on the board, Joseph Falzon, voted in favour of the revocation. The only member to vote against was Joseph Tabone Jiacono, a government appointee.
EPD head Martin Seychell said the directorate had concluded that the site where the farmhouse was to be built needed to be screened since in its opinion the development would have a negative impact on the ecology of the area.
He explained that part of the zone had been given the highest level of protection granted by law in 1996, which meant that development was prohibited and any interventions to improve the site had to be kept to a bare minimum.
After that, in 2006, the area became a Natura 2000 site, which meant that any development application would need to pass through an additional screening process.
Mr Seychell said the EPD could not exclude that the development would have a "significant" negative impact on the site during construction and afterwards. He particularly pointed to the dangers posed by the sewage generated by the farmhouse, which risked contaminating the valley floor during periods of heavy rainfall.
In view of his department's conclusions, Mr Seychell said that the lack of a proper assessment was an "error on the face of the record" and Article 39 (A) had to be invoked.
Lawyer Franco Vassallo, who spoke on behalf of the Scerris, insisted on knowing who should have been responsible for recommending the screening process since at no time had it been suggested by any of Mepa's case officers or the Development Control Commission board members.
"An error has to have a perpetrator," he said.
Mepa chairman Austin Walker tried to deflect the lawyer's question insisting it was not the function of the board to determine who was to blame.
"It is not the DCC that carries out the assessment but in my opinion the obligation to determine the need for screening was both Mepa's and the applicant's," Mr Walker insisted.
Dr Vassallo rebutted the statement, insisting that the law did not put the onus on the applicant to decide whether the screening process had to be held.
"My client should not shoulder the blame. An applicant only has an obligation to make an assessment if asked to do so by the DCC or the directorate and in this case there was never such a request," Dr Vassallo said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
24 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
E.A. Mallia
Aug 15th 2009, 10:02
A very mixed bag of comments; but only one made a very central point: that the files pertaining to the initial permits have been "mislaid". As the withdrawl of the last permit as made on the basis of a missing screening, the decision is in fact a legalistic let off. If MEPA had any sense of right and wrong the fact of the misplaced files should have led to the revocation of all permits. That move may have served to concentrate minds of course, and led to the "sudden" rediscovery of the files. It would also have served to check if there had been--as has been claimed-- any discrepancy between reality and the submitted description of the site. For MEPA to gloss over the fact of the missing files under cover of loud trumpetings of withdrawl of last permit (and even that does not seem final!),and lots of hot air from an Environment Division in deep denial of obvious dereliction of duty is truly pathetic. No "reform" is going to be worth anythng with people like these running MEPA.
D Camilleri
Aug 15th 2009, 09:14
Mr Falzon also raised doubts about the legality of the original permit since the plans submitted by the architect did not take into account the sloping nature of the site.
This architect has clearly ommited the fact that the site was sloping, when the original permit was granted so the blame lies on him. The auditor claerly describes all permits granted as illegal. I would not expect the president of a political party supposedly being protectors of our environment, to build right on the bottom of a pristine valley in ODZ when clearly his architect made errors in the applications, for the permit to granted, and then act as a victim of injustice.
Seriousness demands that if a blatant error was committed it should be righted and those responsible, (for whatever reason) dealt with.
And the common people who should love their country much more than political parties cannot accept this and need to protest.
Edward Zammit
Aug 15th 2009, 07:59
REVOKED Means putting an end to the validity of the Permit...END OF STORY, not "the beginning of the process". WHAT PROCESS?...the process already took long enough that the extent of environmental damage is the only IRREVOCABLE POINT IN THIS WHOLE MESS. What a shame.
EXTENSION/RENOVATION of WHAT? The site is a total DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SITE, not even a trace of a farmhouse, rubble wall or habitat...What one will be able to see there, is a huge displacement of earth soil, massive concrete blocks and a huge hole, prepared for a new development. Aah perhaps with "Extension" they meant "Extending the damage". If the development will be given the green light to move on, being right at the bottom of the valley, sure we shall expect huge wall structures diverting rain water to prevent the property from flooding....Does any one remember properties such as Tigulio and Styx in St. Julian's?
IS THIS THE LONG AWAITED MEPA REFORM, MR PRIME MINISTER?....Paying all the salaries for Boards and Directorates...DCC, EPD, ABC, DEF (using almost the whole alphabet letters for numerous abbreviated boards and directorates), FOR SUCH A MESS Passing under their nose without even smelling what's going on?...WHAT A JOKE
Andrew Calleja
Aug 15th 2009, 01:17
"The only member to vote against was Joseph Tabone Jiacono, a government appointee"
As the author of the article, you give the impression that the MEPA board is largely made up of persons who are not government appointees. In actual fact, the only member on the board who is not appointed by government is Mr Roderick Galdes who, in line with legislation, was appointed by the opposition as its representative.
By and large such a comment can normally be considered as superfluous or unnecessary. However, especially when considering that you are quite familiar with MEPA business and the constitution of its board, your comment appears to be quite purposeful. It seems to be intended at singling out Mr. Tabone while attributing that external pressure had influenced his stand on the matter.
I happen to know Mr. Tabone personally and I am certain that his vote was cast with conviction and a clean conscience.
Joe Busuttil
Aug 14th 2009, 20:54
Thank God I am still able to get out of this Mickey Mouse country three times a year for a forthnight. At least I get to enjoy the English countryside even if the Maltese countryside is nearly non existant. What I can't understand is how foreigners decide to spend their holidays over here.
alexander craus
Aug 14th 2009, 19:25
I can't understand why most journalist are using the word "revoked"! Revoked when devolpment is still going to take place? Revoked when our rural area already suffered irreparable damages? I expected the MEPA to keep the developer financially responsible for all the excavations that took place which obviously already ruined our countryside!
Martha Zerafa
Aug 14th 2009, 18:27
it doesn't matter whose to blame!!!what we have to make sure now is that no grave mistakes like this are ever made again.we have to take care of the envoirment whatever's left of it!!!
Lawrence Zammit
Aug 14th 2009, 18:22
@ Edward Farrugia
Very easy to sit back in your couch with a beer and criticise what other people are doing with their time isn’t it?
You are a Maltese citizen too and I guess you have a voice, why weren’t you there?
Martha Zerafa
Aug 14th 2009, 18:17
yes may i ask again what happened to the missing files?????pajjiz tal mickey mouse!!!!
Joseph Agius
Aug 14th 2009, 17:35
NGOs sorely need men like you who want to see the job through to the end. Go on, roll up your sleeves and join one. Criticising from an armchair is too simple for a "will do" man like you.
GiovDeMartino
Aug 14th 2009, 16:42
Are the people who revoked the permit the same people who granted it?
g.c.Forte
Aug 14th 2009, 15:45
I am just a simple citizen, with a little common sense, I wish to ask. What happened to those important files that was missing!!! from M.E.P.A.? I wish to know as well. If without those files still they came to a conclusion,so the files wasn`t that important.
P.Cassar
Aug 14th 2009, 12:58
POINTS TO PONDER ON THE ABOVE:
After all that has been said and written on the above we still have one vote infavor of the development and he happens to be the GOVT APPOINTEE!!!!
Probably the development will still materialise to the great detriment of all nature loving Maltese
Nobody has as yet shouldered the ADMINISTRATIVE responsibility
Nobody has as yet shouldered the POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY
THIS IS THE STATE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS IN AT THE MOMENT
Edward Farrugia
Aug 14th 2009, 12:52
Also I am not asking that all NGO's are present but only 1 representative out of 6 or 7 is a bit low (in my opinion)
Edward Farrugia
Aug 14th 2009, 12:50
@Joseph Aguis
I don't form part of any NGo becuase I want to be sure to keep my committements before I form part of one. I don't like jobs half done.
Victor Ross
Aug 14th 2009, 12:35
Good comment Mr. Farrugia. Perhaps you meant Astrid and her army?
A.Calleja
Aug 14th 2009, 12:32
Talk about stretching a legal point to extremes. This is a very dangerous precedent which will have severe detrimental affect on the permitting system. It has shaken the foundations of the planning process and threatens the inviolability that one usually associates with the issue of a building permit. It can be applied whenever, through no fault of the applicant, someone flags an error in the process. Permits will start to look very frail from now on.
Using the same argument, a person who was found innocent following a traffic accident can be re-tried a couple of years later because someone insists that he should have asked for a breathalyzer test to be carried out during the investigation. Totally ridiculous!!! Even if you decide to allow this absurd argumentation, why should one be made to suffer the consequences when the oversight is a direct result of the incompetence of people who have the duty and accountability for the management of the process?!
This is a result of undue pressure being brought to bear on the authorities. We hear accusations for this sort of behavior from applicants but somehow it is deemed acceptable when coming from the other side of the wall.
Victor Laiviera
Aug 14th 2009, 11:57
So the bottom line is that the construction will still take place - just slightly smaller!
So much for the reform of MEPA!
Stephen Curmi
Aug 14th 2009, 11:41
Well done to MEPA for this sensible decision. I hope that common sense again prevails regarding the environmental obscenities that are taking place in Mgarr, Malta. Near the childrens playing field there is an illegal scrapyard that is an eye-sore and a shame for a country like Malta
Joseph Agius
Aug 14th 2009, 11:35
@ Edward Farrugia.
Contrary to what was reported in the 8.00 news on PBS Mr Alex Vella, Ramblers' Secretary WAS present. Other NGO activists presumably have work committments and a limited number of days leave, same as Mr Farrugia. Mr Farrugia forgot to tell us whether he was present for the hearing and whether he is a member of any NGO.
Joan Cassar
Aug 14th 2009, 11:32
Mr. Farrugia, I am asking the same thing to be honest. Perhaps they were sitting in the far end of the room, but still, if only a quarter of those who attended the protest would be present then the photo would surely capture the scene. At the end of the day these hearings really matter...
If i'm not mistaken, It was a public hearing.
Joe Azzopardi
Aug 14th 2009, 11:26
If there is blame (as Dr Vassallo states himself) there is an error; finding the perpetrator (whom I believe is MEPA) is besides the point; The error consisted is the issue of the permit, the natural remedy is its revocation. As I wrote before "error on the face of the record" is too open-ended. Regulations less open to interpretation are certainly needed.
D Zammit
Aug 14th 2009, 11:03
@ Mr Farrugia
Only 6 other seats are visible in the photo. Meeting was held in a hall, so i won't judge from 6 empty seats, though I don't know who was present or not. However I presume that NGO's wouldn't sit exactly in the row behind Dr Scerri and his team.
Edward Farrugia
Aug 14th 2009, 10:33
Where are the NGO's representatives? All other seats look empty in the pic.