Private planning meetings 'illegal'
Planning authority auditor Joe Falzon does not agree with a Magistrates' Court ruling that meetings between planning officers and developers were "normal practice", saying such meetings are illegal.
The court cleared two former Development Control Commission members of exercising a private interest in the process of adjudicating the application for an open-air disco in Mistra.
In a judgment last Wednesday, the court noted that the accused had told the police that throughout the adjudication process they attended meetings organised by the planning authority's complaints and liaison officer. The two men expressed uncertainty as to whether such meetings should have taken place but the magistrate noted that such meetings constituted normal practice by the complaints and liaison department and were meant to iron out issues between the planning authority officers and developers.
Mr Falzon begs to differ and argues that the planning law clearly lays down that all DCC meetings must be held in public.
"I do not know when the practice of one-on-one meetings started. I had been chairman of the DCC board for six years and I never had any one-on-one meetings with developers and objectors. I believe it is illegal because planning law says DCC meetings have to be held in public," Mr Falzon insists.
In the closed meetings, he adds, board members can compromise themselves because they will only be meeting the applicant to the exclusion of objectors and other interested parties.
"I had explained to the Mepa chairman that what was deemed to be normal practice was in fact practised by some board members and not all. My concerns about the legality of private meetings were forwarded to DCC board members and I am informed that DCC A board members have stopped this practice."
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
LOUIS FENECH
Nov 3rd 2009, 16:52
Mr Joe Falzon is an architect of deep moral character, I know for sure, and I am sure he is well aware what the law says about the MEPA. I think he is right in his comments and the competent authorities should lodge an appeal to the Magistrates' Court ruling. Controversies are never created by Mr Falzon, but by those, especially fellow architects who know that no ODZ permists are to be issued, and the government who wants to satisfy both sides of the coin.
charles zammit
Nov 2nd 2009, 23:28
we the maltese public have a mind of our own we can judge who is wrong and who is right. no your honour it is not apt for dcc members to mingle with developers. and this is not because the mepa auditor says so but because decency and reason say so
Mark Bonello
Nov 2nd 2009, 19:46
If I am not mistaken, it is encouraged by Mepa itself that an architect should meet the DCC in the initial stages of a proposed project, especially in sensitive areas thus avoiding any misunderstanding of policies which might be interpreted in various ways. The Auditor says " I believe it is illegal" throwing a declaration like this to the four winds can have serious repercussions...I am sureThe Magistrate did his homework, otherwise how can we really know were we stand in this country ! Serenity is the key to foreign investment, please lets be careful of what we say .
N.Calleja
Nov 2nd 2009, 16:57
This auditor seems to think that he is the most infallible man on earth. He is always the first to create controversy. Especially when concerning the government!!
J Borg
Nov 2nd 2009, 16:05
No wonder that the public is surprised that certain developments get the go ahead even though several objections exist. It is obvious that during DCC meetings held with the priviledged developers, loopholes are pointed out through which the application can be processed. At least DCC A have been honest enough to have stopped these meetings once this 'unethical'/'illegal' behavious was pointed out by the auditor. The members of DCC C should follow suit or is there too much in it for them? No wonder so many UCAs have suffered illegal development even though several objections were voiced and lodged. Shame on DCC C members if they don't stop as well or are they hurrying things through before it gets too hot for them. Time will tell
tony abela
Nov 2nd 2009, 15:04
We need more people of the type of Architect Joe Falzon, who first of all is a man of strong moral character and principle.
The bloggers who questioned Architect's Falzon comments surely do not know the person who they are blogging about, or if they know they are not even fair with themselves.
david gulia
Nov 2nd 2009, 14:09
ia the mepa auditor an attorney general? Who is he to comment against the one of highest institution in malta.?
Sergio Galea Vincenti
Nov 2nd 2009, 13:14
When commenting on the Mistra court sentencing, I urged fellow posters to restrain from drawing certain triumphalisitc or other conclusions as the case is definitely not over.
I certainly agree with the MEPA Auditor's statements as the law is crystal clear on the matter. Unfortunately, I believe that there could be practices which have become so ingrained in the process that they may now be considered to be 'de facto' normal when, in fact, they are not.
One should also recall the fact that teh MEPA Board itself deliberated on the withdrawal on the Mistra permit and this, in itself, should indicate on whether or not the DCC procedings were carried out as they should have been.
Regarding the appeal of the case, this is something which needs to be seen: Is Government seeing this sentence as 'politically acceptable or convenient'? Is this the yardstick which shall be used in ascertaing whether justice has been served or not in this case? We still have some days ahead of us until Attorney General is instructed on whether or not to proceed.
In my opinion, the public has not been provided with sufficient clarifications on the matter to be confident.
R Muscat
Nov 2nd 2009, 12:50
Well said Mr Joe Falzon, is it not obvious that there is a conflict of interest when these meetings go on. No wonder so many monstrosities have been approved for the continuing UGLIFICATION OF MALTA
Joe Vella
Nov 2nd 2009, 12:22
@ Joe Cordina
On what basis?
J.Tonna
Nov 2nd 2009, 11:37
It seems that Mr joe falzon knows more than the judges about laws. He himself said " I believe it is illegal" i.e. he is not 100% sure of what he is saying.
Let's hope he has no hidden agenda.
Alfred Grima
Nov 2nd 2009, 11:29
The law is crystal clear; all DCC meetings have to be held in public, no more no less. No one is above the law. But it seems that under GonziPN things are upside down, what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong, obviously whom you are.
J Farrugia
Nov 2nd 2009, 11:18
So Jeffrey Pullicino Otrlando states that 'some cabinet minister told him that these two had to be processed before the courts so that those who were shouting will be silenced'. Could it be that it was auditor who pushed forward that 'private planning meetings are illegal' and so the police had perforce to take criminal action against innocent people? Could it be that this auditor told the police that such meetings were illegal and thus prosecution (read for it persecution) would be in order? Just asking. Giving such almighty power to just one man (is he without blemish?) is crazy. Such power should only be given to the Prime Minister who is voted in or out of office by the people.
J. Schembri
Nov 2nd 2009, 10:57
Well said Mr Joe Falzon. I cannot understand why the prosection has not yet appealed against the sentence of this case.
Joe Cordina
Nov 2nd 2009, 10:51
I wonder whether the attorney general or the police have filed an appeal.
Philip Grech
Nov 2nd 2009, 10:42
DCC meetings have to be public, according to the law, but do all meetings with any Commission member also have to be public?
Are all meetings with the Planning Directorate illegal too? Why should it be legal to talk to the Minister, but illegal to talk to a DCC member?