Wednesday, 4th November 2009 - 15:41CET
Mepa disagrees with audit officer's comments
Mepa said today that is disagreed with comments made by its own audit officer as reported in the press on Monday, saying that those comments contrasted with a decision taken by the courts (in the Mistra case).
The audit officer, Joe Falzon, was reported by The Times on Monday as saying that he disagreed with a court ruling that meetings between planning officers and developers were normal practice. He insisted that such meetings were illegal.
"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 said.
Mepa in a statement this afternoon pointed out that the audit officer had given his evidence in court, but the court had concluded that: " It appears such meetings could be held in a legitimate manner and there does not appear to have been anything irregular about them. Indeed, the Authority set up a Complaints Office and appointed a Liaison Officer for this purpose."
The Authority said in its statement, however that all procedures should be held in a transparent manner in the best interests of the applicants, the objectors, and the public. One of the purposes of the current reform was to increase transparency in the planning process, Mepa said.
RSS
Comments
Why do the DCC breach policy and ignore professional advice so often - we need to be told!
PS Other commentators seem to confuse illegal (against the law as in a breach of acts or regulations) with criminal (likely to be a matter for the Police) in the Internal Auditors recent remark? The distinction between civil and criminal law is basic as are the remedies. The Police are unlikely to get excited about anyone breaking a MEPA regulation unless the foul is made in a violent manner!
Mr Falzon is an honourable man, who is defending what is fair and just. Recent writings in the press, often by architects who have suddenly acquired an intimate knowledge of the laws and the law courts, suggests that so much is going on that it is difficult to know where to start. 'Min jiflah ihawwel' is very real in the construction industry and instead of providing clear and fair procedures, MEPA appears to have produced a lot of confusion, preferential treatments with the very obvious results that the Maltese physical environment and the architectural heritage has been in large part destroyed.
We should be ashamed that our generations has done so much harm and that we are bequeting to our heirs the mess we have created. Instead of being a guardian of fairness, justice and balanced development, MEPA has unfortunately been used by many as the instrument to destroy, andv to produce the ugly.
The last paragraph outdoes all that you wrote before.
All true Maltese agree with the auditor and NOT on this occasion only. It would be much better for us if you heed, every time, what he admonishes you about. It would save you and esp us innumerable blunders.
If the sentence is appealed by the AG with Mr Falzon's arguments the public will put more trust in MEPA.
Ms Rose Grech,It is irrelevant how many ODZ permits were issued to Mr Falzon.
Rightly said J oatmon ; " What a can of worms!"
At MEPA they even disregard the words of their own auditor!
What a can of worms MEPA is - get Scotland Yard in from the UK and clean it up PN.
If MEPA were really intent on ensuring that its proceedings are undertaken in the maximum of transparency, it would ensure that such direct contact between DCC board members and applicants and their architects does not take place. What's the point of not allowing applicants to voice their comments during DCC board meetings (unless at reconsideration stage), if private meetings can be held with DCC members under the aegis of the Liaison Officer ?
MEPA should not undermine its auditor and in one breath say that it wants more transparency and in the other, opposes measures that would ensure such transparency.