Mepa in sharp rebuke of its audit officer
A photomontage of the proposed development at Qala as seen from a distance. Photomontage issued by Mepa.
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) said today that its audit officer should never have carried out an investigation and published a report into the permit for a development at Qala Ridge in Gozo, once the case was still before the Appeals Board.
"The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub-judice," Mepa said.
"The Authority regrets that the Audit Officer's actions once again contradict the decision of a higher institution - this time the Ombudsman's Office."
Last week Mepa noted that comments made by the audit officer in the Mistra development case with regards to meetings between its officials and developers contradicting a finding by the magistrates' court. The comments by the auditor were also criticised by the Prime Minister on Sunday. Dr Gonzi said that the institutions should respect each other.
The audit officer's investigation into the development of the site currently occupied by Xerri l-Bukkett restaurant in Qala was requested by nine environment NGOs and the report was issued to the press by the NGOs themselves. In it, the audit officer, Joe Falzon, noted shortcomings in the local plan for Qala but said the Development Control Commission was wrong not to have exercised its discretionary powers in the interest of the environment.
Mepa said the audit officer chose to ignore or omit a number of issues in his report.
The Authority said that although there was a first refusal to this application, this was entirely based on the fact that the proposed development over-spilled the category 1 boundary. At reconsideration stage the drawings were amended and the ones approved showed that the development including the swimming pools was to be all within the category 1 settlement zone, even though according to planning policies of swimming pools, these could have even been placed outside this settlement boundary.
While the Auditor stated in his report that the Development Control Commission wrongly permitted underlying basements to the development, the interpretation of the Policy as had been published by the Local Planning Unit, clearly explained and stated that this policy permitted the construction of a basement under street level.
The proposed three storey development was in accordance with the ridge edge policy that governs such developments. Furthermore, the DCC limited the approved height to 72% of the permissible height given the in DC2007. This in fact is why the visual impact of the proposal was minimized, especially at the back."
Mepa said the auditor had questioned the validity of the photomontages presented by the applicant and seemed to favour those handed in by the objectors.
"The objectors' photomontages were produced prior to the first decision and so present an absurd picture of what was approved. Here the Auditor should point out that the submitted photomontages of the objectors were totally misleading and not based on the actual plans and elevations related to the development," Mepa said.
"Interestingly, had the applicant submitted such misleading information, his application could have been revoked though Article 39(A) of the Development Planning Act, while when objectors submit misleading information there are no consequences."
The Authority said the Audit Officer should have never carried out an investigation, and more so, published his report, given that this case was still before the Appeals Board. The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub -judice.
"The Authority regrets that the Audit Officer's actions once again contradict the decision of a higher institution - this time the Ombudsman's Office."
See also
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091112/local/auditor-raps-mepa-dcc-over-qala-development
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...
40 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andrew Calleja
Nov 13th 2009, 15:03
Good thing I took another look at this blog because I would have missed some stunning comments
@Victor Laiviera
To answer your question- Simply because the law allows the developer to proceed with works pending the PAB decision.
@Astrid Vella
You ask “Why does Andrew Calleja not comment about how the regulation that works should be suspended during the Appeal was changed about three years ago to allow developers to bulldoze the moment they have a permit in hand.”
I couldn’t possibly comment on that. - Because what you are saying is a total fabrication! Check your facts – the law never denied the developer from carrying out approved works pending a PAB decision; there was never any change in regulations.
You also state “In the period when Perit Falzon was at MEPA regulation were much more lax on ODZ protection.”
Why? ODZ has always meant ODZ. The Structure Plan, the EPA and the DPA remained the same. What changed is that MEPA, as a result of studies, has afforded further protection through the scheduling of specific areas within the ODZ while relaxing certain constraints such as those relating to farming facilities and the reuse of existing buildings.
Astrid Vella
Nov 13th 2009, 10:41
The instructions to withhold comment while a case is sub judice is yet another legalistic measure which is wrongly being grafted into MEPA practice.The B'bugia scrapyard case has been running for 14years,should the Auditor wait that long? Why does Andrew Calleja not comment about how the regulation that works should be suspended during the Appeal was changed about three years ago to allow developers to bulldoze the moment they have a permit in hand. So now a historic building can be demolished or ODZ destroyed as soon as the permit is out, and if the objectors win the appeal, will the historic building or verdant field come back to life? If the Ombudsman and Andrew Calleja are so keen to impose legal strictures, why do they not compare this to the situation of a court first carrying out an execution and then inviting the dead man to come back to life after he wins his appeal.
No fear of that happening, we all know how many contested permits are won through appeal and how many are stopped (virtually none)
Astrid Vella
Nov 13th 2009, 10:37
What is irritating the Authorities most is that the Auditor is expressing himself on environmental injustices in defiance of legalistic strictures.In so doing he has gained the support of the public who has eyes in its head and has seen that not only has MEPA failed miserably in what it was set up to do, but it was the prime agent of enviromental destruction, especially over the last few years. People who ran MEPA at that time will have a hard time convincing anyone through these columns.
So instead they have turned to a witchunt, trying to discredit anyone who has the courage to speak out. MEPA regulations change all the time. In the period when Perit Falzon was at MEPA regulation were much more lax on ODZ protection.If he had blocked legal ODZ permits he would hav probably been sued many times.What his detractors are not saying is whether the permits were according to the regulations of the day or whether they were ABUSIVE, as many have been recently.
Brian Mizzi
Nov 13th 2009, 09:28
All the usual apologetic clique and the small men seem to be out in force to discredit Joe Falzon, a person who is not only doing his job scrupulously but is also safeguarding the environment for our benefit and that of future generations. If only the MEPA officials and our politicians did their job just as scrupulously. Prosit Joe Falzon! Keep up the good work!
Victor Laiviera
Nov 13th 2009, 08:53
Mr Andrew Calleja (I am assuming that this is the former MEPA Chairman) is in the position of someone who tries to appreciate a large oil painting by standing six inches away from it. He can see every brush-stroke; he can appreciate the artist’s technique and use of colour; but he cannot get a good overall impression of the subject.
Most of the people commenting here (including yours truly) are in the position of those who see the picture from a proper distance. We cannot see the fine detail that Mr Calleja does, but neither do we want to, because we are only interested in the bottom line.
And that is the fact that, once again, MEPA is permitting a horrendous development which goes against all aesthetic sense.
One last point which Mr Calleja has studiously evaded. If the auditor should not comment on a case which is under appeal, by the same token, why is the developer allowed to go on with the work while the case is under appeal?
J Farrugia
Nov 13th 2009, 08:28
Remove the MEPA auditor asap. He is a liability to the MEPA work. He thinks himself to be the ALmighty and doesn't want any more construction on this island. So what shall we do. Put all construction workers on the dole because of this high and mighty auditor? If someone is against development, any development, go to the COurts. We cant have this country administered by NGOs . We have an elected government ... if you dont agree with it, dont vote for it come next elections. But the people for the umpteenth time have declared their full confidence in this administration and not in the Auditor's administration.
Edward Mallia
Nov 13th 2009, 08:00
The fact that developers are allowed to steam full ahead with applications which are under appeal must take most of the moral indignation out of MEPA's sails. As for MEPA photomontages or other visual marvels, I suggest people look at the edition of The Times for June 16 2009, in which the MEPA 'One World' feature carries a photograph of the area known as Ta' Baldu, l/o Rabat, supposed to be lovingly preserved by the said MEPA for posterity. It is in fact a photo-demontage, for it gives no hint of of the high rubble walls, the gates, the permitless building additions and whole two-storey building which have mushroomed on the site. Neither is there any mention of the site being used for wedding receptions, and not by the Roman owner of 'the likley rustic villa in the vicinity'.
Andrew Calleja
Nov 13th 2009, 01:41
Some people should verify the facts before putting pen to paper (or, in this case, finger to keyboard). The ombudsman never investigated MEPA cases that were still under appeal at the PAB or the courts.
The Ombudsman had very clearly informed the auditor that the Development Planning Act does not allow him to usurp the remit assigned to the Planning Appeals Board. The auditor had accepted this advice and for some time desisted from taking up investigations on cases that were still subject to an appeal.
However the auditor has, at his discretion and on particular occasions, ignored the Ombudsman's legal advice. Can one be selective on matters that are deemed to go against the law?
Some people are so besotted that they obviously cannot find any fault in persons that they have placed on high pedestals.
Andrew Calleja
Nov 13th 2009, 01:18
@D.Zammit
The MEPA Board has been assigned the remit of approving and interpreting policy. The +VE spirit of the policy is an utopist term. It depends on one’s point of view and is very open to interpretation. Ok, let’s scrap the system. Who do you think should decide? The NGO, auditor, objector, applicant, planner, ecologist, industrialist, farmer, economist, government, opposition … who??? The end results would be very subjective and varied, creating a great deal of uncertainty in the process.
What if it you submitted an application completely in line with the official policies and someone pops up and decides to give his interpretation of the texts or even considers that those approved policies should not apply in your case?
No planning system can survive in that scenario.
Joe Cassar
Nov 12th 2009, 23:36
This just proves - if any proof was needed - that the much touted reform of MEPA was just another empty election promise.
MEPA is worse, if anything, than it was before the elections.
Stephen Borg Cardona
Nov 12th 2009, 23:34
Trying to blind the Maltese with legalese does not work and is not what MEPA should be doing. MEPA has a duty to take care of our heritage and landscape for future generations , unfortunately it appears only to be interested in winning arguments on the basis of technicalities.
Joseph Ellis
Nov 12th 2009, 21:31
MEPA should state on what authority it bases its statement that the auditor should not investigate permits which are under appeal. This would make sense if a permit were to be put on hold once it is under appeal. However, in Malta, once a permit is issued, the developer can go ahead and start building, even if the permit is under appeal. One expected the proposed reforms to tackle this deficiency in our planning law, but they do not.
So, MEPA, in its latest onslaught against its auditor, is stating that the auditor should stay put pending the appeal decision, and then, after some two or three years, when the appeal is decided, and the building has been erected, the auditor carries out his investigation. Cool ! Perhaps MEPA can give us a statistic of the number of permits that have been revoked by the Appeals Board. If I am not mistaken, it is zero.
MEPA justifies its stance by citing the ombudsman. The auditor was originally appointed to reduce the number of complaints to the ombudsman.
michael fenech
Nov 12th 2009, 21:23
@ Tim Ripard,
As someone said before me,( This case is under appeal and the developer has already started building .) and (Exactly the same is happening with the nadur cemetary, it is under appeal and in the meantime the cemetary is almost complete.
You see Mr Ripard why we need Mr Falzon to keep up his good work.
d. borg
Nov 12th 2009, 21:11
I was not at all surprised by this statement. MEPA wants to continue taking wrong decisions without anybody raising a finger. When is the destruction of our lovely countryside going to stop? First MEPA ruined Malta and now it's Gozo's turn.
J Brincat
Nov 12th 2009, 21:05
The MEPA Audit Officer now seems to be the target.
The reason is obvious.
Joe Vella
Nov 12th 2009, 20:58
@ J. Farrugia
It was the Auditor himself that tarnished his reputation in the past. It was him that in the past approved developments in ODZ zones.
The auditor states that he is opposed to this particular development because the basement will be fully exposed from the back as the ridge slopes downwards.
So my question to the Auditor, and to you Mr. Farrugia, if the basement was enclosed on all sides with solid walls, would that have made this development appropriate?
The problem with the Auditor is that he have lost any objectivity, which renders him unfit to carry on with his duties.
K Frendo
Nov 12th 2009, 20:50
MEPA wants to stop the Auditor commenting.......they should STOP the construction of the controversal building now. There are no permits yet. And they are already building. Is MEPA going to act, or it is easier for them to censor the Auditor.
keep it up Mr Falzon, every body knows that you are right
Joe Vella
Nov 12th 2009, 20:46
@ J. Farrugia
Can you please tell us where you got the impression that MEPA have held secret meetings with developers? Certainly, I never recall the Auditor making such accusations. If you have the courtesy and answer, please cite the source. Or this is a an accusation on your part?
J.Tonna
Nov 12th 2009, 20:46
IS THIS A PLENIPONTIARY AUDITOR??
D Zammit
Nov 12th 2009, 20:43
@Andrew Calleja
It would appear that you need to read the comments in the auditr's report within the context of what he was trying to say not as you understood it.
'In other report he denigrates the same people for not applying their discretion in interpreting policies or ignoring these policies because, according to him, they are wrong or not relevant in particular cases. '
Their discretion in interpreting policies ..... within the +VE spirit of the policy not the other way!!!!!
Muscat. Pat
Nov 12th 2009, 20:09
The problem lies not with MEPA, but with its politcal masters.
J. Farrugia
Nov 12th 2009, 20:01
Can MEPA let us know whether any secret meetings were held with the developer in the process of this permit? Since MEPA thinks there is no problem in having such meetings, we need not 1 but 100 auditors to scrutinize the permits being issued.
MEPA can rebuke the Auditor as much as it likes, the Maltese just have to compare MEPA’s credibility with that of the Auditor.
Tim Ripard
Nov 12th 2009, 19:51
What are you whinging about, commentators? MEPA is being completely transparent. How can the auditor investigate something which is undecided? Why doesn't he have the decency to wait until a final decision is taken? He's attacking something that hasn't happened yet. Ridiculous.
lesley kreupl
Nov 12th 2009, 19:45
Well done Mr. Falzon, at last someone who appears to know his job at MEPA and is honest!
This project should never even have got to a drawing board stage let alone been presented to MEPA. If this project is not stopped we can say goodbye to the beautiful Qala belvedere and the relatively unspoiled view coming in with the ferry.
Why are people so intent on destroying Gozo?
Why doesn't the Ministry for Gozo do something positive?
Why doesn't the PM put his foot down and put a STOP to all illegal buildings, especially in ODZ areas or areas of high landscape value? I seem to remember that this was a pre-election promise?
Stop the destruction of Gozo now, before it is too late!
c.camilleri
Nov 12th 2009, 19:42
I always feel it is ridiculous to put anyone on a pedestal. The MEPA auditor included. This man seems to be under the impression that he is above all the institutions in the country. The ombudsman, the law courts......he seems to be on an ego trip. The accusations he bandies about in his reports reveal a sensationalistic streak in him which is ill fitting to someone who occupies such a sensitive position.
To accuse his colleagues of corruption at every available opportunity whenever an ODZ application is under scrutiny when he himself approved over 1400 ODZ applications as DCC chairman smacks of hypocrisy. To criticise his colleagues for participating in meetings at MEPA with developers to iron out difficulties when he himself, by his own admission, attended similar meetings when he was a board member is, once again, hypocritical.
His motto seems to be 'do as I say not as I do'.
He should refer to what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees in the Bible.
J. Schembri
Nov 12th 2009, 19:41
"The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub-judice,"
Prevention is better than cure.
It's important that first mepa breaks the egg and cooks the omlette,then we ask the auditor to reverse the process.
c galea
Nov 12th 2009, 19:34
This case is under appeal and the developer has already started building . I wonder how long is the appeal going to take?
Exactly the same is happening with the nadur cemetary, it is under appeal and in the meantime the cemetary is almost complete.
Michael Seycjhell
Nov 12th 2009, 19:16
Recently I was in Gozo and met and old friend - back from my time as a Trade Union official, and amongst other things we talked on the environmental face of Gozo since 1971.
This discussion touched also on building permits before and after - or rather since MEPA was set up. My friend told me that a Member of Parliament may have, or is still extending his buiding without the neseccary permits. My friend also told me that a prominent member of an environmental NGO has a building including a swimming pool, built before MEPA, in a green area or as we know it today in an ODZ.
Since my friend, as most other Gozitans, is a staunch believer in 'Omerta' , he insisted that I will not mention him, and hence today I am compelled to be very discreet in my comment.
However I can add that an English saying that - Those living in glass houses should never throw stones - and a Maltese one that "Gebel ma gebel xi darba jiltaqgha" are both very true and appropriate.
Michael Seychell
Adrian Cardona
Nov 12th 2009, 19:15
Why doesn't MEPA show a photomontage from the other side? A telephoto lens 'squashes' perspective and makes the backgound look much closer than it really is. Those buildings apparently so close to the proposed development are nowhere as near as they look, and they are also round the bend of the hillside. Xerri sticks out, and from the other side this ugly development will be much more visible, especially from the sea below it.
Andrew Calleja
Nov 12th 2009, 19:15
Without going into the merits of this particular case I want you to mull over this state of affairs.
In some audit reports the auditor harps about how MEPA is obliged to strictly follow the approved policies and raps everyone’s knuckles when this is not the case. He maligns the ones who attempt to exercise their discretion suggesting negligence or even worse.
In other report he denigrates the same people for not applying their discretion in interpreting policies or ignoring these policies because, according to him, they are wrong or not relevant in particular cases.
The auditor influences the behaviour of others especially that of the MEPA case officers and the DCC members. His antics have got everyone running round in circles and the only option left is to consult him before taking any decisions because he is the ONLY one that can decide whether regulations should be followed or ignored - HIS interpretation is ALWAYS correct and HIS independence and omnipotence reigns supreme.
The Prime Minister and MEPA are completely right in showing disapproval. Nobody is beyond reproach especially when a person holding this sensitive position gives rise to ambiguity which in turn leads to more confusion and uncertainty.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Nov 12th 2009, 19:12
When is the curse going to be lifted up from this little island? MEPA, Parliament and all, shame on you all! But then, isn't it us the people who give them the power?
With all the taxes and Bills we pay what are we getting in return? Holy roads (true holes that is); junk yards as our countryside; pollution everywhere---we're paying dearly to live in hell!!!
P.Cassar
Nov 12th 2009, 19:08
THE GURADIAN IS NOT DOING HIS JOB SO HE IS REBELLING AGAINST WHO IS GURADING HIM.
Quoting legalistic aspects without tackling the argument does not do mepa any good; but if mepa wants to go legalistic it can start by quoting innumerable times that it was found wanting. The Lia case is a prime example where a permit had to be withdrawn completely.
The very vast majority of Maltese are totally on the auditor's side and completely against the hotch-potch mepa decisions.
Hayley Fenech
Nov 12th 2009, 19:07
Eh....so the auditor cannot comment on a case in sub-judice.....but the developer can go ahead and start the project. Was there last weekend....works going on with a fast pace.
J. Schembri
Nov 12th 2009, 18:42
Mepa seems to be anything but transparent.
Joe Fenech
Nov 12th 2009, 18:26
Mepa wants to continue with its systems and be untouchable..
Pamela Hansen
Nov 12th 2009, 18:22
Wouldn't (MEPA) just love to get rid of its auditor. Then it could do what it jolly well pleases like everyone else seems to be doing.
Institutions that ride roughshod over whoever challenges them and do not protect our environment do not deserve respect.
lgalea
Nov 12th 2009, 18:20
What's the problem if they have nothing to hide?
Julian Caruana
Nov 12th 2009, 17:55
I wonder... Why dont we employ an audit officer that can be quite and shut up all the time. I think thats what mepa and PM wants from the audit officer.....
Darren J. Galea
Nov 12th 2009, 17:44
...does one detect the faint scent of smouldering witch in the air?
Tony Caruana
Nov 12th 2009, 17:42
WHO IS MEPA TRYING TO FOOL WITH THIS PHOTO ?
Any body who has been to Xerri il Bukket KNOWS WHAT IMPACT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE..
DE GONZI THE RESPONSABBILITY IS ON YOUR SHOULDER.
MUST WE KEEP SPOILING THIS ISLAND ?