Mepa reform, more of the same? - FAA

Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar is heartened by the Mepa board’s request for a revision of plans to the construction of 164 apartments, 232 garages and 960 square metres of commercial space on the site of the former Seven-Up factory in Hamrun.

The issues raised at the hearing included the negative impact on the views of the urban conservation area near the Wignacourt Aqueduct water tower, inadequate pedestrian areas and the traffic problems that such an intensive development could create, given the narrow streets of the area.

FAA said that Mepa chairman Austin Walker’s comment that the project appeared to constitute overdevelopment in a dense residential area signalled an important shift in the authority’s attitude on urban development in the context of Malta’s over 76,000 vacant housing units.

This came in the wake of other decisions in favour of the interests of residents or the environment.

In May, FAA said, the Mepa board refused a permit to construct an animal farm near residences even though the project already had an outline permit which was not deemed to be in the public interest.

Similarly, permits to build villas in Safi and stables in Zurrieq were turned down due to being in an out of development zone.

It iwass therefore disappointing to see that while the Mepa board was refusing permits which violated the Structure Plan or were not in the public interest, the Development Control Commission boards were granting such permits.

In March, the DCC A board granted a permit for the ‘temporary’ garaging of road constructors’ heavy vehicles in spite of the Mepa directorate’s recommendation to refuse. The proposed garages were on an ODZ rural settlement contrary to local plan policies (see photos at: www.faa.org.mt/wrong-decisions).

Similarly, in June, the DCC C board granted a permit to demolish a house in the Sliema urban conservation area, in spite of the fact that demolitions of facades are not allowed in UCAs.

Both the Mepa directorate and the Heritage Advisory Committee agreed that “the existing facade of the building has contextual value that contributes to the character of the streetscape and thus it should be retained”.

Moreover the project was granted four floors in a two-floor area (see photos at: www.faa.org.mt/suca-threat).

In the case of the Mosta football stadium, an application was submitted to cover several changes to plans including the opening of windows and a nine-course structure built when the permit only granted five courses (see photos at: www.faa.org.mt/mosta-football-ground).

This permit was approved before the two week representation period ended one week ago, and without even one public hearing.

These three examples, FAA said, showed that the spirit of reform was still far from being put into practice.

It said that although one may appreciate the Mepa chairman’s candour, his words this week reflected a totally unacceptable tolerance of planning mistakes.

FAA said the chairman said: “Wrong decisions are taken and will continue to be taken….Neither this reform nor any future reform will guarantee that wrong decisions are not taken”.

The public, the group said, had a right to expect a structure that ensured that correct decisions were taken on such important matters, and that the Mepa system provided remedies for any mistakes and accountability for those who failed in their duty.

“Corrective measures are imperative. The plan to introduce a €2,500 fine for frivolous appeals will further weaken the system of redress, favouring abusive developers and inhibiting residents from using their full rights to object to unjust permits.

“Is Mepa reform going to be just more of the same,” FAA asked.