Mepa appeals tribunal recommends against FAA appeal on Valletta project

Although Mepa's appeals tribunal agrees that the project for the construction of a new City Gate, Parliament, theatre and landscaping in Valletta was prima facie inconsistent with the structure plan, it said it could not understand how this policy could ever be implemented.

The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal was giving its "recommendation" on Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar's appeal against the project in which FAA maintained that the project violated the Structure Plan which stated that: "Parliament and ministerial offices must make use of existing palaces and auberges in Valletta whilst an administrative centre will be built outside Valletta to house all government departments."

The tribunal rebutted that "prima facie it can be said that the permit granted is inconsistent with this policy, however, this tribunal cannot understand how this policy can ever be implemented, not only because there exists no provision or plan for the building of such an administrative centre outside Valletta, but because of the negative consequences on auberges and palaces if these are altered or modified to accommodate offices with today's necessities.

"This is in respect of serious problems of incompatibility in the designated use especially when one considers issues such as services, security, amenities etc."

FAA argued that the remit of the Appeals Tribunal was to review matters regarding violations of procedure, and not the feasibility of conversion projects.

It, therefore, expected a ruling on whether the policy had been broken or not.

It also appealed against the granting of the permit on the grounds that no serious public consultation was held as the government was obliged to do given that it was signatory to the Aarhus Convention.

"The project was presented as a fait accompli and given wide, orchestrated publicity while the comments of the public were totally ignored," it said.

On public participation the tribunal stated:

"This is an important point particularly when one considers that the site has a socio-cultural significance not only on a national but also on a world-wide basis since Valletta is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"It is therefore essential that the participation of the public should be considered, but one should not expect that any proposal for a national project must necessarily accommodate the ideas and the expectations of everybody, or that it pleases everybody."

The tribunal conceded that no true public consultation was carried out and recommended that for future plans, the time during which the public is invited to submit comments should be lengthened.

FAA stated that in its appeal it did not ask for the lengthening of the public consultation period, but had asked the Tribunal to assess on the proof it submitted that no public consultation was held. This also in view of the fact that the developer did not produce any proof from his part, that public consultation had in fact taken place and that the comments of the public had been looked into seriously.

FAA said that these were serious violations of the EU Directive on public information and participation. It said it had already held a meeting with the Brussels EU Infringements Unit which viewed the matter very seriously.