Audit Officer critical of petrol station permit

Ramblers Association

Aug 19th 2012, 12:05

Here is our full press release. It contains more interesting details. If anyone is interested in the MEPA auditor's report, please email us on ram205@gmail.com or on ramwalks@gmail.com.

RELOCATION OF MGARR PETROL STATION: AWARD OF PERMIT AGAINST ALL ODDS

Following a request by Ramblers the MEPA Auditor, Perit Joe Falzon, investigated the permission granted for the relocation of the Mgarr Square petrol station to a site outside the development zone (PA 0667/08). His conclusions and recommendations, fowarded to us recently, are being summarised. Please see attached for the full report.

1. The absence of a proper policy document on the provision of service stations makes it impossible to decide whether good planning practice has been followed or not in the approval of this application. However, the approval of a retail facility to sell motor vehicles, the operation of a service garage for the repair of motor vehicles and spray painting, and the approval of a storage facility for construction vehicles is clearly against policy and should not have been approved.

2. The MEPA is advised to prepare a detailed policy document for facilities which need to be located outside development zone as otherwise the MEPA is likely to be faced with other requests, which on the basis of previous decisions, would be difficult to refuse.

3. When a development is approved to be located outside building zone, only such facilities as are strictly necessary for the proper operation of the facility should be considered. In the case of the applications under consideration, only the petrol station could possibly have been approved. The rest should have been located in areas zoned for this purpose.

The Ramblers comment on other salient points made by the Auditor in his report:
• The Chairman does not challenge any of these three statements. It is inconceivable that the MEPA board did now know all this;

• 12 years after this saga began the MEPA has still not drawn up the relevant policy document;

• It beggars belief that in 2009 this same applicant was granted permission to increase the size of the petrol tank in his Mgarr square station. Seems like MEPA’s right hand had lost all interest in its left one.

• The architect of the applicant justified the excessive area being taken up by saying that it involved less land than was taken up by the Buqana service station – a fact that just shows how right Mr Falzon was on precedents;

• Ten years after the Outline Permit was granted the Board allowed applicant to considerably increase the footprint at the cost of additional ODZ, for facilities that he did not have in his previous location;

• The Heritage Advisory Committee (Natural) advised that the conditions of the Outline Permit should be strictly adhered to. So did the Environment Protection Directorate of the MEPA itself. The recommendations were overlooked and the applicant got away with two-and-a-half times the area that was approved in the Outline Permit.

• The new application asked also for a retail space to replace the one existing in the square, only this time it was much, much larger. The Auditor notes: “a retail outlet for the sale of motor vehicles cannot be justified in any way……It is clear therefore that the permit … was issued contrary to policy.”

• It is “unjustifiable” that spraying is allowed to be carried out on site when this is only allowed in industrial zone

• The applicant had been using a large open area located outside building zone used for the storage of construction vehicles. This was completely illegal and MEPA had served Enforcement Notices; the applicant appealed and lost, took the case to the Court of Appeal and lost again. So Mr Falzon writes: “In a normal civilized country subject to the rule of law such persons are liable for all damage done and are normally subjected to very heavy fines. However, the MEPA rewards such persons….. I ask again: is it the intention of the MEPA to allow storage of construction vehicles within sites outside development zone?”

• “The site was subject to an enforcement order which the applicant had ignored and continued with his business. Yet the application was approved when, according to MEPA policy, it should have been dismissed.”

This notwithstanding, the DPA report recommended that the application be approved, and on August 11, 2011 the MEPA Board obliged, albeit not too happily, with 6 votes in favour and 4 against, and granted the permit to PA 0667/08. And this was after the MEPA had been ‘reformed’ and a new MEPA board had been handpicked by the Government.

So, the Ramblers, and the general public, might well ask: Was there any tangible improvement with the new MEPA over the old one? We are still getting this sort of anomaly anyway. It would seem that the problem was not just in the organisational set-up, but also (mainly?) in the application of existing policy and regulations.

RAM also takes this opportunity of asking what has happened to the contemplated legal notice (attached) entitled "Daily Penalty Regulations 2011". This LN would establish a Daily Fines Schedule for infringements, according to the type of infringement and the area concerned. Has this LN been issued, and is the Daily Fines Schedule in force? If not, why is the government dragging its feet on this?

Steve Zammit

Aug 17th 2012, 23:25

I passed from Imgarr the other week....TAL-MISTHIJA

Mepa my foot

R ferriggi

Aug 17th 2012, 14:57

VERY SORRY TO SAY - COUNTRY TO THE DOGS.

GL Calleja

Aug 17th 2012, 14:48

Mr Falzon, you have to understand that " We are Maltese and we do as we please." And so does Mepa.

Joe Mallia

Aug 17th 2012, 14:47

The continuity of environmental destruction by MEPA . Is this the reform we were promised/? What a waste of public finances!

Justin Camilleri

Aug 17th 2012, 14:14

What about the person/s involved who issued the permit. These must be fired from there job. Because if person who work for a privet company do a big mistake, they will recive a worning or some of them be fired. You cannot take mistakes when there is a set of rules just to follow. But i think that in mepa even the manegment do the same things.

Kenneth Galea

Aug 17th 2012, 13:03

At least MEPA exists and functions, when the late Lorry Sant was in charge in granting permits, OH boy that is the real scandalous period of time. Corruption and one scandal after the other. This is nothing in comparison to what Lorry Sant used to do back in the eighties. I don't blame KMB when he wanted nothing to do with Lorry Sant. At the end of the day KMB had the guts to expel him from the party and I take my hat off to KMB, I always said KMB was the most honest Prime Minister we ever had. The above article huwa biss nemla in comparison to l-iljufant li kellna fi zmien il-Lorry!!!

Victor Laiviera

Aug 17th 2012, 12:52

Mr Joe Falzon's last service to the Maltese people before being shunted aside.

And the most worrying aspect is that it had to be the Ombudsman who did the shunting.

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Aug 17th 2012, 12:48

What I would like to know is, what happens now? Will the Auditor's report just be shelved and forgotten? I hope that someone in government at least reads this report and does something about it. Otherwise, what is the point of having an Auditor? Lack of government or MEPA action will only add to our suspicions that someone has been particularly favoured.

Edward Mallia

Aug 17th 2012, 12:44

Perhaps the most serious implication of this report is this: if the 'old' MEPA Audit Office was in fact almost completely impotent in the sense that no matter how strong and well proven the points made by the Auditor nothing much happens and the "wrongdoers" get away with it, what's new about the "powers" of Environment Commissioner ? The fact that he is now under the Ombudsman -- another "Institution" which government has ignored pretty frequently does not look like much gain.
As for Peter Gingell asking us to for concrete evidence on corruption in MEPA, I am quite happy to oblige:

At the Delimara Extension IPPC permit hearing on 5th December 2011:
1. The Enemalta engineers presented a testing schedule which "required" that the Diesel engines be run for 24hrs/ day for 240 days. This was fraudulent in that no engines could be run that intensely; it was described as fraudulent in the presence of the Enemalta engineers but these remained silent. The MEPA Board Chiarman swept the matter under the carpet on the grounds of lack of time.
2. Working on that fraudulent brief, the audit firm KPMG worked out that use of gasoil (for 24hrs/day for 240 days) rather than HFO would lead to PRESENT utility rates to be raised by 10.2%. Quite apart from the fraudulent brief, the calculation made by KPMG was faulty. For the PRESENT utility rates -- irony of ironies based on the 2009 KPMG report -- had no component of Extension operation, given the Extension did not then exist. This too was pointed out, and this too was ignored; to be precise, the KPMG person disclaimed any responsibility for the 'brief' but he was fully responsible for the erroneous comparison.
I leave it to Peter Gingell to decide whose conduct was "corrupt". I'd be quite happy to transmit my own opinion privately to MEPA.

In case anyone is curious as to why the Enemalta engineers provided such a ridiculous brief, it must be remembered that the decision to use HFO and not Gasoil had already been taken by the powers that be.
But the public (not to mention a dopey MEPA board) does not really understand the finer points of these discussions. But the threat of a 10.2% increase in present rates is easily understood. Now the greater the number of hours the Extension was going to run on test, the larger would be the HFO-gasoil unit cost difference. Hence the brief- an engineering impossibility. The KPMG matter may, repeat may, have been a genuine mistake.

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Aug 17th 2012, 12:44

Mr Peter Gingell, in my opinion when you have a Member of prliament sitting in on hearings before a MEPA Board and making his own contribution to the discussion, is corruption. Did we not have the Mistra case on these lines? So is it not possible that some MP has (behind the scenes) insisted with MEPA that it issues this permit? We the ordinary people can never prove this - but the suspicion is very strong especially after past experience. Can you, Mr Gingell assure us that no minister or MP has influenced MEPA in its decision? Since you are so keen to defend MEPA, and since you kow so well how it works from the inside, you should be able to give us this guarantee. If not, our suspicions will remain.

Godwin Dalli

Aug 17th 2012, 12:19

Bla bla bla Dear Messrs. Gingell & Curmi - first we need the whistle blowers act. At the moment we are living in a country administered by comedians. What do you think guys?

C Galea

Aug 17th 2012, 11:51

well done for Ramblers and Mr Falzon

Alfred Vassallo

Aug 17th 2012, 11:48

@
Peter Gingell

The usual bla bla from pn apologists....come forward if one knows anything......bla bla......while malta is wallowing up to its neck in corruption, jasbu dawn li il nies ta wara il muntanji. Get a LIFE!!.

Giorgio Schembri

Aug 17th 2012, 11:22

BLA BLA BLA............Dejjem l istess paroli!!.......hallu lill kulhadd fil paci......kulhadd ghandu xi jxomm taht ghabtu!!

Astrid Vella

Aug 17th 2012, 11:18

I clearly recall that in addition to the relocation of the original petrol station, the applicant requested and was granted a permit to set up a car-wash, panel beater and some car sales space! And all this on virgin fields which included a protected girna and was very close to an aquifer, hence any leads could pollute Mgarr's drinking water.

The fact that this application was granted is a huge blot on MEPA's record. What is particularly scandalous, however, is that Petra Bianchi, the new MEPA Director of Environment blessed such a permit!

Peter Gingell: it is only natural that in the face of such evidence, the public is left thinking that there must be either corruption or crass incompetence at MEPA. It is not for the public to provide evidence, as you suggest below, as the public does not have the vested power to do that. It is the Authorities who should have commenced investigations a long, long time ago.

Paul Cassar

Aug 17th 2012, 11:18

PLEASE NOTE:
while most of us are angry, very angry, the FAVOURED few are happy, laughing and rubbing

their hands in glee......................every time that such cases happen.....................THUS WORKS THE POWER OF

INCUMBENCY AND THE PERSISTENCE OF GONZIPN........................WE CAN ONLY GRIND OUR TEETH.

Norman Abela

Aug 17th 2012, 11:16

MEPA 3905/03...maybe this rings a bell..that is where MEPA is strong with the weak. My contribution a few years back explains it all:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20050727/letters/happy-birthday-mepa-03905-03.82934

Joseph Grech Attard

Aug 17th 2012, 11:16

Another item to the list of corrupt practices to add for the EU to publish!

Joe Attard

Aug 17th 2012, 11:16

Remember that this application was a case of ' flimkien kollox possibbli', the Local Council joining ranks with the developer,a bit of help from Transport Malta and last but not least the EPD at Mepa . It was ultimately 'our Environment Director ' with her vote that made it possible that this controversial application goes through 6-5 .Bahrija still ranks as the worst environmental fiasco by this administration,but this follows close behind.

j brincat

Aug 17th 2012, 10:52

What's new?



(jb)

Eddy Privitera

Aug 17th 2012, 10:41

Does it really take much intelligence to realize, that this is another case of seeing a lot of smoke of corruption, but not the actual fire, as was the B.W.S.C. case ?????

F. Mercieca

Aug 17th 2012, 10:37

L-Awditur Joe Falzon ukoll kien investiga xi lmenti mressqa mill-Kumitat Kontra l-Impjant ta Sant'Antnin u kien sab li kien hemm diversi ksur tal-ligijiet, inkluz l-involviment tal-Politici fil-process, imma b'daqshekk x'[gara? Ir-Rapport tieghu kien gie mizmum milli jkun ippubblikat mill-Ombudsman fuq talba tal-MEPA stess li suppost twaqqfet biex tkun is-salvagwarda u t-tarka tac-cittadin. Mn"Alla kien ippubblikah il-Perit Cacopardo, ghax kieku hadd ma jaf x'fih. It-tajba hi, li l-MEPA kienet ippubblikat ir-reazzjoni taghha ghal dak ir-Rapport tal-Awditur li l-Ombudsman kien zamm milli jkun ippubblikat, kemm permezz ta press release kif ukoll fuq il-website. Xi haga li qatt ma stajt n ifhem u hadd s'issa ma kellu l-hila li jispjegahieli.

Charles Micallef

Aug 17th 2012, 10:32

No wonder they wanted Perit Joe Falzon out of the way.......
......... they simply cannot do with more embarrassing revelations.

B Attard

Aug 17th 2012, 10:17

Corruption at its best! To stand on its feet and be reliable first Mepa must act practically. So much red tape on many minor issues and happy go lucky on seriuos and scandalous ones. Shame on such irresponsile administrators.

victor bonello

Aug 17th 2012, 10:05

This is only the tip of an iceberg especially now that elections are near.. Talk id cheap - not so long ago both PM Gonzi as well as DeMarco said tolerance zero especially to DZ permits- Time will tell !!! elections on the way...

Elvin Muscat

Aug 17th 2012, 10:01

Audit officer should follow and investigate claims made by certain people involved with MEPA. These are usually Architects that disrupt or help make further claims to their already incumbent permits. There are too many irregular permits, MEPA do not seem to know how to stand and are so blinded by blinkers that some straight forward permits are hindered by these regulations and architects.
A few more open minded persons on the board would go a long way.
MEPA is becoming a black mark to our society.
PL take note.

mark johnson

Aug 17th 2012, 09:50

The thing that strikes me about MEPA is that it is riddled with either incompetence or corruption.

Either way it's bad news for us.

Edward Mallia

Aug 17th 2012, 09:40

Is it correct that under recent legislation such a thing as " a class action" is possible in the local courts?
If it is, MEPA ought to be made the target of such over cases like the Mgarr petrol station permit. And what about the Anti-Corruption Commission? Such a blatant ignoring of regulations cannot have been exempt from influence peddling at the very least, and more probably to political party palms being crossed with gold.

Peter Simpson

Aug 17th 2012, 09:37

Oh no, not again ; an other scandal? Can't we have one single positive news about GonziPN? Its boring listening to PBS news on hot air, but these scandals are ruining the holidays of many Maltese! Morna l-bahar!

M camilleri

Aug 17th 2012, 09:24

Tridu li jitnehew il pompi mil local ? Iva jew Le ? aluwra jekk iva fejn tridu li immoru lafrica?

R. Balzan

Aug 17th 2012, 09:19

Se jibqghu jghumu fil-hmieg sa l-ahhar minuta!

Lawrence Fenech

Aug 17th 2012, 09:16

U issa la waslet l'elezzjoni johorgu permessi galore u xorta wahda issir. Ara il-pompa ta' Has-Zebbug imissa tisthi il-MEPA halliet progett sabieh u utli bhal dak bla permess u wieqfa, din issa hsara iggib. X'qed tistenna il-MEPA biex tigi f'arrangament mas-sid u il-pompa tinfetah ghal-uzu tal-pupliku in generali.

Peter Murray

Aug 17th 2012, 09:06

Excuse my disingenuity but shouldn't such concerns reservations have been expressed by the Audit Offiicer-and these made public- prior to this permit being approved and not tardily more than a year after?

Giovanni Rizzo

Aug 17th 2012, 08:49

Sewwa kien jghid Dr.alfred Sant, HBIEB tal HBIEB.

Mr Tony Gatt

Aug 17th 2012, 08:42

So the destruction of "Beautiful Malta"(!) continues. You have to be wearing a very large pair of rose-tinted glasses to put a positive gloss on what's going on.

Andrea Sammut

Aug 17th 2012, 08:19

Even though no policy does exist for a building of this nature in an ODZ surely commen sense should prevail and such a monstrous structure should not have been allowed.... Makes you wonder why Mepa are even there!

Godwin C Micallef

Aug 17th 2012, 08:00

Surprise !? What's new? Political influence !?

twanny borg

Aug 17th 2012, 07:53

fejn jidhlu permessi hemm bzonn li jidhlu l-pulizija jinvestigaw. per ezempju ma nistax nifhem kif certi work permits johorgu lil barranin bhal minn georgia, serbji u ohrajn anki ghal sempliciment bhala cleaners. mhux bilfors ikun hawn xoghol prekarju ghal maltin. possibbli m'hawnx cleaners malta? trid xi sengha partikulari ghal cleaner? dawn jaghlmu l-maltin bhala cleaners? morru tas-sliema, san giljan u bugibba mimlija b'nies barranin mhux turisti. fejn huma tal-etc? veru tad-dahq jew tal-biki. forsi t-times iggib artiklu fuq dawn.

Jason Falzon

Aug 17th 2012, 07:43

Ipprova biddel il-kulur ta xi bieb jew tieqa, ha tara L-MEPA x taghmel!!!