It was disheartening to hear the Prime Minister label the report by the Ombudsman for the environment castigating the planning authority over the grant of a permit on Mistra Ridge as “based on factual mistakes”.

Given that the Ombudsman is a servant of Parliament and the people’s last resort in seeking a remedy to public maladministration, one would have hoped for a more measured and respectful response from the Prime Minister. This, especially, in the face of the considerable public disquiet expressed by people of all parties at the horrendous environmental impact of the proposed Mistra development and its chequered planning history.

Two key facts emerge from the Ombudsman’s considered judgement.

First, he concluded that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority was wrong to issue an outline permit in 2008 (under the Nationalist Administration) and it compounded this error further when it chose to give permission to the full development a few weeks ago.

That the outline planning permit was granted five years ago was not in itself an overriding argument for not revoking it. “While the authority is in duty bound to respect commitments, this does not signify that the board’s hands are tied,” said the Ombudsman. “There is no commitment... to accept and approve applications for development which leave major adverse impacts unresolved”, a conclusion any objective jurist would accept.

Secondly, his report criticised Mepa chairman Vince Cassar for breaking established rules of procedure when the board discussed in secret session the grant of the permit, arising from his refusal to postpone the final decision in view of the fact that one objector at the public hearing had asked the environmental Ombudsman to intervene.

Moreover, in a scathing report, the Ombudsman had found the Mepa board was “complacent and overlooked major drawbacks in the proposal... did not give due consideration” to justified concerns raised by objectors “of the deleterious effect it would cause”... and “the detrimental effects on the natural environment [of] the insensitive urban design treatment”.

Mepa claims that the legal advice it received is that the Ombudsman’s interpretation of the law on the board’s ability to revoke a permit was based on factual mistakes. That is as it may be. It is always a moot point in planning matters – complex and often dependent on precedent – which legal advice should hold sway. But that architectural and environmental common sense fell victim to political pressure on the Mepa board (and Transport Malta, which had formerly raised serious questions about the project but recently rescinded them) to come to a favourable planning decision in this case cannot easily be far from the dispassionate observer’s mind. Major foreign investment issues were at stake in Mistra.

The unseemly haste of the outright rejection of the Ombudsman’s report by the government, and the Prime Minister, appear to underline the impression of political pressure on the Mepa board, and the chairman , which does not bode well either for the environment or for the respect and integrity of the board.

The least the government should have done was, first, to take more careful and considered stock of the Ombudsman’s judgement. Secondly, it should show some contrition for the adverse environmental impact which, by common consent, including the judgement of the impartial Ombudsman, the Mistra project will deliver and resolve that future developments of such magnitude will be more carefully considered.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.