It is becoming increasingly frustrating that laws and regulations which are there to protect are used otherwise. I refer to the recent claim by Mepa that the works on the lighting system on the façade of the Auberge de Castille did not require a full development permit but were approved by a simple Development Notification Order (DNO).

Who are they trying to fool? Legal Notice 115 of 2007, and its subsequent amendments, which regulates the DNO procedures, allows under Class 12 the external lighting of buildings provided that the notification procedure is followed.

This is permitted in both urban conservation areas and on scheduled buildings, even though the legal notice does not differentiate between lighting that is affixed directly onto the façade of a scheduled building or lighting that is detached from the building. However, in Article 3 subarticle 6 (iv) of the same Legal Notice, it is stated that the DNO does not apply when the works connected with the development proposed could foreseeably cause direct or indirect damage to historic buildings.

It is clear that the works carried out in fact resulted in irreversible damage to the auberge’s façade and hence, such works could not be permitted through a simple notification. Moreover, article 2, subarticle 4(iv) of the same legal notice states that “wherever there is a difference in opinion, or any need for interpretation, as to whether a development – (a) is aesthetically or otherwise compatible with its location; or (b) affects or alters materially the character and, or context of the building or site and its surroundings”, the opinion of the authority prevails.

The legal notice, therefore, empowers Mepa to override recommendations by other agencies in those instances where there is a divergent opinion on the development proposed.

So I appeal to Mepa to please show maturity, stop pointing fingers and admit its fault in allowing such works to go ahead.