I refer to the article ‘Planning chair’s criticism of lawyer lacked maturity’ (August 3).

The chairwoman of the Planning Commission fell foul of the Chamber of Advocates for accusing lawyer Massimo Vella of showing off when he was elaborating a relevant legal point.

Some days before (July 24) the same chairwoman was also rubbished by Astrid Vella, coordinator of Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar, when she upheld the extreme permissive limits of the document she was referring to in connection with the controversial Lija flats and ignored the more important restrictive provisions and all good neighbourliness considerations.

The minimum width of frontages was ridiculously reduced. The mayor of Lija was also deeply disappointed.

I was one of the objectors in the Lija case and, as I had introduced modern town planning to Malta, based on the British Town and Country Planning Act of 1945, lectured on planning at the University for 30 years and helped set up the Planning Authority, of which I was a founder member in 1992-95, I expected some consideration.

I got short shrift from the chairwoman who only gesticulated that ‘it was coming into one ear and out of the other’. I could only say that I had been hoping there was something in between. A pious hope.

In my lecturing days, tongue in cheek, I used to say that a planning scheme to produce the maximum number of plots was reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw’s The doctor’s dilemma epigram: “Ours is not a profession, ours is a conspiracy.” The bottom line is that the injured parties have to find very substantial funds to appeal the Commission’s decision, which was supposed to protect their rights.

Is not this topsy-turvy?