I refer to the letter by Kevin Aquilina, legal adviser to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (July 14).
Requests were made frequently that correspondence should be in English (we are British) but continued in Maltese. Hearings were conducted mostly in Maltese and the decision notice issued in Maltese. English is an official language of Malta, and its use was requested.
Two developments are taking place near our property and one – a bungalow – is immediately opposite. Its footprint is within 150 square metres in accordance with the policy but is surrounded by a jacuzzi, swimming pool, patio, parking area, landscaped gardens and more land is onsite.
The second is a large development and the field next to it has recently been purchased and included in the building works. Both are ‘new build’, have resulted in loss of agricultural land and are being carried out by Maltese citizens.
Whereas our ‘development’ was completed three decades ago, there was no loss of agricultural land.
Bearing in mind the ARMS utility tariff, the e-residence cards saga, and bus fares for tourists, these two points were seen as further examples of the attitude towards non-Maltese citizens.
Aquilina continues in his letter that the submission of an application to Mepa is an admission of guilt but we were unaware of illegalities until informed by the enforcement officer.
An application was submitted to put matters right. We can only repeat that an inspector from the then authorities (pre-Mepa) visited the property while building work was in progress and authorised the work to continue to completion. The explanation for the change in plan is shown in the decision notice but was not taken into account by the board in its decision making.
Aquilina states that the illegalities of the washroom and the ensuite toilet were not contested in the appeal. The focus was on the garage and yard (ground floor development) as this seemed to be Mepa’s only contention.
Mepa’s comment suggests that these two rooms were not opposed. We were therefore shocked by the board’s decision particularly as both rooms are within the 1980s approval.
The 1980s approval allowed the house to be 329 square metres but it is 307 metres. It also permitted four bedrooms but there are three bedrooms plus washroom.
The board’s decision is based on policy PLP 20 which was introduced 10 years after the reconstruction and states that developments ODZ must not exceed 150 square metres. Our house therefore exceeds that permitted today.