On June 27, I attended Mepa’s sitting regarding the application for the construction of a winery in Bidnija, forming part of the audience contesting the proposed project. This application is based on an outline permit granted to the applicant on June 30, 2011.

The initial permit application had initially been refused. No objectors were present during the appeal sitting on June 30, 2011 as none of them had been notified by Mepa. Bidnija residents only found out about the approval of the outline permit the day Mepa put a sign about the permit application on site.

Bidnija residents collected 30 signatures and obtained the support of the Mosta local council and of various NGOs to oppose the construction of the winery.

Before the start of Mepa’s sitting on June 27, the lawyer representing the residents had filed a request to the Appeals Tribunal to overturn its decision to grant the first permit for various reasons, namely the project being in breach of Mepa’s own policies (the applicant has no vineyards in a radius of 500 metres). The Mepa board was asked to put off the sitting pending the outcome of the appeal.

Nevertheless, the board decided to proceed with the sitting. Various issues were discussed, with Mepa board members requesting information on cesspits, windows, toilets and even suggesting to add another room on top of the building for unloading purposes!

The poor level of preparation of the planning officer and the attitude of Mepa board astonished me: instead of just rejecting the application due to the pending request before the Appeals Tribunal, the board preferred wasting the time of all the parties discussing what at this point were mere fictitious design elements.

The applicant has been asked why he wanted to build his winery in Bidnija and not on the vineyards he already owns and he answered: “because they are all in ODZ”.

This two-hour sitting once again confirmed my perception of the damage Mepa is causing to society. The planning authority is not able to abide by its own policies and regulations when deciding on permits. It supports applicants’ requests for permits when it should clearly not be doing so and, finally, Mepa is causing financial damages to all parties (applicants’ bank guarantees, application fees, architect fees, various study fees...).

Despite multiple promises by different governments, nothing has changed.

This cannot continue.