I refer to the article ‘They are being spiteful because we are foreign’ (The Sunday Times of Malta, July 7). In the article Leonard and Karen Weller are quoted as saying the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal is “spiteful and vindictive because we are foreigners”; that the tribunal “would not have treated a Maltese citizen so harshly”; and that the tribunal was “picking on them and discriminating against them”.

The tribunal categorically denies that its decision is discriminatory and that Mr and Mrs Weller were not treated in the same manner as all other persons who appear before the tribunal are treated. Mr Weller’s assertion of discrimination is gratuitous and supported by no single shred of evidence.

The article in question is very much opinionated, one-sided and devoid of factual precision. No attempt has been made to synthetise the 16 page decision of the tribunal dealing with this appeal which is publicly available on the internet.

The tribunal is an independent and impartial tribunal established by law which is entrusted to give to the parties appearing before it a fair hearing. It acts as a neutral arbiter and must study the appeals from refusals lodged before it in the light of existing planning policies.

Mr Weller applied to Mepa to obtain development permission for sanctioning of extensions to approved permit for the construction of a terraced house. Through this application Mr Weller admits that he was at fault and in breach of the law as the development in question had already taken place without a valid development permission.

Mr Weller might well argue that he was deceived when he bought the property in question but that is beside the point as it is not a relevant planning consideration which the tribunal has to take cognisance of, though it can give rise to a civil action for damages against the vendor.

This application was originally flatly refused by the Development Control Commission as it deemed that the proposed sanctioning was in breach of planning policies. Mr Weller appealed this decision to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal which upheld in substantial part his appeal.

The tribunal, after having ascertained the illegalities on site, ordered, however, the appellant to demolish the washroom and the toilet at first floor level which were in clear breach of Policy PLP 20. The illegality of these two rooms was never contested by the appellant throughout the hearing of the appeal.

The remaining development at ground floor level which required sanctioning, which was much more substantial than that at first floor level, was approved by the tribunal on the basis of the valid planning arguments brought forward by the appellants.

Far from being discriminated against, the appellant thereby managed to sanction a substantial part of his illegal development consisting of a garage having an interconnecting store at ground floor level.

The bulk of the illegal development has been regularised by the tribunal’s decision yet Mr Weller still criticises the tribunal for being spiteful, vindictive, discriminatory, harsh and a bully when, as can be evidenced from the Tribunal’s decision, this is very far from the truth.