I ask Michael Falzon (Form Over Substance, May 13) to re-read my letter (Is Mepa Reform Just A Hollow Dream? May 10). I retracted just one allegation, that the interior of the Amery Street house is to be completely gutted. Since when does that count as "many", as he states?

I also reiterate that this mistake was made because of Mepa's refusal to allow NGOs their right to view plans online as had been announced by both the Minister and the Prime Minister. To date, and weeks after we applied, we are still blocked from this facility. Therefore, in spite of our best efforts to carry out our research, which can be confirmed by Mepa itself, this cannot be done properly if we are presented with outdated information. Contrary to Mr Falzon's claim, we did everything within our power to check the case officer's report against the plans but can only work with what we are given. If Mepa's attitude is still that of keeping the public at arm's length, then these are the results that can be expected.

As for Mr Falzon's failure to declare all the facts of the case, it is natural that he tries to belittle the significance of this omission. I feel it is very arrogant of him to dismiss the need for correct information (required by Mepa's Circular to Architects 8/02) as "unnecessary bureaucracy", especially since these requirements have been specifically laid down in order to ensure the protection of sensitive areas. And yes, we do maintain that those few architects who systematically sign to binding documents where they have omitted to declare the required information are guilty of fraud. This is confirmed by the definition in Mepa's Development Planning Act: "Fraud means the submission to the authority of any information, declaration or plan on the basis of which the authority has approved a development permission, where such information, declaration or plan is false, misleading or incorrect, irrespective of whether such deceit is the result of a wilful or negligent act".

Mr Falzon can try to accuse us of many things, but sloppy research is not one of them.