Auditor raps Mepa DCC over Qala development

The Mepa audit officer has criticised Mepa for having issued permits for development along a ridge in Qala overlooking the Gozo-Comino Channel, arguing that while the local plan was vague over the issues involved, the Development Control Commission should have exercised better discretion in defence of the environment.

The development involves the development of the site currently occupied by Xerri l-Bukkett restaurant.

The main point at issue is over basement storeys. While those storeys will be below street level, they will be fully exposed from the back as the ridge slopes downwards.

"The question of the basement was hardly considered at all, either by the case officer or the DCC," the auditor, Joe Falzon, wrote in a report.

He said that policy stated that no underlying basements were permitted. This policy (whether for the site under consideration or elsewhere) had always been interpreted as meaning basements above street level. Basements completely underground were permitted. And the applicant insisted on this fact during the processing of the application.

"But in this case the situation is completely different: the basement may be completely underground on the façade of the building, but it is definitely completely exposed on the back side - where it matters. The net result is that there is a building over three floors high over the ridge."

He said the DCC did consider the problem of the appearance of the building. It even requested the applicant to submit photomontages of the proposed development.

"I have two different photomontages: one by the applicant which seems to indicate that the visual impact of the proposed development is fully acceptable and one from the objectors which shows a totally unacceptable development?" the auditor wrote.

"This is the typical situation where a decision-making body has to make use of its discretionary powers (assuming good advice had been given by the Planning Directorate). The crucial decision was whether to accept the basement or to apply rigidly the policy which prohibits any underlying basements.

"It is obvious that when the policy for rural settlements was written, the situation of a rural settlement on a very sensitive ridge was not considered. On the other hand it is obvious that the height of the buildings was of concern. I would have expected that the DCC would have insisted that no basements could be constructed which would have led the building to be left at one storey high as existing. How the DCC could accept a building which was three storeys high over a very sensitive ridge is difficult to explain."

Mr Falzon said a that a controversial development had been approved which was likely to have an adverse effect on an area of high landscape value.

He said the main fault was with the person who prepared the local plan for the area and those who approved it.

"But the DCC is also at fault. These are the situations where professional discretion is important. The Planning Directorate had given a recommendation for refusal listing five reasons for this. The reasons given for overturning the recommendation answers the objections of the Planning Directorate at best only in part and ignores completely the sensitivity of the site." Mr Falzon said.

Mr Falzon said Mepa should take measures to ensure that areas of high landscape value or high architectural value are suitably protected. Irrespective of any Local Plans or other policies it should be made clear that the protection of such areas is paramount and should take precedence over any other policy which conflicts with this basic requirement.

MEPA's reaction to preliminary report

Mr Falzon said that Mepa in a reaction to the report, which he had handed it before publication, had justifiedthe approval on the basis of the fact that the Local Plan designated the area as a Category 1 and the DCC had to apply the relevant policies.

Mr Falzon said, however, that he still disagrees with the DCC because, although a basement completely underground is permitted in Category 1 Rural Settlements, in this particular case the basement was only underground along the street. At the back, the sharp drop in the terrain exposed the basement completely. The DCC should have used its discretion, as advised by the case officer, and refused the application due to its negative visual impact as seen from a long distance away.

Furthermore, he said, the DCC failed to take into consideration the environmental sensitivity of the site.

The audit officer compiled his report following a request by a group of NGOs led by the Ramblers' Association and FAA.

Sign up to our free newsletters