The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) said today that its audit officer should never have carried out an investigation and published a report into the permit for a development at Qala Ridge in Gozo, once the case was still before the Appeals Board.
"The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub-judice," Mepa said.
"The Authority regrets that the Audit Officer's actions once again contradict the decision of a higher institution - this time the Ombudsman's Office."
Last week Mepa noted that comments made by the audit officer in the Mistra development case with regards to meetings between its officials and developers contradicting a finding by the magistrates' court. The comments by the auditor were also criticised by the Prime Minister on Sunday. Dr Gonzi said that the institutions should respect each other.
The audit officer's investigation into the development of the site currently occupied by Xerri l-Bukkett restaurant in Qala was requested by nine environment NGOs and the report was issued to the press by the NGOs themselves. In it, the audit officer, Joe Falzon, noted shortcomings in the local plan for Qala but said the Development Control Commission was wrong not to have exercised its discretionary powers in the interest of the environment.
Mepa said the audit officer chose to ignore or omit a number of issues in his report.
The Authority said that although there was a first refusal to this application, this was entirely based on the fact that the proposed development over-spilled the category 1 boundary. At reconsideration stage the drawings were amended and the ones approved showed that the development including the swimming pools was to be all within the category 1 settlement zone, even though according to planning policies of swimming pools, these could have even been placed outside this settlement boundary.
While the Auditor stated in his report that the Development Control Commission wrongly permitted underlying basements to the development, the interpretation of the Policy as had been published by the Local Planning Unit, clearly explained and stated that this policy permitted the construction of a basement under street level.
The proposed three storey development was in accordance with the ridge edge policy that governs such developments. Furthermore, the DCC limited the approved height to 72% of the permissible height given the in DC2007. This in fact is why the visual impact of the proposal was minimized, especially at the back."
Mepa said the auditor had questioned the validity of the photomontages presented by the applicant and seemed to favour those handed in by the objectors.
"The objectors' photomontages were produced prior to the first decision and so present an absurd picture of what was approved. Here the Auditor should point out that the submitted photomontages of the objectors were totally misleading and not based on the actual plans and elevations related to the development," Mepa said.
"Interestingly, had the applicant submitted such misleading information, his application could have been revoked though Article 39(A) of the Development Planning Act, while when objectors submit misleading information there are no consequences."
The Authority said the Audit Officer should have never carried out an investigation, and more so, published his report, given that this case was still before the Appeals Board. The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub -judice.
"The Authority regrets that the Audit Officer's actions once again contradict the decision of a higher institution - this time the Ombudsman's Office."
See also
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091112/local/auditor-raps-mepa-dcc-over-qala-development