PN president Victor Scerri resigns after Gonzi tells him to 'take the morally correct decision'
Matthew Vella & Raphael Vassallo
Victor Scerri announced his resignation as PN president late yesterday evening, barely a few hours after telling this newspaper he was ready to “sue MEPA” if the planning auhtority decided to revoke his Bahrija permit.
Scerri’s surprise decision came hard on the heels of a public statement by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who said on Sunday that he was confident Scerri would “take the morally correct decision.”
Gonzi’s cryptic message was not initially interpreted as an indirect call for Scerri’s resignation – at least, not by Scerri himself, who up until yesterday afternoon was still defiantly insisting that his ODZ permit should be validated by MEPA.
At 2pm yesterday, Scerri told MaltaToday he had met Gonzi on Monday. “He (Gonzi) assured me he trusts my integrity.”
Scerri also shrugged off any pressure that Gonzi’s statement may have placed upon his political career.
“Some weeks ago in a newspaper interview, the prime minister said disciplinary measures should be taken in the case of mistakes in the planning process. From what the auditor has said so far, it seems I have done nothing wrong… what MEPA has decided is not my problem.”
Despite the controversial nature of his planning application, and the MEPA auditor’s claim that the permit should have never been approved, Victor Scerri remained in defiant mood almost to the bitter end.
He said that if his application were to be revoked by MEPA, he would consider suing the authority. “It is one of the options available. If MEPA decides to revoke the permit using article 39(A), I can sue the authority.”
But in what appears to be a last-minute change of heart, Scerri issued a tersely-worded statement late yesterday evening, in which he claimed that his decision to resign had been taken out of his own free will, and that he had not been pushed to resign by anybody.
Efforts to contact Scerri after his announcement proved futile.
Under pressure Scerri, whose villa was approved for construction by MEPA on an ecologically sensitive pocket of land in Bahrija, has been under pressure ever since the issue was made public during the European election campaign.
Environmental NGOs were until yesterday railing against the PN president because the development, refused at various stages of the process, was finally approved by the Development Control Commission despite negative recommendations by MEPA case officers.
Scerri himself stopped the development and asked MEPA’s own auditor to investigate. Although his report is still unpublished, Joe Falzon has publicly stated that the permit should have never been issued.
Gonzi, too, has been under pressure on account of Scerri’s permit. As the man who personally guaranteed a reform of the planning authority before the 2008 election, this latest gaffe was perceived to be deeply embarrassing to the prime minister.
Already facing angry public sentiment over the approval of the Bahrija villa, as well as an increasingly evident backbencher revolt, the last thing Gonzi could afford was a reinforcement of the perception that key PN activists somehow considered themselves above the law.
With hindsight, his public declaration that Scerri would “take the morally correct decision” takes on a whole new dimension of meaning. As does the fact that Paul Borg Olivier, the PN secretary-general, said he had nothing to add to the Prime Minister’s statements.
Robert Musumeci, the architect who made the case for Scerri’s application, is among the few to have stood by Victor Scerri, his client.
“Scerri would only be morally responsible is he is found to have done anything wrong. He would shoulder responsibility if he did something morally unacceptable,” Musumeci, who is also the Nationalist mayor of Siggiewi, said yesterday.
“If anything, from what the MEPA auditor said so far, his comments are directed at the system, not at Scerri. I don’t know where the moral line comes in: it is MEPA that refuses or accepts any permit.”
Spin in action Since Sunday the Nationalist machine has attempted to deflate the saga by planting stories in the press concerning Green Party activist Carmel Cacopardo and former Labour works minister Charles Buhagiar.
Both architects represented clients with similar applications to Scerri’s in Bahrija. Both applications were recommended for refusal by MEPA technical staff, but then approved by the DCC.
Even Labour leader Joseph Muscat has found himself in the line of fire. Scerri yesterday queried whether Muscat should be held accountable over the MEPA permit he was issued back in 1998 within a matter of 24 hours.
Muscat applied for the construction of his Burmarrad residence in January 1998. The DCC approved it a day after MEPA case officers had recommended approval – however it was approved four days before the end of the period during which objections could be made.
BAHRIJA CASE HISTORY How Scerri got his permit
Compiled by James Debono
2000 – first application rejected In 2000 Marthese Said (Victor Scerri’s wife) applied for an outline permit for the rehabilitation and extension of an unused residential farmhouse. The proposal was recommended for refusal as the site is located within an area of archaeological and ecological importance and within a site where no physical development is allowed.
Following a site inspection, the DCC refused the application. Refusal was issued to Marthese Said on June 2001.
Reconsideration (accepted despite negative recommendation by experts)
A request for reconsideration was submitted and the Planning Directorate once again called for an outright refusal for the same reasons. The reconsideration report was referred to DCC for determination.
The DCC requested submission of a restoration method statement. The DCC issued the permit on condition that the footprint of the building was to remain the same. The application was approved by DCC in view of submission of evidence that site was used for residential purposes. The outline development permit was issued on 25 September 2002.
Full permit (approved with condition 3) In 2002 Marthese Said applied for a full development permit for the demolition of the existing building and construction of proposed farmhouse. Once again the application was recommended for refusal because the proposal differed from outline proposal as it called for the total demolition of the farmhouse.
But despite the objection, the application was approved by the DCC in line with the outline development permit and on condition that the development should entail the rehabilitation and not the complete demolition of the farmhouse.
The permit was issued on 2 May 2003, with condition 3 clearly stating that “the total external footprint shall not exceed 95 square metres and the total external floor area shall not exceed 134 square metres” and that “demolition shall be kept to a bare minimum and substantial or total rebuilding may result in forfeiture of this development permission.”
Full permit application to remove condition 3 In 2004, Said applied again for a full development application to delete condition 3. The proposal was recommended for approval on condition that the first part of the condition, relating to the footprint and floor-area not exceeding 95 square meters was retained.
The permit was issued to Said on 11 April 2005 with condition 3 amended to ‘the total external footprint shall not exceed 95 square metres and the total external floor area shall no exceed 134 square metres’.
Application to amend permit (elimination of condition 3) Said applied again in 2006 to amend this condition. The Planning Directorate insisted the extension to the existing footprint was objectionable in principle. Significantly, the case officer noted that architect Robert Musumeci had applied to amend the permit issued in 2003 “completely ignoring the fact that this permit is no longer valid in that it has been superseded with PA5846/04 approved on 11 April 2005.”
The case officer noted that in the latter application, the architect had attempted to delete condition 3, which specifies the maximum footprint and floor area which can be permitted. “However the permit was issued with the part of condition 3 relating to the footprint and floor area retained.”
The proposal was thus recommended for refusal as previous permits clearly specify that the footprint is to be retained since an increase would run counter to the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies. According to the case officer the application was in breach of Development Control Guidance on ODZ developments which clearly states that proposals which affect fresh land require strong justification, and loss of land of agricultural importance will not be permitted.
The proposal was also deemed to be in breach of the Structure Plan which states that in Level 2 scheduled sites, development is to be limited to the maintenance of already existing structures; and ran counter to Structure Plan policy ARC 3 which states that within areas of archaeological importance, applications for development will be refused.
Yet despite all these objections in a DCC meeting held on 19 September 2007 the project was approved four to one “in view of previous permit and within the area allowed by policy.”
It does not state which policy.
Another DCC meeting held on 16 April 2009 decided that the works should be carried out according to the restoration method statement presented by architect Musumeci.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
