Falzon says Gozo local plan designated a restaurant into a ‘rural hamlet’ and promises to investigate any case where the environment is at risk
James Debono Planning Authority audit officer Joe Falzon is on the warpath yet again with MEPA, after it issued a statement that censored his investigation of a permit that is still pending before MEPA’s appeals board.
The bone of contention concerns a permit for a three-storey development over Qala ridge on the site of a restaurant that was designated as a ‘rural hamlet’ by the Gozo local plan.
“By no stretch of imagination can I understand how a restaurant and an adjacent dwelling belonging to the same owner were designated as ‘Category 1 Rural Settlement’ in the local plan,” MEPA auditor Joe Falzon told MaltaToday.
It was the designation of this property that belongs to developer Joe Xerri as an outside development zone (ODZ) hamlet, that paved the way for the development overlooking Mgarr harbour from Qala.
“The reasons given by the Local Plan unit for this designation were not satisfactory,” Falzon said. “Those responsible for this decision claim they were being consistent… I wonder whether there are any other Category 1 settlements consisting of just two units on a very prominent ridge. This is a serious matter which I recommend MEPA should look into.”
But following his report into the approval of the permit, MEPA rebuked Falzon for investigating this controversial permit while it was still under appeal.
Falzon has defended his right to investigate such cases. “I will investigate any case where irreparable harm can be caused to the environment or to the historical heritage irrespective of whether there is a pending appeal or not,” he told MaltaToday.
MEPA insists that the audit officer should never have investigated the Qala Ridge case while it was under appeal. “The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub judice,” the authority said.
But Falzon said that MEPA’s appeals board takes years to decide cases. “By the time it decides, the development will have been already completed. We will then be faced by a fait accompli even if it turns down the application.”
He added that he did not feel obliged to consult the Ombudsman over whether or not to publish the report, as he had done back in 2007 over the Sant Antnin recycling plant, which was also under appeal. “Nothing in the law obliges me to consult with the ombudsman on what cases to investigate or not,” Falzon said.
Controversial designation In his report, Falzon lambasts the planning decision to zone a restaurant and an adjacent property belonging to the same owner as a “rural settlement”.
“Possibly it was a convenient way of classification, with unfortunate results,” Falzon notes.
The planners who formulated the local plan for the area showed “a lack of sensitivity in the zoning of the site” and MEPA itself had refused a previous application for the installation of a dish antenna back in 1998, for this specific reason.
“If in 1998, the site was considered so sensitive that even a dish antenna was considered objectionable, why did the local plan in 2006 allow the erection of an additional floor?” asked Falzon.
According to Falzon, MEPA’s local plans unit was unable to give a satisfactory explanation for zoning of the area. He said the explanation given was that it provided a simple classification which followed similar classifications in other local plans.
“But I wonder whether there are any other Category 1 Settlements consisting of just two units on a very prominent ridge,” Falzon said.
While blaming the authors of the local plan for failing to consider the site’s environmental sensitivity, Falzon said the MEPA’s development control commission (DCC) was also partly at fault for ignoring important objections by the Planning Directorate, which called for a refusal of the application.
“How the DCC could accept a building three storeys high over a very sensitive ridge is difficult to explain,” Falzon notes in his report.
He has also called on MEPA to overrule local plans when dealing with areas of high landscape value. “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.”
Growing tension MEPA has expressed “regret” over Falzon for “once again contradicting the decision of a higher institution”.
MEPA claims Falzon’s comments over “illegal” meetings held on the controversial Mistra development with Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and DCC members, contradicted a Magistrates’ court’s ruling that such meetings were acceptable.
Falzon called MEPA’s rebuke “senseless criticism. How can I be contradicting anyone when the law clearly states that I should not take instructions from anyone?”
The Prime Minister also called the auditor’s comments on the meetings “shameful”.
But Falzon says he is simply pointing out that meetings between planning officers and developers are illegal. “I was not in any way passing a judgment on the persons involved in this case or criticising the court sentence. I was simply criticising a practice which has become so ingrained that it is not now considered by the same court as ‘normal practice’ when in fact such meetings are not legal.”
Falzon has been criticising this practice since 2007 when he wrote a report questioning former MEPA chairman Andrew Calleja for participating in meetings with a private developer.
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.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
