Falzon ‘very disappointed’ by MEPA inquiry into Lidl permit
James Debono
An internal inquiry by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority was described as “very disappointing” by the authority’s auditor Joe Falzon, who is insisting the case still merits a police investigation.
The Lidl supermarket constructed by Charles Polidano in Luqa which sprawls across part of the airport’s public safety zone against the advice of the Civil Aviation Department was the subject of an earlier inquiry by Falzon, who deemed the permit a “gross irregularity”.
Following Falzon’s report, MEPA ordered an internal inquiry conducted by MEPA board members Joe Tabone Jiacono, Charles Bonnici and Joseph Farrugia.
In a press release MEPA claimed the inquiry found no “wrongdoing” on the part of employees of MEPA’s Planning Directorate.
But the report did recommend disciplinary action against the case officer and the team manager, even if it found no evidence of “collusion” which could necessitate police investigation.
Falzon contends that it is impossible to find any evidence of corruption simply by looking at the files. “I am not saying that there was corruption. I am simply saying that this case should be investigated as there is enough evidence that policies have not been abided to.”
Strangely, the authors of the report felt that it was “incorrect” for them to enter the merits of this particular application because in an internal meeting in November 2006, the MEPA board was “inclined to accept the project despite the serious objections against it and the pertinent policies.”
The inquiry limited itself to “the inconsistency between the information presented to the board and the project as approved by the Development Control Commission upon the recommendation of the Directorate.”
The inquiry revealed that final drawings which were approved by the DCC were different from those shown to the MEPA board in 2006. On that occasion the Planning Directorate had sought the advice of the MEPA board, the organisation’s highest ranking body, in November 2006.
Plans shown to the board showed that the supermarket deviated outside the building line by 10.3 metres, but the final approved plans showed the supermarket 25.3 metres outside the building line.
The internal inquiry established that originally only the landscaped area impinged on the airport’s Public Safety Zone. But the final plans showed half the building frontage as well as the car park extended in the PSZ blue zone.
“Did the Directorate have the right to recommend the approval of a layout so different to the one presented to the MEPA board, without going back to the MEPA board?” asks the inquiry report.
For Falzon this is clear evidence that the MEPA board was “misled” by the Directorate. “My conclusions from this report is that the MEPA board was misled by the Directorate,” Falzon told MaltaToday.
But Falzon also reiterated his criticism on the MEPA board for discussing this case behind closed doors in the absence of the developer and objectors as required by law. “This might be normal practice in MEPA but this does not make it legal.”
Falzon insists the inquiry also failed to establish why three permits on the same plot of land were previously refused while the Lidl supermarket was approved. “I still believe that the original applicant was discriminated against.”
The report concludes that no discrimination took place as no buildings were foreseen on this part of the site in the Lidl permit.
But Falzon contends that the permit envisioned development on an even greater area than that foreseen in the previous permits. He said the same policies which led MEPA to turn down the three previous applications were interpreted differently in the Lidl case. “In three cases they interpreted the policies correctly to turn down the application. How come these same policies were interpreted differently in this case?”
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.
