Inquiries and criminal responsibility A board of inquiry was set up by MEPA to establish whether there was any wrongdoing on the part of two MEPA employees over their handling of a planning application in a villa area. The Audit Officer had remarked that a plot for a detached bungalow shall have a minimum of 1 tumolo. In this case, the area measured 855 square metres and the case officers still recommended that the application should be approved. It was also alleged that the application was approved despite the side cartilage (the distance between the centre line of the boundary wall dividing properties and the outer skin of the nearest wall of the building) was less than that stipulated in the current design policies regulating detached villas.
The board of inquiry concluded that the policies were interpreted in a flexible manner – it also underlined that the case officer believed that the proposal, although not strictly within established guidelines, secured utilisation of the land in the most efficient way. The Inquiry Board added that there is no reason to suspect criminal responsibility on the part of the case officers, even though they opted to interpret policies in a “flexible manner”.
It would be interesting to know whether the Auditor took into consideration that the case officer’s recommendations were in line with the rationale underpinning similar planning decisions which were taken by the Planning Appeals Board in the past – the highest organ in our planning decision framework.
For example, in the case Joe Xuereb acting on behalf of Realco Ltd against MEPA, the Planning Appeals Board made it clear that restricted sites in villa areas should be developed in the most efficient manner and not left undeveloped. The Appeals Board also felt that, in this case, the proposed side cartilages were acceptable even though the distances were not according to policy. In fact, the Planning Appeals Board, had conluded: Dan huwa kaz car ta’ l-ahhar plot li baqgha f’din il-linja ta’ bini. X’taghmel biha? Ma tibnihix. Il-Bord ikkunsidra li huwa utli li din il-‘corner plot’ tinbena biex taghlaq it-triq. Ta’ min isemmi wkoll illi s‘side curtilage’ kif tidher fil-pjanti sottomessi hija accettabbli minhabba l-fatt li s-sit huwa ‘restricted site’. Ghalhekk il-Bord jilqa l-appell, ihassar ir-rifjut relattiv u jordna li s-Segretarja tal-Kummissjoni ghal Kontroll tal-Izvilupp tohrog il-permess fi zmien tletin jum mil-lum. This reasoning is also in line with one of the major goals of the Structure Plan, which states that land must be used efficiently, promoting higher density development than at present.
Is anyone suggesting that the members sitting on the Planning Appeals Board, and who endorsed this decision, be investigated because they interpreted the policies in a flexible manner?
Case officers are expected to foster dialogue with applicants and seek sensible planning solutions. On the other hand, the new DCC members should not act as simple automated check lists out of fear of an investigation each time a decision runs counter to some policy. It is thus highly imperative that the newly selected DCC members (as a result of the MEPA reform) are chosen on the basis of their ability to make judicious assessment. Otherwise there is no reason to have independent decision mailing bodies in the first place.
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
In this case, the area measured 855 square metres and the case officers still recommended that the application should be approved. It was also alleged that the application was approved despite the side cartilage (the distance between the centre line of the boundary wall dividing properties and the outer skin of the nearest wall of the building) was less than that stipulated in the current design policies regulating detached villas.
