In his MaltaToday column of last Sunday (27 December, 2009) architect Robert Musumeci made the claim that if a prior permit exists, further permits should be granted even if they violate planning regulations. This demand for consistency in breaking the rules has often been made, and yet strangely enough no call is ever made for consistency with the many permits which have been refused in order to abide by regulations.
One reminds Perit Musumeci that the MEPA boards that grant permits do not enjoy papal infallibility, therefore a prior permit is not necessarily a valid benchmark. We have increasingly come to see the revocation of flawed permits, and many more are not revoked simply because there has been no outcry. Unfortunately, the granting of a permit may be influenced by a number of matters, which include the unethical practice of architects on MEPA boards judging applications submitted by themselves, their studio colleagues or their immediate family members.
I remind Perit Musumeci of the Ombudsman’s words in last week’s MaltaToday: “corruption cannot be limited to those cases where hard cash changes hands. It includes also a myriad of other cases where undue advantage or preference is given for a multitude of reasons, ranging from family and friends to political and business connections... this mentality of obtaining undue advantage through connections – family, business etc,”
Even in cases where weighing up precedents is beneficial, i.e. when additional permits would bring about damaging over-development, MEPA still tells objectors that “every planning application is considered on its own merits.” Judging by the Planning Appeals Board’s decision to grant the permit quoted by Perit Musumeci at Wied il-Ghasel in a protected Area of Ecological Importance and Site of Scientific Importance, it seems that this is yet another MEPA policy which is imposed on objectors but not on developers.
Perit Musumeci is reminded that on 30 June, the Prime Minister told Parliament that “while he agreed on the need for consistency in MEPA decisions, such consistency had to be rooted in good decisions. One had to be careful that a mistake made in the past did not set a precedent which was then applied to all future cases. Consistency had to be based on cases decided on correct information.”
Astrid Vella
Coordinator,
Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar
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
