Non-governmental organisations were aglow with satisfaction yesterday, welcoming the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s decision to overturn the highly controversial decision it had taken in summer approving a development application at Gozo’s Ramla l-Hamra.

That approval had brought widespread condemnation on Mepa. The revocation of the decision to grant a full development permit at the Ulysses Lodge site has now turned that condemnation into approval.

Gaia Foundation and Din l-Art Helwa both welcomed the revocation. In July they had submitted an appeal against Mepa’s decision.

They said that the revocation decision was correct since it was clear that the failure of the applicant to declare that part of the site was public land had a very material bearing on the applications.

They said it was commendable that the Mepa board, by the unanimous vote of those present, deemed it necessary to revoke the permits given.

The way forward now, they said, was to ensure that a number of planning and environmental issues that formed the merit of the appeal would be incorporated into the planning laws and procedures and in future decisions.

In a separate statement, Moviment Graffitti said it was ethically unjust to hear that when the developer applied for a development permit, crucial information was not given. In fact the case officers invoked Article 39A as there was a false declaration of ownership and recommended that the Mepa board revoke both permits.

Alternattiva Demokratika was satisfied too. Chairperson Harry Vassallo said that “AD cannot but be satisfied by the fact that the Mepa board has finally accepted what AD has been saying since June, i.e. that the process leading to the granting of the permit was shrouded in irregularity.

“The way in which this case evolved is indeed farcical,” Dr Vassallo said. The Mepa board first approved the development even though the same board had refused a similar permit on the same site in the early 90s; and even though the vast majority of the Maltese and Gozitan electorate were against it. Then Mepa attempted to gain some semblance of respectability by wasting public funds “to litter newspapers with its justifications, only to find out that it should have never granted the permit in the first place”.

Dr Vassallo continued by saying that with a general election round the corner, one could not but suspect that the main reason behind this U-turn was political expediency. “After having soiled its environmental credentials throughout its term of office, the PN is trying to recoup some support from the environmentally sensitive members of the electorate through this political manoeuvre,” Dr Vassallo said.

“This case serves to highlight the deficiencies of the planning process in Malta. The planning process is severely tainted with partisan politics and is used more as a means to gain electoral support rather than as a tool to achieve balanced development.”

Mepa did not take AD’s comments lying down. In a statement yesterday, it said it stood by all its decisions, which included the issue of all permits on the Ulysses Lodge. There were no irregularities in the process from Mepa’s side in spite of the various unfounded allegations.

It added that all decisions taken by the authority were in complete conformity with all policies and legislation regulating development. While consulting the public at the appropriate junctures, Mepa said, it “does not take decisions by public acclamation”.

On the contrary, while taking into account contributions by the public and NGOs, Mepa “bases its decisions on policies and regulations, facts, as well as on scientific studies”.

Mepa said the revocation was carried out because a specific condition in the permit could not be satisfied and in this particular case it sought to contain the development and safeguard the environmental as well as the socio-economic aspect by including a number of conditions so as to ensure a sustainable tourism project in an already disturbed area.

Mepa said that even after a principle of development is approved, it places great emphasis on detail in the formulation of conditions. “This diligence should not be used to discredit the authority,” it said.

The revocation of the permit was a result of errors in the information submitted and that was wholly the responsibility of the applicant. “Had there not been these deficiencies, the permits would not have been revoked,” Mepa said.

“These errors only came to light as part of the natural progress of the permit in question. During research carried out in preparation for the signing of the public deed imposed in the permit condition, it-resulted that due to the incorrect information supplied, the conditions of the permit could not be fulfilled,” Mepa argued.