What a cheek must the PRO of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (TMID, 20 December) have to try to exonerate Mepa from the latest blunder it has committed in giving the green light to the construction of yet another supermarket while previously having correctly refused development permits for construction on other sites in the vicinity?

The facts speak out loud enough for themselves.

In her letter, Sylvana Debono ends up by insinuating that one of the reasons for Mepa to go ahead with this development was because : “no third party objected”. Is this a new criteria by which Mepa issues permits? What does she expect? Tom, Dick and Harry to scrutinise all the applications to start telling her and her Mepa bosses where to issue and where not, to do precisely their job? And for what purpose? If the DPA’s (Mepa’s own Environment Directorate), and the Agriculture Department,and Mepa’s case officer all jointly recommended that it should be refused how on earth will John Citizen ever expect to get it right with mighty Mepa’s final say?

Weren’t these themselves objections enough? Will Mepa ever listen to the layman’s objections? Are the members of the DCC (the politically appointed Development Control Commission) so naïve that they cannot foretell the barrage of criticism any permit issued in ODZ would stir?

The Environment Minister, in explaining the reason behind the recent rationalisation process of the ODZ, had pronounced that these were definite and binding for many years to come. How embarrassing to disprove him in this manner.

Can Ms Debono explain about the inconsistency of refusing permits to Tom, Dick and Harry for development in the same area while granting it for others? Can she explain how come in the Mellieha petrol station case, when residents were objecting about its proximity to the school and suggested its being constructed on the opposite side of the road, Mepa rightly refused because it was an ODZ area?

Can she explain why even the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage was also kept in the dark about this development?

When Mepa was processing an application for a new government secondary school in fields opposite the supermarket site, the area was identified as “an area with considerable archaeological potential.” Mepa then rightly ordered the government to commission an archaeologist to “monitor the excavations” and to “submit a fortnightly report until the completion of all excavations” during the building of the school.

Yet, Mepa did not impose the same conditions on the developer of the supermarket across the road. In fact, there is no mention of this factor in any of the conditions attached to the development permit issued. Without any archaeological monitoring on site, the contractor has already cleared the fields, destroying all that came in the bulldozers’ way.

Can she explain how come, contrary to normal procedure, no local council (in whose outskirts it is being constructed) was informed of this development to get feedback, approval or objection from them? Can she explain why no retail impact assessment was asked for this “essential” construction of yet another supermarket?

Can she explain how come Mepa refused a similar application from the same construction magnate to build yet again another supermarket in another outside development zone this time in Mosta concluding that “there is no justifiable reason from a planning point of view why this development is located in this area and not elsewhere” and because it then considered it as an “unacceptable urban development in the countryside?”

Why, shouldn’t this one in a green belt buffer zone between Kirkop and Safi have been refused on the same grounds? If this is not another crystal clear case of shameful inconsistency I don’t know what to start calling it. May I remind Ms Debono that with regards to the Mosta supermarket application, Mepa refrained from even holding any consultation sessions because: “the proposal is not acceptable in principle”. Why is there this change of heart and two weights two measures with the Kirkop/Safi application?

Deafening silence!

She definitely has no answers. She only has blunt excuses.

I have no qualms about this or any other construction magnate building as many supermarkets as he likes and turning all built-up area into a jungle of ugly sites and complexes, but it is indeed shameful to content him with building in what has been defined in local plans as area of agricultural value. This I do for the sake of our children and future generations and not for mere personal interest. In the Zebbug main road he could make use of many vacant mega showrooms which have been lying idle for decades on end.

Ms Debono tries to hide behind the blunt excuse that the site lies about 100m from the building scheme. What does she expect? We’re talking of tiny Malta here not the Sahara Desert. Doesn’t she know that barely 100m away from this earmarked supermarket one can find other groceries and supermarkets? Did that make any difference to the DCC at Mepa?

And then she comes up with the excuse that it is an essential service to the communities. How does she know? Has she conducted any study before making such a generic, highly subjective statement? Is a 10-minute car drive to the next supermarket such a long distance to the communities?

What use is it to try to instill in our kids respect and reverence for the environment through commendable educational and cultural initiatives of ekoskola, 34U etc when they see us grownups making a mockery of the environment?

The DCC should be seriously contemplating to save face even if at the 11th hour by redressing the issue and revoking the permit before it is too late. It will have to shoulder the costs and expenses of compensation to the developer and replenishing the area into its original pristine state of fields forming part of buffer green zone with an undisputable agricultural value.

Would anyone now blame other field owners, whether in this area or for all that matters, in any other area, to institute constitutional proceedings against Mepa on the grounds of being discriminated against if other permits for further developments would not be meted out equal treatment?

Nothing can excuse such a perennial blunder, Ms Debono. We expect a public apology from Mepa’s PRO for this shameful decision rather than a feeble attempt at an excuse of this sort!

Saviour Sammut

AD South Malta