On Thursday, the last item considered by the Mepa board regarded a sliver of land, a triangle of land that cannot even house a car.

The application for a PC change, to incorporate this triangle of land into the building scheme was made by the Mepa directorate, not the person who would ultimately benefit from this change. In fact, this person did not even appear at the Mepa hearing.

But another person did. This person, this paper is informed, came over from Gozo in the early hours of the day. Since he had been told to be at the Mepa hearing (which this time was held at the Mediterranean Conference Centre) at 10am, he took a taxi from Mellieħa to be on time.

Having arrived at MCC, he was forced to sit through the interminable Mepa hearing while the Hilton extension and the interconnector project were discussed. It was 4pm when finally this application was considered.

The triangle of land is in Pjazza tad-Dehra in Għajnsielem, the big square with a statue of a shepherd with sheep in the middle. The application was to do away with a corner where not even a car can fit, even though many do. This constitutes a danger since the site is at the corner of the square, on the opposite side to where the local council offices stand.

Since this was a PC application, the usual procedures were followed – public consultation was held and once the Mepa board approved, this would be submitted to the minister for final approval.

Among the responses that came in, one was from the local council which insisted that the relocation of services (there is a water main underground and a Melita pipe by the side) must be paid for by the owner.

There was also another complaint, which seems to have come from the same man who went into all the trouble to be at the board meeting. Many of the points made in the written submission were planning arguments, but when the man appeared at the hearing, all the reasons he gave were not planning issues. In fact, he ended up by making things worse for himself.

He claimed this triangle of land is government land but the owner proved he had purchased this land from the government in 2010. Undaunted, the objector said no money transaction had taken place – this man had been compensated for work he had done in the square by means of this triangle of land.

Basically, this neighbour’s concerns seem to have regarded the expense to relocate the services. But some of the board members objected to the Directorate’s proposal, on the local council’s urging, that the owner pays for the relocation of services. Why should we get involved in all this, some board members asked.

So at the end, this proposed condition was scratched from the proposal and this was approved, with one member opposing.