The Malta Independent 23 April 2024, Tuesday
View E-Paper

The Dingli ‘oversight’

Carmel Cacopardo Tuesday, 19 June 2018, 08:36 Last update: about 7 years ago

The National Audit Office (NAO) has just concluded an investigation into the Dingli Interpretation Centre which sought to determine if there had been collusion between various government officials so that the site would be transformed from an interpretation centre into a catering establishment.

The investigation, as explained in the NAO’s report, did not uncover any evidence to suggest fraud and/or corruption. There is, however, reference to what is being described as an ‘oversight’. Of central importance in the development of this ‘oversight’ was the authority dealing with land-use planning – then known as MEPA, today rebranded as PA!

When an application for outline development permission was submitted by Dingli Local Council in 2002 (application PA5314/02), the local council was requesting the incorporation of a catering area in the plans submitted. Drawing on planning documentation, the NAO report explains in detail how Dingli Local Council was requested by MEPA to revise the submitted proposal. These changes, the NAO report emphasised, “included the elimination of catering services”. To be very clear, MEPA insisted on a change to the development proposal itself.

The original development proposal submitted by the Local Council consisted of the demolition of the two existing buildings and the construction of a new building, consisting of three floors, of a modern design, which occupied a larger footprint than the existing structures. The plans included a kitchenette and a large area designated for seating.

MEPA insisted – and Dingli Local Council agreed – that the description of the proposed development be amended to read ‘restore existing structures, carry out alterations and additions to convert them to an interpretation centre’. The sale of food and drink on site was to be limited to the use of vending machines.

Subsequently, an application for full development permission was submitted by Dingli Local Council and approved by MEPA. We are informed by the NAO report that the approved application (PA0425/08) “allowed food and drink to be served at the Interpretation Centre as an ancillary activity”, notwithstanding the fact that these were prohibited by the previously approved outline development permit which established the basic acceptable parameters of the project.

The NAO report states that when the chairperson of the Development Control Commission (DCC) was questioned on the matter, she explained this variance as ‘an oversight’ and said that she was under the impression that the permit issued reflected the Board’s discussion and therefore excluded catering on site.”

Now an “oversight”, according to my dictionary is “a mistake made through a failure to notice something”.

Going through the MEPA documentation available, I came across the minutes of the DCC which do not indicate an oversight. In fact, the minutes of the DCC meeting held on 18 March 2009 specifically state that there was the intention to refuse the application specifically because catering facilities (that is Class 6 use) were not approved in the outline development permission.

In the MEPA documentation which is referred to as DPAR (Development Permit Application report) in the section entitled “Notes to Committee”, it is written that the Local Council architect reacted by submitting a revised set of drawings in which the catering facility was removed.

In later meetings of the DCC, this intention disappeared and the application (including the catering facilities) was approved on 20 January 2010.

This is anything but an ‘oversight’: they knew all along what was going on.

The NAO report states: “This Investigation notes that between 18 March 2009 and 10 March 2010, MEPA’s position changed from excluding Class 6 facilities to one that allowed catering as an ancillary facility.”

The basic question is: what happened between the 18 March 2009 and 10 March 2010, as a result of which the DCC changed its views? It is a question which the NAO report fails to answer.

Only idiots would accept that this is an ‘oversight’.

 

An architect and civil engineer, the author is Chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika -The Green Party in Malta. [email protected] ,    http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com

  • don't miss