It was time to give the real picture of the situation on the Qala development, and the way to do this was not by showing the people outdated pictures, Peter Gingell, a MEPA spokesman said yesterday.

The objectors’ photo montages were outdated and misleading, as they had been produced prior to the first decision, and therefore represented the situation before the applicant had gone back to the drawing board to revise his initial plan.

Mr Gingell said it was interesting to note that if the applicant had submitted such misleading information, his application could have been revoked through a clause in the Development Planning Act, but misleading information provided by the objectors was not contested.

The decision by the Development Control Commission to approve the development project, after revision by the applicant, was taken based on the montages that appear here today, rather than the ones published yesterday, he said.

The first submission, which resembled what the Qala local council presented, had been turned down, Mr Gingell said. He pointed out that this was because the proposed development over-spilled the category 1 boundary.

Mr Gingell also pointed out that the angle from which the council montage pictured the development was not the same as the one from which it had claimed people normally got to take in this unique view, from the Mgarr Harbour, on their way back to Malta.

The montage was from a point of view which looked up towards the development, and one would expect to see the development as more threatening from there, he said.

The applicant then amended the drawings, downsizing the project and introduced height limitations, among other modifications. All development would now be within the category 1 settlement zone, including the swimming pools, which according to planning policies could have been placed outside this settlement boundary, thus it was accepted.

Although in his report the Auditor stated that the DCC wrongly permitted underlying basements to the development, interpretation of the policy as published by the Local Planning Unit, clearly states that this policy permits the construction of a basement under street level. The proposed three storey development, the Authority pointed out, was in accordance with the ridge edge policy which governs such developments. Not only, but the DCC also limited the approved height to 72 per cent of the permissible height given in DC2007. For this reason the visual impact of the proposal was minimised, Mr Gingell said.