This well-known source of frustration for many people in their dealings with MEPA emerges from documentation forwarded to this paper by MEPA itself at the request of this paper.
First to emerge from the documentation is the timeframe required for this application. The application was submitted on 13 November 2002 and the permit issued on 7 October 2003, almost a year later.
As reported last week in this paper and elsewhere, the MEPA case officer and the Environmental Management Unit (EMU) had suggested that the application be refused. “Mdina,” EMU said, “is an area of archaeological importance, and every effort should be made to preserve the urban archaeology of the ancient city of Melite. A swimming pool is not necessary for the conservation of Mdina, and as it would definitely impact negatively on the archaeology, this proposal is strongly not recommended.”
Case officer Caroline Zammit wrote in her report that “the proposed excavation of a swimming pool cannot be favourably considered especially since this will involve excavation at a much greater depth than simply for building foundations.”
But on 7 April 2003, the development’s architect, from Martin Xuereb & Associates, complained in a letter that the “Environmental Management Unit based its opinion on a site plan and did not actually visit or view the site in question”.
The architect also pointed out that the construction of the swimming pool would not require any additional excavation.
He wrote: “All the other external consultees who visited the site, which included: the Mdina Rehabilitation Committee, the Malta Resources Authority, the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage and the Heritage Advisory Committee, did not object to the construction of this said swimming pool, which is only 1.2 metres deep.
“It should be noted that this site is totally surrounded and enclosed by high walls, approximately four floors high and the present soil level will be retained, as can be clearly manifested on site, as well as by the photos submitted with the application.
“The construction of this swimming pool will not, in any way, require any additional excavation since it was proposed to be constructed over the existing terrain.”
Replying to questions by this paper, Sylvana Debono, MEPA’s communications official, wrote: “On 29 July 2003, the Development Control Commission (DCC) approved the application as it was shown that no excavation was to take place. It also requested a bank guarantee of Lm1,000.”
Asked to describe what percentage of recommended refusals get overturned by MEPA, Ms Debono replied that in the period 1 January to 31 July 2004, 56 applications were recommended for approval and were refused by the DCC, 511 applications were recommended for refusal and approved by the DCC, 336 applications of reconsiderations were recommended for dismissal and upheld by the DCC, and two applications for reconsideration were recommended but were dismissed by the DCC.