A number of irregularities have been exposed in a second auditor’s report issued following a complaint made by a resident who lives in an apartment in Qui-si-Sana, Sliema.
In March 2006, the resident of Water’s Edge Apartments submitted a complaint to the Malta Environment Planning Authority (MEPA) referring to the refusal of the requested development of a small room.
The Enforcement notice in question mentions the block of apartments where Mozzarella’s Restaurant is located and where past tenants had carried out internal and external alterations without permits.
In an article published in The Malta Independent on Sunday on 21 May 2006, similar irregularities on the site in question were revealed.
The article spoke about a second report issued in 2004 in which the auditor condemned MEPA for not taking appropriate enforcement action, for misplacing files and for failing to address the site history, which “may have been intentional”.
According to the second auditor’s report issued by MEPA in 2006, Development Notification Order DN0847/05 was submitted on 5 December 2005 to construct a small room in the backyard of Water’s Edge Apartments, Qui-si-Sana, Sliema.
On 7 December 2005, MEPA acknowledged receipt of the request. The case officer noted that enforcement action had been taken on an adjacent site and requested clarification from the Enforcement Section.
On 15 December 2005, the Area Enforcement Officer stated, “In the same location where this room is being requested, there is a room. There is also an application to sanction internal alternations.”
Almost two months later, on 30 January, a public enforcement official concluded, following a site inspection, that the plans do not faithfully show the present situation, and “the present room is existent and is of use to the commercial premises”.
That same day, the architect was informed that the “works in question do not qualify as permitted development”.
One of the reasons for the refusal was because the plans do not “faithfully reflect the existing situation found on site”.
MEPA also stated that the room was used by a “third party commercial premises and that it does not sanction the current Enforcement Notice ECF688/02 that is found site”. The report concluded “a formal application to MEPA for development permission is required.”
In a legal letter addressed to the Complaints Office, it was pointed out that the plans submitted do faithfully reflect the existing situation found on site and that the current enforcement notice refers to “an enforcement notice issued against Mamma Mia Restaurant” which does not have any connection with the applicant in the neighbouring block and that the proposal “does not have to sanction the current enforcement notice”.
The letter also added that “civil matters should not be the concern of MEPA” and the fact that the room in the plans is used by a third party commercial premises is irrelevant.
The letter also requested clarifications regarding the acknowledgment date, which was 5 December 2005, but quoted by MEPA as 10 January 2006 when the refusal was issued.
According to law, a Development Notification Order is considered to be approved if no reply is received within 30 days.
According to the report, the case officer was requested to explain why, in the letter dated 30 January 2006, “he referred to the notification received on the 10 January 2006 when in fact this was received on 5 December 2005.”
The case officer told the investigation officer that “his date was in line with the directions he had received from his superiors”.
The date of the last submissions by the applicant (10 January 2006) was to be considered as the notification date.
However, the only correspondence sent to MEPA by the architect was dated 16 December 2005.
The report concluded that MEPA had the authority to inform the architect that the work did not qualify as permitted development up till 4 January 2006 and, as a result, the complaints submitted are sustained. It also added that the refusal “letter dated 30 January 2006 should be withdrawn”.
It also pointed out that while the “reasons brought forward by the MEPA”, should have been communicated within the time frame established, i.e. by 4 January 2006, “MEPA hence had no authority to issue its letter of 30 January 2006,” and could not issue such a letter after 4 January 2006.