On behalf of the residents at St Anne Square

I would like to respond to the declarations made by MEPA on 1 June.

It seems nobody at MEPA is held accountable for mistakes committed. Its own survey maps carry misleading information, MEPA’s website gives misleading if not deceitful information and it expects objections to be filed on time because MEPA holds to its deadlines, no matter what. Maybe, MEPA also expects us to respect this blatant abuse of authority.

MEPA is quoted in your article as giving the residents advice in such a way that MEPA need not assume any responsibility for its own mistakes. How’s that for a European Union country seeking credibility where its environmental and planning authorities are concerned!

We cannot but conclude that this misleading information on the survey map is part of a ploy to cover up the impact of the development on the adjoining building, now that all the sticky mess has been brought to light thanks to The Malta Independent on Sunday. I ask your readers if this is acceptable.

MEPA spends millions to maintain its own survey department. Yet MEPA does not assume responsibility when permits are issued outside the boundaries on its own surveys. What MEPA is saying is that residents are expected to bear the responsibility and the costs and should have kept to deadlines after being misled and tricked by MEPA itself.

The hash-up at MEPA has reached unbelievable proportions. High officials are confident that they have devised the perfect bureaucracy where no one is held accountable. MEPA officials seem confident that they can always devise a way of shifting blame and responsibility. MEPA fails to understand that the St Anne Square issue has arisen as a result of an administrative gaffe of the first order.

In your article, MEPA declared that the St Anne Square building is not scheduled under government Notice 700/96 where the law itself has annexed plans indicating the precise location of the building. We have three separate MEPA documents and the Government Gazette of 10 November 1995, when the law was published, specifying the exact location and boundaries that are absolute and unquestionable to the slightest detail, yet MEPA blatantly denies clear facts produced on its own official documents. Unbelievable!

MEPA is at fault and they admit it in public statements. They quite openly state no site inspection was held (The Times 20 May), they take the issue lightly and, ultimately, MEPA fails to resolve a problem of its own creation. If MEPA persists in its position denying documented proof, then we residents expect Parliament to take this issue into its own hands.

Chris Vassallo

Sliema