From Mr M. Causon

On a recent visit to the latest embellishment project in Cospicua, I was not impressed by the end product I found, which further hightened my suspicion that this was a project that had just been done for the sake of it, instead of leaving the Mixtla as natural as it has always been.

Going through all the facts that have evolved since the conception of this “embellishment project” further confirms my belief that whoever dreamed up this project just did what he wanted, irrespective of any rules and regulations.

On 9 November 2005, an application “to create a recreational area with new landscaping, paving work and street furniture” was submitted.

On 8 March 2006, an enforcement notice (ECF 193/06) was issued in respect of work that had been carried out without a permit.

It was noted that work, in particular the clearance of site, was well underway. Given the sensitivity of the site (fortifications) and the presence of trees (an EPD permit is required for their uprooting), such work should be stopped immediately. (Min. 25, dated 1 June 2006, in file PA 7041/05)

The site was not monitored at all until the Audit Officer pointed out the complaint and requested information. The reply from the Acting Director of Planning (who, incidentally, has no technical expertise whatsoever) is at best evasive and clearly misleading. How did he know that from 8 March 2006, when the enforcement action was taken, to 21 August 2006, no work had been carried out on site?

Did he consider the documents, including photographs, submitted by the complainant, that seem to indicate otherwise? Indeed, the note of the Senior Environment Protection Officer, quoted above, seems to indicate that work was in fact carried out during this period.

The Case Officer remarks (quoted earlier in this report) speak for themselves. He quoted policy as stating:

“well managed picnic and recreational areas within a woodland setting”

“land kept predominantly in its natural condition”

How do these policies fit in with so-called “paths” that are wide enough to drive a car along them, a piazza paved with granite, a fountain that is more appropriate for a baroque garden, etc.?

If we believe in the rule of law, it should be totally unacceptable that any government agency can act in this way.

The one-line recommendation of the HAC indicates, at best, outright incompetence or at worst, arrogance.

What is the point of receiving representations from the public if they are not considered?

Mark Causon

Pembroke