The Ramla il-Hamra saga continues with stands by MEPA as well as Minister Pullicino seeking to justify the issue of a permit for the building of no less than 23 villas with pools.

MEPA went as far as publishing photos of the “present view” of the Ulysses Lodge and a photomontage of the “permitted development with landscaping”. These computer-generated images of the finished project serve as a pacifier (gazaza) for the general public. MEPA however chose not to illustrate how the landscape would appear from the top of the hillside. What a great site that shall be for the thousands of tourists that are taken to visit Calypso’s cave which lies above repeat above the proposed 23 villas with pools. Will MEPA now try to resolve that by imposing (sic) the building of roof gardens on each villa?!

The public is expecting the removal of all existing illegal buildings. MEPA is duty bound to remove them and the public has the right to expect that all illegal structures be removed from this highly sensitive site.

Seeking comfort in claiming that the building has been operating as a wedding hall is also misleading in that the building is in a structural state of collapse and most definitely has not been in a condition to be used for a number of years !

There seems to be absolutely no record at all that the building of the Ulysses Lodge was given any official blessing by previous Labour administrations. Indeed the first structure was sanctioned prior to 1971. So there should be no attempt to politicise the issue as that would only serve to help those at fault be these through simple inefficiency or indeed corruption.

The public needs an answer to a very simple question that is, “Why did MEPA not investigate to ensure that there were no illegal structures (roads and parking areas included) on this site”? What valid permit (if any) were these covered by? This task is in conformity with MEPA’s own policy (PA2/96) which states that before considering an application, the applicant should either sanction or remove all irregularities on the site. It basically serves to determine the legality of the committed footprint. This is applied to any and every citizen. Why has it been forgotten this time?

If this exercise was not undertaken, then the application should never have even have got to the outline stage. There was no need for any third party objection to enlighten the MEPA case officer as to how to treat this application. He or she should have followed MEPA’s policies as is normally done with every single application.

All MEPA board members are bound to decline any application which is not according to planning policies and therefore against the law. They simply cannot hide behind the fact that an application, when brought for approval, has been correctly vetted. It is their job to question all and sundry without fear or favour. They are now on notice and are duty bound to investigate that what they sanctioned had indeed been correctly processed.

MEPA also has the powers to buy back such sites in the national interest, remove all structures and restore the site to its original state. The compensation for the site does not runs into millions of Liri, as the compensation established in expropriating such property is calculated according to what is actually legally built, and the rest is considered as agricultural land which is paid at a reasonable rate - not millions of Liri as stated by Minister Pullicino.

Maybe Minister Pullicino is valuing the site now after the scandalous approval of the permit which converted roads and parking areas into villa plots. Minister Pullicino, rather than involve himself in the value of such villa plots is bound to verify and prove to the public that the roads and parking areas carry a valid permit. MEPA falls under him and he carries the political responsibility for such scandalous actions.

The public has always been led to believe that an application for an Outline Permit serves to determine certain criteria for development and under which a full development application could be filed. This seems to be the legal interpretation of the term Outline Permit as established by the courts. Minister Pullicino was wrong in rushing to state that the Outline Permit gave the developers “an acquired right”. Reasoning that the full development permit cannot be rejected on the basis that there already exists an approval of an Outline Permit is misguided. This, of course besides the fact that it remains to be established beyond doubt that the Outline Permit was approved on disturbed land that is covered by a valid building permit.

Surely a minister responsible for the environment should not be backing MEPA for blaming the NGOs for not expressing their concerns at Outline stage? Does this mean that the silence of objectors on the Outline application for the “Re-development of an existing fully licensed commercial complex” means the acceptance of a development of 23 villas with pools which lies outside the development scheme?

Can anyone blame the NGO’s for not checking the modus operandi of MEPA on each and every single planning application? Rather than threaten the NGOs with boycott should not Andrew Calleja, MEPA chairman give a clear Yes or No as to whether the approved permit is granted in respect of illegally disturbed footprint, namely the terraced parking and the road?

Perhaps Minister Pullicino will take it upon himself to explain as to whether MEPA chose to ignore the application of policy PA2/96.These are some of the many questions the public is asking regarding how this scandalous permit was granted.

The NGOs and the public have played their part by blowing the whistle on MEPA’s issue of this permit. Yet by way of defence of its actions MEPA has challenged all objectors (NGOs included) to initiate proceedings with regard to the withdrawal of the Outline Permit. Surely when a citizen informs the police of a crime, it becomes the duty of the police and not the citizen to investigate the crime?!

The public has spoken and deems there are sufficient circumstantial ‘unknowns’ to suspend this permit and to commission an independent enquiry into the granting of this scandalous permit, which seems to have been granted against all MEPA policies? The government has all the powers at law to revoke any MEPA permit which it considers to be against the public and national interest. Malta and Gozo are objecting to this permit as it was issued in “unconvincing” circumstances.

The responsibility now rests with the Prime Minister given that his minister has already compromised himself by adopting a stand in favour of the issue of the 23 villa building plots and playing the ‘tourism project’ card is simply a red herring which does not wash.

People elect those whom they feel confident will govern without fear or favour. A government, for protecting speculation, becomes a carcass and risks to fall by its own corruption and decay.