Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and the Malta Environment and Planning Authority yesterday appointed six new members to the Development Control Commission Division “A”, and left one incumbent member in place, in the wake of the entire board’s resignation.
The former board resigned en masse on Wednesday following a scathing report by Mepa auditor Joe Falzon, which dealt with the way in which a permit for a supermarket in Safi had been approved.
The audit report had been drawn up following a complaint by Alternattiva Demokratika secretary general Victor Galea.
The project in question relates to the construction of an immense supermarket in Safi, just across the new St Benedict College, by Polidano Brothers. The development forms part of a Lidl franchise being established in Malta.
The new board members appointed yesterday by the Prime Minister are: Elizabeth Ellul as chairperson, Reuben Sciortino, Daniel Cordina and Peter Axisa. Mepa, meanwhile, appointed Mark Edward Psaila and David Smith.
The resignation of Charles Micallef St John, however, was not accepted. A statement issued by the Department of Information yesterday evening explained that Mr Micallef St John had not been present when the board’s decision to resign had been taken, and that he had offered to give up his post in solidarity with his colleagues.
Citing “gross irregularity” in the unanimous approval for the project by the six-member Mepa Development Control Commission Division “A”, which was reached despite the fact that the Planning Directorate had recommended refusing the application, Mepa auditor Joe Falzon said in his report that the project fell outside the development zone and that, due to its sheer size, it should have been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Mr Falzon “strongly recommended” that “the six members of the DCC who voted in favour of this application should shoulder their responsibility for their error of judgement.”
Reacting to comments in the report – where Mr Falzon “advised” Mepa to propose an amendment to the Development Planning Act to allow for the modification or withdrawal of an approved permit if it is shown that a particular development application has been approved contrary to official policies – the environment ministry noted it awaited to begin the process so the proposal could be considered.
The ministry added it had never held back such proposals and had in fact introduced legal amendments to render the planning process more transparent, as evidenced by the number of such amendments before Parliament after lengthy consultations with environmental NGOs.
The case in question, the ministry said, was proof that Mepa structures were in good working order. The institution of an auditor, it added, had been enacted for the very purpose of evaluating the authority’s operations and to address shortcomings and improve the system.
In a statement issued yesterday, Mepa stated that, “in spite of having submitted to the auditor clarifications and valid justifications to conclusions in his Preliminary Report, the DCC ‘A’ feel aggravated that the auditor proceeded to censure their unanimous decision.
“The DCC feels that this leaves them with no alternative but to resign after always having undertaken their responsibilities with diligence, without any personal interests and with a clear conscience in the best of their abilities.”
In his report, Mr Falzon noted how, “The Structure Plan policies (together with the policies listed in the South Malta Local Plan which apply for this locality) are very clear in respect of applications for development outside building zones. The DCC chose to ignore them all.
“The DCC have presented me with a detailed document where they try to explain what led to their decision to approve this particular application. They base their decision on the fact that they felt that the social needs of the locality were not being adequately catered for by the provisions of the local plan (which incidentally had only been approved about a year before!). Consequently they took the law into their own hands and ignored the provisions of the plan. In this way they acted in a way which is far beyond their powers to do.
“The DCC can only enforce policy; it has no right to make policy.” The report adds, “As it is, the DCC assumed roles which were far above its competence to assume.”
Mr Falzon sustained Mr Galea’s complaint, adding, “The Development Control Commission, Division ‘A’, is solely responsible for this gross irregularity in the approval of this planning application.”
In a statement issued yesterday, Kirkop local council demanded compensation from Mepa in the form of a community-oriented project.
It added that “a mere resignation would not suffice to bring justice to the residents of Hal Kirkop and the students of St Benedict school, as the commercial activity will leave a negative impact on the area.”