In a scathing report, Malta Environment and Planning Authority audit officer Joe Falzon yesterday lambasted Mepa’s Development Control Commission Division A for approving the Mistra outdoor disco application, saying it was “solely responsible for what happened” and that the application should be declared null and void.
Mr Falzon yesterday presented his strongly worded report to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, criticising the DCC Division A for the “illegality of its actions” and also the Malta Tourism Authority for presenting a report that endorsed the application.
The report, which was sent out to the media through the Department of Information, also included a reply by Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja and a short official statement.
The statement confirmed that Dr Gonzi had received the report, agreed with Mr Falzon’s conclusions and requested the authority to implement the recommendations.
On 4 March, Dr Gonzi had requested the Mepa audit officer to open an investigation into the development application, after the Malta Labour Party accused Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – during the last week of the election campaign – of being involved in the proposed development of a discotheque on ecologically-sensitive land at Mistra.
However, Dr Pullicino Orlando insisted he had nothing to do with the developer, and was unaware of the full details of the proposed project PA5880/05 at Mistra to develop the area into a place for open-air entertainment.
In his report, Mr Falzon pointed out that the Development Planning Application (DPA) report was finalised in March 2006 with a recommendation of refusal for four reasons – mainly because the site was in a Special Area of Conservation of international importance and due to an illegal construction on site that needed to be removed.
Architect Paul Camilleri, representing the developers, replied to the DPA report denying any illegal structure and emphasising the importance of the development for the tourism industry.
The DCC board replied requesting further information. However, Mr Falzon noted that “there is no indication as to why an application which was objectionable in principle was being considered positively by the DCC”.
In September 2007, the DCC board held a meeting with the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA), who soon after submitted a report which “is favourable to the application, and lists a number of reasons why it should be acceptable”.
In November 2007, the DCC approved the application for the outdoor disco.
In his report, Mr Falzon criticised the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stating that “this application would probably have qualified as a site where an EIA would have been required”. He also added that the Environmental Protection Department, who had spoken against the application, had warned the DCC that it would need their further consideration.
In his comments, Mr Falzon clearly blamed the DCC Division A for the approval of an application “where there is not the slightest justification for this action – and the DCC Division A is solely responsible for what happened”.
He pointed out that the DCC failed to justify why it disagreed with the objections put forward by the Planning Directorate, when it was under a clear responsibility to do so.
It also failed to ignore all recommendations as to why “the application was unacceptable in principle”.
Mr Falzon also pointed out that the DCC Division A ignored all existing Mepa policies and “assumed that they could decide policy rather than enforce it”.
He also queried why the MTA “chose to write a very long report to try and justify the proposed development” and why it wrote such a “biased report” that completely ignored the negative environmental implications.
Mr Falzon also accused the DCC board of abuse of power, when it “chose to ignore the possibility of the need of an EIA.”
He also expressed his concern about the future implications of the DCC’s decision which would allow anyone to obtain a permit in an Outside Development Zone, while exposing Mepa to “accusations of corruption” which would be “difficult to refute”.
In his final recommendations, Mr Falzon said that the development was not “assessed according to official policies” and strongly censured the DCC Division A.
He advised Mepa to withdraw the permit because it was in contravention of the EU Habitat Directive and the EIA regulations, and proposed an amendment to the Development Planning Act (DPA) for the withdrawal or modification of an approved permit if it had been approved contrary to official policies.
In a letter addressed to Mr Falzon, Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja said that Mepa will revoke the permit under Section 39A of the DPA and agreed to his proposed amendment.