I write in reply to Francesca Vella’s article “Controversial Plot in Wied Ghajn Zejtuna: Still a monstrosity, damage not yet repaired” (TMIS, 10 May).

The reason for my writing is to clarify certain issues that have been misrepresented in the article.

I would not like to absolve myself of my responsibilities as an architect and as a former Mepa deputy chairman; however I would like to shed some light on the facts that have been twisted in a most unjust way.

This article takes most of the information from what had been published in the press about a year ago. At that point in time I had answered the particular paper that had printed the first article, through my lawyer, but it only chose to print a couple of lines and this it did out of context.

My big disappointment at that point in time was that all other English and Maltese papers, including the news division of PBS, just reported again what was on MaltaToday and nobody ever asked or phoned me to hear my side of the story.

At that point in time I had other pressing problems and I just did not have the time or the energy to keep rebutting what was appearing in the papers.

The facts that I would like to bring to light are:

1. Catherine Galea architect and Catherine Galea applicant are two different persons. Catherine Galea applicant lives in Xemxija, St Paul’s Bay and this can be verified with Mepa officials. When I submitted the application I acted in my professional capacity and on behalf of my client, like all other architects do in Malta and Gozo.

2. The area in question owned by applicant is an area that had been schemed for bungalow construction pre 1968. In Mepa’s records there is the master plan for Santa Marija Estate as per original drawings of Architects Mortimer and Degiorgio. All the bungalows/villas on Triq il-Pont are built on the side of the valley of Wied Ghajn Zejtuna and adjacent to the watercourse. Applicant’s site is the end plot in a row of such plots for bungalows on Triq il-Pont. When Mepa designated the limit of the development zone many years later, a corner part of this plot was designated as ODZ.

3. There was nothing irregular in the processing of the application or in the issuing of the development permission. Indeed when the DCC was deliberating on this application, I was asked to submit fresh plans, which I did, and I was not “in charge of Outside Development Zone applications” when the relative DCC took a decision on this application.

4. The full development permission permitted the uprooting of the trees on the applicant’s site, including one carob tree and seven pistaccia trees. Applicant had to plant, in exchange, 35 Maltese indigenous trees as compensatory planting, which applicant did and has proof of this. Such a condition for compensatory planting features in many Mepa permits when trees in building plots have to be uprooted.

5. I would like to point out that when Triq il-Pont collapsed, it collapsed onto the applicant’s site and not onto the valley or the watercourse, as had been erroneously reported. After the road collapsed it was imperative that remedial work start as soon as possible in order to avoid further damage to the road structure. In order to gain access to the site to start the remedial work immediately, a temporary ramp on the side of the valley had to be built. This was carried out on what was already disturbed ground and on a course that easily accessed the site from the road level.

6. Two method statements, one for the reinstatement of the collapsed part of the road and one for the reinstatement of the valley where the temporary ramp had been built, were submitted and approved by Mepa.

All work was carried out as per method statements and to the satisfaction of Mepa.

Catherine Galea