I refer to the letter by Peter Gingell from the Mepa Communications Office, which appeared in your paper on Sunday 8th August, in reply to mine published on 25th July. First of all, I would like to ask why it took so long for my letter to be answered. I am even more perplexed now than I was before.

In his letter, Mr Gingell says, “Had there been registered objectors to the application PA7683/06 and now PA2604/10, they would have been notified by MEPA so that they could view the plans and comment on them. Furthermore, all permits are issued by Mepa, saving third party rights, and it is then up to the third parties to activate.”

Had Mr Gingell read my letter carefully, he should have noted that my neighbours and I are not against the development per se. In fact one of my neighbours did review the plans and it was noted then that the shafts were closed. Therefore, why be registered objectors in the first place at the application stage?

Our objection is solely in regard to the open shafts overlooking our backyards with windows at a height of only 2m70 from our backyards, and, a window touching the dividing wall at each floor and others at their furthest width located 63cm from the dividing wall.

In his letter, Mr Gingell also states: “A site inspection carried out by the Enforcement Section reported that the shaft, WHILE PERMITTED, was not built as planned. However, this change is one, which is rectifiable through the process of a minor amendment, as envisaged in the Development Planning Act and as such does not require work to be stopped... This issue was regularised through the normal legal and planning channels of the minor amendment process of 9th June.” In this context, I repeat that Article 443(1) of Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta stipulates that no windows can be constructed less than 76cm from the dividing wall. Therefore, how can Mr Gingell state that an open shaft with windows adjacent to the party wall be PERMITTED if this is prohibited by the provisions of the Civil Code? I understand from Mr Gingell’s letter that Mepa’s legal office was involved in the minor amendment. Are the officials aware of the provisions of Article 443(1) of the Civil Code? How can they approve a minor amendment that contravenes the provisions of the Civil Code? Are they above the law? How can such open shaft with windows be regularised through the normal legal and planning channels of the minor amendment process? Does this mean that Mepa can rubber stamp illegalities?

Mr Gingell then refers to “the application PA 7683/06 and now PA 2604/10”, which means exactly what? Does it mean that a new application has been submitted to construct a building that is nearly finished? The mind boggles. Once more he says that “the enforcement section did take the necessary steps to regularise the development”. How exactly does this work? Please enlighten us.

It is also interesting to be advised by Mr Gingell that permits are issued by Mepa, saving third party rights. As I understand, Mepa approves illegalities (by way of infringement of the provisions of Article 443(1) of the Civil Code) and then it is up to third parties to activate their rights. How very nice indeed! And then the little people have to incur court and other legal expenses to safeguard what is theirs by right.

Mr Gingell goes on to say, “On 28th July, following Ms De Maria’s letters to the press, a further inspection was carried out. Certain work on site was not constructed according to the approved permit...” You don’t say!! “As such a Stop and Enforcement notice was issued (ECF450/10).” It is only fair to point out that my letter had been totally ignored till 5th August, a very able journalist from MaltaToday followed the story and it is only at his insistence that Mr Gingell finally answered. Is it possible perhaps, that he had instructions from above to lie low? Correct me if I’m wrong. And it is also pertinent to mention that the inspection was carried out on 28th July had nothing to do with my letter to the press but was a result of a judicial letter presented on the same date. However, despite the fact that a Stop and Enforcement notice was finally issued (ECF 450/10), work carried on right up to Friday 6th August, till around 4pm. So much for the Stop and Enforcement notice. In the meantime, Mr Gingell was being kept informed.

This is but an insignificant development, one of the side elevations being only seven concrete blocks deep, i.e.3m20, and it looks more like a megalith than an apartment building and yet there have been so many irregularities which Mepa failed to stop. I would hate to think what goes on with developments of a much larger scale.

Joan De Maria

SLIEMA