In an attempt to square the circle, Mepa blunders yet again and sinks to uncharted depths. On behalf of the residents of Saint Anne Square I would like to respond to the declarations made by Peter Gingell, Mepa’s Communications Manager.

Peter Gingell is perfectly correct when he states that the building line is established through the TPS (Temporary Provisions Scheme) and the Local Plan, in this case the NHLP (North Harbour’s local plan). He confirms that these plans are the only legally binding plans in accordance with the Development Planning Act and that Mepa is bound by law to issue permits in line with these documents. The fundamental objective of these plans and documents is to legally regulate issues like land use, building heights and also establish building demarcation lines.

It is evident that Mepa did not look at the TPS and NHLP plans for the Saint Anne Square area. Having denied the public access to the TPS plans several times (which is illegal under EU laws), Mepa probably thought it could go to print without even viewing them itself.

Mepa’s approval of illegal three-metre balconies is related to the building line in Saint Anne Square, Sliema as established in TPS and NHLP. Your readers can see the undeniable proof of this building line in the recessed area at Saint Anne Square in the above plans. How Mepa’s so-called experts manage to see a different building line at Saint Anne Square is a mystery to the residents of St Anne Square.

All the residents want is for Mepa to modify this illegal permit and bring it in line with the building line officially recorded in the TPS and NHLP. Is this too much to ask for? This is the one and only issue that we’ve been insisting on for years and Mepa keeps wasting a huge amount of its own resources to keep denying plans which cannot be changed. How unprofessional can Mepa get?

One cannot understand the logic behind Mepa’s position to continue to side with a developer who has had numerous enforcement orders on this site, was found to have submitted fraudulent drawings, misled the planning process to an extent that Mepa had to invoke Article 39A (revocation of permit) at huge cost of time and money. More recently, this same developer renewed his permit submitting photos of a third party property on his application, yet again misleading the planning process. Once again, the public perception is that Mepa is bending over backwards to accommodate developers.

This incident is another administrative flaw, and one hopes that Mepa’s chairman and the newly appointed CEO have the leadership qualities and acumen to find a remedy and bring this issue to a close.

In its hasty response Mepa had the audacity to defend its so-called reform. The effectiveness of the Mepa reform cannot be judged by Mepa itself. I suggest that Mepa conducts an independent survey to get accurate feedback.

My opinion is that this so-called Mepa reform was designed to fail; it does not address the fundamental flaws like the blatant lack of accountability, questionable political appointments, scandalous pre-election permits, poor management, unnecessary delays in processing minor applications while fast-tracking large developments, blatant inconsistency and breach of policy like the three- metre balconies in Saint Anne Square.

The fact is that thanks to Mepa, Malta’s urban landscape looks more like the shantytowns in occupied territories. The aspiration of the Maltese people is to live in a successful European state in an environment that meets or exceeds European standards. The Prime Minister has given us his vision of Malta being a centre of excellence. It is about time that institutions like Mepa act in such a way to make this vision a reality.

Chris Vassallo

SLIEMA