I refer to the article entitled “St Augustine College – a promising future overshadowed by tense moments” (TMIS, 19 February) and I would like to give my reaction to that article.

Rev Alan Scerri argues that the planning permits should be given because the proposed construction is part of the National Education Reform and building permits should therefore be given irrespective of the size of the construction and the site it is going to take up. As one of the objectors, I would like to make it clear that the objection is not for children who receive their education in Pietà, it is not an attack on parents who should have a right to choose to send their children to this particular church School, nor is it is an objection to the National Education Reform. It is an objection by a number of citizens who feel that the proposed site chosen by the college to carry out its mammoth expansion is not the appropriate one. That is the only issue Mepa considered and it is the only issue that the objectors have taken into consideration. It seems that the college wants to shift the issue to whether children have the right to receive an education or not and whether the parents’ right to choose the school their children are to attend is at play. It is a ridiculous argument and the college knows it. It should only try to convince the decision makers that the plans fall within planning regulations and policies. The Mepa Board had two years of reports to analyse, together with an hour-and-a-half presentation by the college’s architect and rector on why they should be given the building permit. It is obvious that the college could not convince the majority of Board members that it falls within planning policies.

This particular case comes a few months after a Mepa legislative reform because the government has reacted to public concern that Mepa uses two weights and two measures for planning policies and are heavy handed on some, while they close one or both eyes on others. In this particular case Mepa was consistent with its policies on scheduled buildings and Urban Conservations Areas. Fr Scerri says: “It is true that the proposed site lies within an Urban Conservation Area but the area itself upon which the school was intended to stand, which currently consists of a tennis court and a small garden, is listed as a White Area which means it is an area subject to interpretation of the authorities.” If the planning policies are open to interpretation, why did the college decide to open the primary school before the building permits were issued? Would anybody, who has, at the very least, some sense of management and administration skills, be responsible to accept admission fees for children, when they knew very well that there was a risk that the permits would not be issued.

More serious than this is that the college knew very well that there were planning problems and if Mepa were to be consistent with its previous decisions, the building permit could not be issued. In 1995, the previous owners of the same site, i.e., Aida House with tennis court and garden, had applied to Mepa to build two blocks of apartments and garages. Do you know who objected? Myself, as mayor of Pietà, and St Augustine College. Yes, St Augustine College had objected to this development in 1995! If one had to analyse the report issued by Mepa’s Directorate, one would find identical reasons why the same Directorate had recommended a refusal of the college’s application and why Mepa’s Board refused the application with such a strong majority.

In that instance, the college did not object to my presence and in all probability appealed to me to take a stand. This case only shows that since 1995 Mepa has been consistent, and I have been consistent. It is only the college that has conveniently shifted positions from heritage conservationist to property speculator. I persist in my question: why did the college’s administration accept to be part of this reform and why did it jump the gun and open its primary school, when it knew very well that there were serious problems with the application? Blaming Mepa, the surrounding residents and the objectors for threatening the college’s promising future is bewildering and against all logic. It is the college’s administration that persisted in taking wrong decisions, and maliciously blaming others.

The college has a history of bullying its way through. Since this issue erupted, I have met numerous residents who were threatened with litigation when they objected to some development and others have gone to court but withdrew since they cannot compete with the college’s seemly limitless resources and contacts.

The College has taken advantage of the fact that it offers education services and has used the same argument time and time again, asking Mepa officials to be careful not to deprive children of an education. Mepa turned a blind eye to previous developments when they stated that they had the required parking facilities, even though it was and still is the schoolchildren’s playground. Due to that decision, parking spaces in the surrounding streets are eaten up, and congestion is a daily nightmare during school hours. The fact that St Luke’s Hospital was to Mater Dei Hospital does not mean that Pietà has become some traffic-less locality. Parking problems still exist, as does congestion. The proposed increase in the student population will surely increase the demand in the streets of the surrounding areas.

Fr Alan Scerri argues that they prefer Pietà because they do not want to diminish the size of our countryside. My reply to this is that he does not need to go that far. All he needs is to look across the road and he will find an empty school. A few metres away from St Augustine College in Zammit Tabona Street, there is the empty medical school. If he has been chasing the powers to be able to pull strings to have Mepa’s decision overturned, couldn’t he ask whether he could make use of the empty medical school across the road. If the government wants to lend a hand to help resolve the situation, then it can work to make use of an empty building that was used by the university a few years ago. Then there would not be any need for the college to rape the area even further and invest in refurbishment, instead of construction. This is a possible creative solution. The medical school also had a parking facility that may be used.

My final comment regards Fr Alan Scerri’s disassociating himself from certain media, which mentioned a neighbour of mine who happens to work at Mepa and was accused of a conflict of interest. This disassociation is flawed by the fact that in a conversation I had with Fr Scerri, in the presence of others, following a radio show on RTK, he clearly indicated this neighbour as the cause for his application being prolonged and being refused. Fr Scerri is well aware that there have been personal attacks against people who had the right to object to his proposed development. His public declarations have fuelled hate against me, my family and neighbours – whose only interest is that the college should be bound by the same rules that we are bound by. One has only to look at the blogs where, supposedly, college supporters have made personal attacks and senseless insinuations. As the rector of a Catholic college, he should lead by example and not turn a blind eye when these personal attacks are made.

Malcolm Mifsud

LL.M. (IMLI), LL.D.

Mayor,

PIETÀ