Reference is being made to a letter published in The Malta Independent on Tuesday, 22 May under the header ‘Spaceships on the ridge’. In his letter, Mr Alex Vella, once again, chooses to misrepresent what planning decision the Mepa Board was requested to decide upon in the public meeting on Thursday 17 May. Unfortunately, Mr Vella also clearly shows that before he puts pen to paper, he fails an elementary test of checking out his facts.

Firstly, it is important to point out what exactly was being requested for the Mepa Board to decide upon. The application was for the amendment of a previous permit which included the reduction in the construction of 24 to 20 villas, and to sanction minor design modifications, along a hillside in Madliena. Unfortunately, following the decision, both the Ramblers’ Association and FAA tried giving the public, the impression that the Board had been requested to decide whether they favoured or not the development of 20 new villas on the site. This was not the case. This site, which is within the development boundaries, had been granted two development permits for the construction of 24 villas, in 2007 and 2009 respectively.

Had the applicant chosen not to submit an application to reduce the development density from 24 to 20 villas, then this sudden PR stunt, by these two NGOs, would never have materialised, with the consequence that 24 and not 20 villas would have continued being constructed.

So, with the sole intention of lessening the cluster, having more landscaping and less development, the most logically and appropriate decision was quite simply to approve planning permission to reduce the number of 24 approved villas to 20 villas even though some minor design modifications had taken place.

This leads me to the first point Mr Vella made in his letter, whereby he states that the vote in favour of this planning permission by the Mepa Board was not unanimous, as had been reported, given that Judge Bonello voted against this proposal. The fact is that the decision taken by the Mepa Board, which was correctly reported, unanimously voted in favour of the application. What the Board was being requested to sanction, were certain minor design modifications. All illegal structures which went against the Authority’s policies had been removed by the applicant.

For an NGO to lash out and attack the authority for granting permission to reduce the density of an already approved development calls into questions their motives, professionalism and credibility.

Of planning applications that seek to regularise illegal development in ODZ and protected areas carried out after May 2008, is proof that Mepa... is practising what it preaches.

■ Peter Gingell

Mepa

Communications Office