A lone citizen’s struggle against the behemoth of Mepa takes a number of twists and turns. From the outset you have a Mepa set in the trenches, ready to repulse any request that this lone citizen cares to make. As a Mepa-approved (sic) registered objector against a monstrosity and garish building slated to stifle the last remaining clean air lung of San Gwann and doom architectural heritage for ever, I reminded Mepa that they were supposed to inform me when and if the permit was issued.

To make everything absolutely clear, previous correspondence had taken place via emails and had been duly responded to.

Surprise, surprise: I get an email from the Mepa chief that – hey, this permit had been issued in February and they had posted a letter to me.

They had also posted a notification in one of the local papers.

Let me start off by categorically denying that any letter was ever received by me.

I told Mepa as much.

I was, and am, willing to state this under oath. Would someone at Mepa likewise declare under oath that this letter was definitely sent to me?

I said this at the press conference hosted by FAA at the Castille Hotel but, unfortunately, there were no takers.

Now figure this out, dear reader. Mepa is chock-a-block with computers; I had previously corresponded with it by email and received responses via the same means.

Incredibly enough, however, the issuance of a permit just had to be ‘sent’ by post, but Mepa has no evidence that it was actually sent. It does not have a hard copy of it in the file. I know this because I called at Mepa in person, demanding to see the signed copy. They do not have one, the reason for this (?) being that it is only held in digital form.

So the permit is on computer in digital form, yet Mepa – which has my email address – decided to send it by ordinary (not even registered) mail.

I need hardly spell out the scenario.

Mepa retorts that it published the permit in a local paper and therefore it follows that I should have bought all the newspapers for the last six months or so (all of them) and had I done so, and assiduously searched every page of each newspaper I would (might?) have spotted the small print announcement that the permit had been granted.

So even if the missing letter was actually mailed to me, Mepa was ‘covered’ because it had published it in a local newspaper.

Lest I forget: San Gwann local council also pronounced itself on the enormous project. They were simply ignored.

To cap it all, I then get to know that the so-called permit issued initially by Mepa (and of which they were obliged to inform me) is headed ‘Non Executable Permit’. The developer/speculator is specifically advised that no building, etc., can commence on the strength of this permit.

It is a permit on which no action can be taken by the developer.

Misleading? But in Mepa’s jargon, this is the actual permit and the one to which I had to object.

The actual ‘go ahead’ permit (for want of a better description) was issued on 12 June – four months after the non-executable permit.

Needless to say, Mepa says that it was under no obligation to inform me that the actual executable permit had ‘now’ (in June) been issued.

This is the sorry state in which Mepa lets the citizen wallow: twists and turns to make sure that honest citizens are befuddled with rules, red tape and legalistic jargon.

The speculator has a few euros to spend on a troupe of architects, lawyers, designers and what have you. The citizen has just the FAA and some other non-governmental organisation trying to bring sense to the nine-headed Hydra that is Mepa – all nine heads ready to bite off the objector/s mostly in defence of the rich speculators. It is a situation hell-bent on reducing our beloved Malta into a jungle of concrete and perennially rising nondescript buildings. The particular building in question, incredibly enough, was criticised by the Mepa board for its ugliness. Well – a few tweaks here and there and it is now okay. It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.

All this is apart from Mepa’s claims that a 200-year-old farmhouse, rubble walls of a similar age and other architectural features are not worth keeping.

The farmhouse is a classic example. First Mepa stated that it must remain. Then it said that it could be moved, stone by stone (what?), to the other side (LOL) or that the ‘new’ building will provide too much of a contrast so it can be pulled down. These options are included in the case officer’s report. It’s unbelievable.

Mepa claimed there was little, if any possibility, of cart ruts, yet these were clearly visible. It investigated and ‘forced’ the speculator to retain them. It claimed that there were no shelters because it had not found any. I did. Mepa will be closing one of the entrances which will render a pristine WWII shelter useless. It will deteriorate faster than Mepa’s assistance to objectors.

The problem with traffic management, already acute down Sliema Road, will forever be with us. Transport Malta states that, under no circumstances, can this development be permitted until a solution is found to this artery (leading straight to Mater Dei Hospital, remember). This decision was subsequently changed. What a farce! What a complete and utter farce!

So I trotted off to Mepa last Thursday, 31 July. Admittedly, I entered the premises some 30 minutes before closing time. Incredibly, the so-called ‘Customer Care’ section – a misnomer if ever there was one – hollered that it was too late, that I would not finish by the time they had to knock off. Sorry – I am now inside – a client (and a citizen who pays your salary) but she would have none of it. She said I would take too long and that she had to leave in 30 minutes. Such uncouth aggressiveness and trip-ups are unbelievable. I was told I could not see the file. Why not? Because, no, you cannot see the file. But these are supposed to be public documents.

I am told that she has no intention of remaining at her post past a certain clocking-off time so she called a supervisor (and a very decent one at that – what a comparison). And all this was going on while I was accompanied by Astrid Vella of the FAA who can vouch for this arrogant and confrontational behaviour.

I wanted to see the copy of the letter (permit?) sent to me. Nope – nowhere to be found. So who signed it? Can they vouch that they signed it. A computer print-out of the supposed letter is shoved at me. Not on letter-heading, not signed and certainly looking different from the format in which I usually receive letters. It’s all very strange. There is no one to vouch for the fact that the letter was printed properly or that it was actually sent to me. But they published it in the local papers. How convenient. How very convenient. It lets them off the hook, you see,

Let me make something quite clear. Apparently, Article 77 of the Environment and Planning Act allows me to claim that a description in a development application contains some flaw or inaccuracy.

Well, I am hereby declaring that the farmhouse (which, according to Mepa itself, has vernacular architecture) is not at all dilapidated, as claimed in the developer’s application.

I expect Mepa to do something realistic about this. The farmhouse is in incredibly good shape and I have photos to prove it.

Let’s see – another press conference, perhaps? The Hydra reawakens?

Stephen Saliba

San Gwann