It is not every day that one finds the Deputy President of the House of Representatives sitting among those waiting for a Mepa board sitting.

In this case, Censu Galea MP, was in his role as an architect appearing on behalf of a client whose permit for a house in Burmarrad, roughly at the back of the prime minister’s house, was at risk.

But frankly, one was not prepared for the amount of emotions this issue caused, nor for the fact, revealed later, that it was all a question of a few centimetres.

It all began with a slight incident at the beginning of the sitting. This issue was supposed to be discussed first but, just as it was about to begin, Mepa lawyer Robert Abela said he wanted to discuss something with the Directorate officials.

So Mr Galea and his client, his lawyer and others, had to wait two hours while the board discussed the AX Holdings application.

By then, Mr Galea’s hot temper had become incandescent and he lost no time in telling the board how he felt.

The case was one of those Article 77 cases when an already issued permit is asked to be revoked because of incorrect information being given in the processing of the application.

Throughout the sitting Mr Galea was adamant that he had not submitted any fraudulent information even when Dr Abela tried to reassure him that fraudulent information does not mean an intention to cheat.

Mr Galea held that a first 2009 application had been superseded by a second 2012 application which was finally approved. So the plans that the Directorate kept saying were ‘false’ were among the plans which were later superseded by others.

Then there was a whole issue about emails said to have been sent by Mepa and which Mr Galea said he had never received.

Essentially, the application regards a development that has a long and narrow entry corridor. Next door to it there is a Housing Authority plot and the applicant had in fact purchased his plot from the authority as well.

They seem to have had different views on establishing the proper demarcating line and called in a surveyor. Even here there were divergent reports of what the divergence exactly was so much so that someone even suggested a third surveyor.

Essentially, the issue boils down to a question of centimetres. If MrGalea’s client takes more than he should, the Housing Authority would not have enough space for its entrance corridor.

Mr Galea denied he had carried on with construction once he had been notified of the case (instigated, it turned out, by the Housing Authority). And he had not been building, in any case, his client had only excavated the soil.

There is a long background to all this. The first application was beset by objections from neighbours who afterwards instituted a series of appeals.

Mr Galea pointed out that the 100ft long wall in the entry corridor only had two points at which it risked verging on the Housing Authority land and then it depended on what kind of wall his client decided to put up. Or even whether to put up a wall at all, in which case there would not be any infringement at all.

After a long time of argument and counter-argument, and shouting and interrupting, the chairman suggested that he and a technical officer go on the spot and check the dimensions for themselves.