New MEPA director had been censured on Lidl approval

While the environmental arm of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority remains headless eight months after the resignation of former director Petra Bianchi in April, the authority's planning arm has been strengthened through the creation of the new post of deputy director.

A MEPA spokesperson confirmed the appointment of Sylvio Farrugia as the Planning Directorate's new deputy director.

Farrugia is an experienced team manager and former case officer responsible for negotiating the planning parameters of a number of major projects.

While he will serve as deputy to director Christopher Borg, he is reported to be very close to new MEPA CEO Johann Buttigieg, who replaced Ian Stafrace as MEPA's chief executive after the general election.

But while his experience is deemed to be an asset for the authority, his role in recommending the approval of a Lidl supermarket protruding into the airport's public safety zone in Luqa had earned him the censure of former MEPA auditor Joe Falzon.

Subsequently a board of inquiry found no evidence for criminal collusion in this case, but revealed that Farrugia and case officer Norbert Gerada had misled the MEPA board by showing it a wrong slide in a presentation.

A MEPA spokesperson explained that the new post has been created to ensure that the organisation will meet "the obligations and performance targets" government has set for MEPA.      

The primary role of the new deputy director will be to co-ordinate the various sections of the planning directorate. "The new setup will provide for more focused and specialised teams which will be dedicated to the evaluation and processing of planning applications".

Farrugia will also have to ensure that "all policy and local plan revisions are carried out coherently and within the established timeframes".  

The appointment was done after an internal call of applications to fill the post and the appointment was recently approved by the MEPA board.

MEPA refused to reveal the salary paid to the new MEPA official.

Role in Lidl approval questioned

In 2006 Farrugia had endorsed a case officer's report recommending the approval of a Lidl supermarket proposed by Charles Polidano, which encroached on the Public Safety Zone of the airport, despite strong objections by the Civil Aviation Department.

MEPA auditor Joe Falzon had called on MEPA to commence disciplinary action against those employees of the Planning Directorate responsible for recommending the approval of this application.

Falzon had also called on MEPA to seriously consider referring the case to the appropriate authorities "for possible criminal responsibility."

Subsequently a board of inquiry chaired by engineer Joseph Farrugia was appointed to investigate the case. Both case officer Norbert Gerada and team manager Sylvio Farrugia were interviewed during proceedings by the board.

The investigation revealed that in this case, the Planning Directorate has asked for guidance from the MEPA board before it recommended the project for approval in a subsequent meeting of the Development Control Commission.

But it turns out that while the board was positively inclined towards the project, it did so on the basis of plans which did not correspond to the project, which was later recommended for approval by the Planning Directorate.

In its meeting with the MEPA board, Farrugia, as team manager, had recommended the demolition of a garage so as to move the supermarket building in a way that only 10.3 metres would extend beyond the existing building line.

But the board noted that the final drawings subsequently approved by the Development Control Commission show the new building extending 23.5 meters from the building line.

The final plans recommended for approval extended over a frontage of 40.5 emtres along the road and 52 metres deep. More than half of it plus all the parking area extended into the Public Safety Zone.

"Did the directorate have the right to recommend the approval of a layout so different from the one presented to the MEPA board without going back to the MEPA board?" asked the board of inquiry.

In his defence Team manager Farrugia claimed that in on of the 65 presentation slides presented to the board, the front of the building along the road should have read 30 meters instead of 22.6 metres.

The board of inquiry concluded that the 30-metre - instead of 22.6 metres - deviation from the existing building line "could have influenced the board in members in their decision, as the whole issue was the amount of land projecting away from the boundary of the existing building into the ODZ and the Public Safety Zone of the run way".

It also pointed out that the board members had accepted all the data given by the directorate and recommended approval only on that basis.

The report concluded that unspecified disciplinary action has to be taken with "the case officer and team manager responsible for this project" to ensure that its recommendations are abided to in the future.

But the board found no "evidence of collusion which could necessitate police investigation."

It also concluded that serious objections, such as those arising from the Civil Aviation Department, should be given more consideration, "particularly when considering an ODZ project potentially in beach of other policies".

Farrugia's role in other projects has also raised questions.

The same board of inquiry had absolved the same team manager and case officer from any criminal responsibility in another investigation regarding a development in Kappara.

In this case, the board concluded that there was no "malicious intent" on the part of the two MEPA officers "who are probably used to interpreting policies and guidelines in a very flexible way" and "failed to appreciate that they had departed from MEPA policies further than what is normally acceptable".