Mistra permit could have been revoked due breach of policy - planning ombudsman

The current MEPA board chaired by chairperson Vince Cassar was in breach of the law when it met in a private session to discuss the request to revoke the original permit, the planning ombudsman said. 

Moreover the ombudsman ruled that the board did not have its hands tied by the previous permit issued in 2008 and concluded that the original outline permit could have been revoked.

According to ombudsman David Pace secretive meetings are ruled out Article 6 of the Environment and Planning Act which states that "meetings of the Authority shall be open to the public".

Although the law permits the board to deliberate in private, any vote has to be conducted in public.

The compalint to the ombudsman was lodged by Din l-Art Helwa president Simone Mizzi.

Pace pointed out that "even minor requests such as a deferral are discussed and voted on at an open session, let alone such a critical matter."

It was MaltaToday which on 21 November revealed that the request by NGOs for the revocation of an outline permit issued in 2008 was discussed and turned down by the MEPA board in a behind-closed-doors meeting held on the eve of the public hearing after the authority had asked for legal advice.

Planning Ombudsman David Pace also has made it clear that the MEPA board did not have its hands tied by the outline permit issued in 2008, thus disputing the government's claim that a refusal would have resulted in compensation claims by the developer. 

Moreover Pace also concluded that the original outline permit  should be revoked. 

The ombudsman made it clear that the "conditions of the outline permit are not cast in stone."

In his report Pace points out that the outline permit left issues that have major adverse impacts unresolved, for a decision to be taken at Full Development Permit stage.

One of these impacts was the traffic situation in Xemxija hill which in 2008 was left as a reserved matter to be decided upon when the full permit is issued

He also pointed out that "applications having an insignificant on the environment are justifiably refused by the Authority if the proposal fails to address issues raised."

He also concludes that the authority "has every right to revoke a permit if it is found that it was issued in breach or in disregard of policy."

The ombudsman described the whole process as "seriously flawed" as it selectively utilizes the Floor Area Ratio policy document which is not yet officially approved.

"If it was deemed acceptable to use it, it should have been used in its entirety, which mean that the project could not have been determined at outline stage."

He also points out that the Authority's Major Projects Unit "actively supported the proposal, regardless of the detrimental effects it was bound to have on the environment."

David Pace also reprimands Sylvio Farrugia, MEPA's newly appointed Deputy Director for not specifying the fact that the Floor Area Ratio policy was still unapproved in a presentation he made in 2008.  In this presentation he  specifically stated that the local plan allowed the height of eight floors plus penthouse based on the "FAR policy."