MEPA took vote to keep revocation decisions secret

The Nationalist Party's representative on the MEPA board, MP Ryan Callus, has called into question the authority's claim that it can decide on requests to revoke planning permits, behind closed doors.

Callus had voted against a decision by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's board in August, that revocation requests not endorsed by MEPA's own planning directorate, could take place behind closed doors instead of in public.

Now he is contesting MEPA's claim that its decision to refuse a request to revoke the controversial Mistra permit, was not in breach of planning law.

Planning ombudsman David Pace has questioned the legality of MEPA's behind-closed-doors decision, on 30 October, not to accept a request to revoke a 2008 outline permit for the Mistra Heights high-rise project, from conservationists Din l-Art Helwa.

Pace said such secretive meetings were ruled out by the Article 6 of the Environment and Planning Act, which states that MEPA meetings must be open to the public, and that although the board can deliberate in private, "every vote has to be conducted in public".

MEPA replied that the law did not apply at the stage when considering "whether to start the procedure for a revocation of a permission" and that Article 6 only applied to cases of planning applications and planning control applications.

Callus disagrees with this interpretation, insisting that he had made this clear in a meeting in August. "In August, three months before the Mistra decision, the MEPA board had already taken a decision not to discuss the revocation of permits in public, whenever the planning directorate found no grounds for a revocation."

The decision was taken after a vote in which the vast majority of board members outvoted Callus. "I was very clear on that point, insisting that any vote in favour or against a revocation of permit was effectively a decision and that the law makes it clear that any decision must be taken in public as specified by the Environment and Development Planning Act."

Callus raised this point again on 30 October, when the MEPA board met behind closed doors to discuss Din l-Art Helwa's request for a revocation of the Mistra permit.

"I argued that the project had a massive impact on the entire country due to its impact on the traffic infrastructure. In view of this I made it clear that any decision related to the permit must be taken in public."

Callus walked out of the room when the vote was taken. "A MEPA board member has no option to abstain. They either vote in favour or against. Therefore, faced with a vote taken behind closed doors on an issue which should have been discussed in public, I had no option but to leave the room."

Callus said that whoever requests a revocation has a right to hear the reasons why his request was turned down.

"Instead we are now faced with situations like Mistra, where the chairman simply pronounces the board's decision against revocation, without even reading out the reasons for not acceding the request."

At the start of the public hearing on 31 October, MEPA chairman Vincent Cassar simply announced that the board had turned down the revocation request after it evaluated the arguments presented by Din l-Art Helwa.

MEPA's refusal to substantiate its reasons sparked an angry response by representatives of the NGOs present.

It was MaltaToday that first revealed the MEPA decision had been taken behind closed doors. MaltaToday asked MEPA to explain its position on the decision taken in August, but no replies arrived by the time of going to print.