With reference to MEPA explanation (Mepa explains permit for house near temples – The Times, 13 July), following FAA queries on developments inside and outside the building zone close to Ta Hagrat temples, Flimkien ghal Ambjent is far from reassured by the planning authority response.
FAA asks Can the Superintendance of Cultural Heritage be expected to adequately monitor all construction sites in each and every case where a permit may have been been granted in a sensitive zone, even despite initial recommendation for refusal, when the resources of this small unit are so tightly stretched; MEPA overturning of its own initial refusal of PA 1272/00 inside the building scheme appears to have improved the likelihood of a second permit application due to be decided shortly (PA 306/06) spilling into the zone designated as outside the building scheme (ODZ).
It is the significant ODZ encroachment of this second permit which poses a clear threat to the archaeological sensitive zone outside the building boundary. Approximately two thirds of the footprint lies on the wrong side of the ODZ boundary as can be seen in the map.
FAA considers MEPA explanation misleading. Other than to say that a decision was pending, MEPA reply made little reference to PA 306/06 which is the application threatening to further spread urbanisation beyond the boundaries. These development boundaries were supposedly sealed by Parliament approval of the Local Plans. The residential apartment block being proposed much too close to the temples presents an immediate threat of further land loss in the outside development zone ODZ).
FAA contends that such applications are a waste of taxpayer funds and NGOs’ time, involving them in needless battles to save what remains of our countryside and heritage because MEPA too often swaps this responsibility in favour of helping developers bypass every barrier set up to stop the rape of our heritage. This application should never have been considered, rather than risk a similar overturning of a well founded refusal as has been the case with PA 1272/00. The many precedents being set both inside an outside the building boundary are leading to the erosion of MEPA best laid intentions.
The Ta Hagrat threat ignores planning guidelines as a striking example of how flimsy planning principles have become when developers hold MEPA under siege. Unlike the judicial courts, cases at MEPA can be repeated almost indefinitely through reconsiderations and appeals until finally the outcome swings in favour of development.
Bank guarantees are no obstacle to the determined developer who may decide that the loss of a deposit can be worked into the cost of the new units.
Regrettably the environmental NGOs which press for long overdue changes in the planning system face criticism and come under attack from the authorities intent on preserving the present system.
