MEPA SINKS TO NEW LOWS AT GHAXAQ
MEPA’s mission statement that its values “give evidence to the Authority’s integrity in all it does and says.” is belied by Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar’s findings on the Ghaxaq Villa Mekrech case.
In 2005 MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Board called for the urgent scheduling (protection) of the entire garden of Villa Mekrech, Għaxaq, in view of its importance as a complete entity. This scheduling did not materialise until 25th September 2012 on the insistence of Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA).
Although the MEPA Heritage Protection Unit described this garden as unique in Malta, it was only given Grade 2 protection when it was scheduled and a large section was left without full protection, which eventually led to the granting of a permit to build on that site.
Through painstaking research FAA has now discovered that three weeks before this partial scheduling, Villa Mekrech and its garden had in fact been scheduled in its entirety, however this complete scheduling was replaced by the second version, reducing the protection to a much smaller portion of the garden, thereby leaving a large part of the garden unprotected and therefore developable.
On the 25th of October 2012, the MEPA Board approved PA 02256/10 to develop this part of the Villa Mekrech gardens. At no point during the hearing did the MEPA officials mention the earlier scheduling or the reason for the change in footprint of the protected site. FAA produced evidence of the unauthorized destruction of trees on the site which invalidates the Outline permit however this was ignored.
The public are asking questions which deserve an answer:
MEPA scheduled the garden in its entirety on the 31st August 2012 so for what reason was this scheduling ‘revised’ on 25 September 2012?
Why did MEPA take all of seven years to schedule the villa and just three weeks to downgrade that scheduling?
Who exerted pressure to amend the scheduling boundary which resulted in the first scheduling being overturned?
How could MEPA approve the uprooting and destruction of trees within the garden and issue a building permit which would destroy more protected trees on this site?
Why did MEPA Enforcement officers wait 14 months to inspect the site following reports of tree destruction, how could they fail to notice the large stumps and remains of the illegally-destroyed ancient olive trees and report that no violations had taken place?
Chainsawed ancient olive trees at Villa Mekrech
MEPA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Legal Notice 200 of 2011 which concerns the protection of trees in urban areas, so why was no action taken following the elimination of protected trees in this garden which was reported to MEPA as far back as August 2010 and confirmed in MEPA’s aerial photographs?
Dead Trees at Villa Mekrech
Could the Minister of Environment justify why MEPA’s boards are not held accountable for decisions which violate laws and policies, as well as international conventions such as Agenda 2000 which bind Malta to uphold tenets of sustainable development? Why is no disciplinary action taken against Enforcement officers who repeatedly turn a blind eye to abuse?
The questionable processing of this permit and the MEPA Board members’ dismissal of the evidence of tree destruction which legally nullifies the permit, puts into question the integrity of the MEPA decision-taking process.
With even scheduling of heritage now dictated by developers’ interests, is it surprising that the public concludes that MEPA’s priority would seem to be promoting speculation, rather than the environmental, social and economic interests of our country? At the beginning of his mandate our Prime Minister took responsibility for MEPA’s reform programme, however following the reform, we are still faced with such questionable permits. MEPA reform without ethics serves for nothing as time after time, FAA is witnessing sham hearings by a sham authority. The ball now is now in the Prime Minister’s court.
FAA REBUTS MEPA STATEMENT 09.11.12
It is obvious from the tone of its press release, that MEPA is intolerant of members of the public who speak the inconvenient truth. Far from making unfounded and incorrect public statements, FAA can corroborate everything it stated.
While FAA has often in the past praised MEPA where praise is due, only one of the positive planning decisions mentioned, dates to recent months as MEPA claimed, and instead many negative cases are surfacing in the run-up to the elections. Contrary to what has been claimed that FAA issues public statements “whenever a planning decision taken by the Board does not go FAA’s way”, FAA has not commented publicly even where MEPA has admitted to its serious shortcomings as in a recent Wardija case.
Instead of arguing whether an Emergency Conservation Order regulated by the Scheduling Section 81 of the Development Planning Act, is technically scheduling, MEPA should be explaining why it downgraded the protection of the garden, when its heritage experts insisted that any form of development “will entirely destroy the existing garden”.
MEPA’s statement that the site covered by the permit was “beyond the garden of the villa” is shockingly untrue, and belied by MEPA’s own website shot which shows the garden path, trees and even pond within the permit area which has been stripped of protection and is now due to be built upon.
FAA is shocked by MEPA’s insistence that no trees were destroyed on this site, just as it is shocked by the failure of its enforcement officers to report the stumps of the destroyed hundred-year old protected olive trees on site. Why did the MEPA Board refuse to take into account the photographic evidence of destroyed trees presented by FAA during the hearing? (more photographic evidence is attached to this press release). According to the Case Officer report “in case of confirmation [of unauthorised destruction of trees] the outline permission becomes invalid” and yet the MEPA Board voted in favour of the permit that the Case Officer had just asserted “Was still in violation of the Local Plan and would inevitably lead to the destruction of the garden”
MEPA justifies its stand due to the fact that the applicant may contest the revocation of the abusive permit, resulting in prolonged legal battles or compensation. Rather than holding the DCC Board accountable for issuing an abusive Outline Permit which violated every tenet of the Local Plan and of our local and international sustainable development obligations, MEPA prefers to lose this priceless piece of Malta’s heritage, the value of which MEPA itself said “cannot be overstated”
