MEPA’s error leads to permit revocation

MEPA’s failure to notify all registered objectors to a proposed Sliema development has led to the revocation of the relevant development permit, although a new decision on the project is expected shortly.

Application PA/1407/09 for 8, Parisio Street, would see the existing building demolished and replaced by semi-basement garages, 4 apartments and an overlying penthouse. An outline development permit had been issued in February 2009, and the Planning Directorate had recommended its approval.

The development had been strongly opposed by the Sliema Residents’ Association, who noted that the site had a 400 square metre garden and that the destruction of such gardens would have negative implications “far beyond the immediate neighbourhood.”

Such opposition led to around 100 objectors to the project, who each filed their objection in time to be considered registered objectors to the project. However, only 20 ended up recognised as registered objectors; the remaining 80 remained unregistered objectors who were not notified of the DCC board meeting that would rule over the permit.

The SRA had brought up a procedural objection stating that not all objectors were informed of the meeting, but the Development Control Commission B board nevertheless proceeded with it, voting 5-0 in favour of the permit.

However, MEPA subsequently sought advice from its own legal office, and was recommended to seek the revocation of the permit according to Article 39A of the Development Planning Act. 39A allows MEPA to revoke or modify any development permit in case of fraud, where public safety is concerned or, as in this case, “where there is an error on the face of the record.”

At the MEPA board’s public hearing, the project’s architect Michael Falzon noted that although revocation might be legally correct, it was effectively of no consequence, because all objections were of a similar nature.

He said that this was delaying the applicant, which was holding MEPA responsible, and that if the process was restarted, it should at least be expedited.

MEPA noted that the processing had already been made and would not have to be repeated, and that all that needed to be done was for the meeting to be held again, with all the objectors duly informed.

Board member Roderick Galdes, the Labour Party’s representative, remarked that article 39A was copied off British law, but that in doing so, provisions for compensation in such cases was not included. He added that such issues were creating uncertainty.

Chairman Austin Walker, however, stressed that MEPA had legal obligations to uphold, and that it unfortunately had to seek the permit’s revocation, although he stressed that a new meeting to decide over the issue should be held as soon as possible.

The board subsequently voted in favour of revocation, although one board member, Joe Tabone Jiacono, dissented, having earlier expressed his reservations over the matter.

Works on the project had not yet started, as the permit was not yet in the applicants’ hand.

Di-ve.com
15/07/2010