MEPA has released a statement today saying that it would like to clarify and bring to the attention a number of issues which have been wrongly interpreted and reported as regards to the development permit issue in Constitutional Street in Mosta.

In 2004 MEPA granted an outline development permit to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct an old people’s home, which included a considerable area ODZ. At that time MEPA insisted that development will only be permitted within the development boundaries. Eventually an outline permit was issued for development on the same site (within development schemes) on which permit PA 5560/05 (the permit in question) was later issued, MEPA said.

MEPA went on to say that reference had been made in some media articles to the fact that MEPA has not objected to the fact that although the outline development permit was issued for an old people’s home, the full development permit was granted for the construction of apartments. This point is totally irrelevant since both uses are acceptable within development boundaries.

“It had also been reported that one of the main arguments brought against the granting of the development permit was related to the girna found on site, and which, according to NGOs is under threat. The assumption that MEPA’s decision put girna under threat is incorrect. The conditions of MEPA development permit stipulate a bank guarantee of €50,000 and require the developer to restore the girna. In this regard, one has to mention that the way the proposal was restrained within development zone will also manage to screen a considerable stretch of less attractive back elevations,” MEPA continued.

MEPA went on to say that various media articles also mentioned “the Structure Plan policy RCO 29 (RCO stands for Rural Conservation). In fact, this policy does not apply to this case since the proposed development is confined within the limits for development.”

“The decision of the Authority is subject to an appeal currently pending before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, which is completely independent from the Authority. It is pertinent to note, that whereas under the provisions of the Development Planning Act, most of which has been repealed, a third party appeal does not suspend the execution of a development permit,” MEPA said.

The MEPA statement sayd that “under the provisions of the new Environment and Development Planning Act, in case of an appeal involving a site which lies outside the development zone (ODZ) or in a protected area, in a case of a scheduled property (level 1 or 2), in a property where there is archeology or in cases of demolition of facades in UCA, the execution of a development permit is suspended pending such an appeal. Therefore, this particular case does not fall under this regulation since the site mentioned in this article falls within the development boundaries.”

MEPA concluded the statement by saying, “this particular case was determined much prior to the coming into force of the new legislative and administrative procedures which were precisely intended to enhance and ensure that all decisions are transparent and subject to sustainable development principles.”

“MEPA welcomes active participation by residents and NGOs, and it listens to their concerns. However, MEPA is an institution that is mandated to act within the parameters of existing laws and policies, and in this case it has acted entirely within these parameters.”

Permalink: MEPA statement to clarify certain issues on Wied il-Ghasel