MEPA, in a statement this evening, referring to the Ombudsman’s report regarding the Mistra development permission, said that whilst respecting the Ombudsman’s opinion, MEPA would like to bring to the public’s attention the following facts:
“A revocation of permission can only be contemplated under three very specific instances – which the law refers to as an error on the face of the record, fraud and public safety.”
MEPA said that none of these elements resulted to the Authority in this case which merited the starting of the procedure for the revocation of the permit.
MEPA went on to say that it is duty bound to follow in principle the planning rights granted through an Outline Planning Permission.
The Authority added that the “Environment and Planning Commissioner incorrectly arrived at a conclusion that the conditions of the Outline Permission were somehow ‘cast in stone.’ The Outline permission sets out the planning parameters, which are further expounded in the Full Development Application. In this case, there was no marked departure from the principle of development.”
The Ombudsman’s report also “falls short,” MEPA said, of identifying what is termed as ‘unresolved impacts.’
MEPA continued that it “reiterates that the Environment Impact Assessment was a very thorough one.”
The Authority pointed out that “the law cited by the Commissioner requiring the Authority’s meetings to be held in public, and a vote to be held in public, does not apply at the stage where MEPA is considering whether to start the procedure for a revocation of a permission.”
“Reference to this section of the law was thus incorrect,” MEPA added, since this only applies in the case of planning applications and planning control applications. There is a different and particular section of the law which regulates the special procedure for the revocation of a permit, which was duly followed.”
MEPA concluded that, “in this case, the Authority used the identical procedure which has been used in similar cases throughout the years under different MEPA boards. The correctness and legality of this procedure was never questioned, nor challenged.”