Contact UsMap ServermyPlanningLogin
Malta Environment & Planning Authority - www.mepa.org.mt
Print Page

HomeSeperatorInfo and ParticipationSeperatorLetters to the EditorSeperator2011SeperatorREGARDING MEPA DECISIONS

REGARDING MEPA DECISIONS

Malta Today
19th June, 2011

Reference is being made to the weekly ‘Mepa Watch’ article penned by Perit Robert Musumeci under the heading "Weekly landmark decisions" published in the Maltatoday on Sunday 12th June 2011.

In his article Perit Musumeci picked out 2 of 46 decisions which were delivered by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal on Thursday 9th June 2011.  Practically all these Appeal cases were dismissed by the Tribunal with the exception of 4 cases which were either upheld or upheld in part.

One of the cases the Perit chose to include in his article was that related to an enforcement notice which had been issued separately against Mr Charles Polidano and Mr Paul Polidano in 2002 for an illegally built villa. While the Tribunal did revoke the enforcement notice issued against Mr Charles Polidano, what Perit Musumeci failed to mention in his article, is that during that same sitting the Tribunal confirmed Mepa’s decision in having issued this same enforcement notice against Mr Paul Polidano. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal made by Mr Paul Polidano, the present owner and occupier of this same illegal villa, against Mepa’s refusal to sanction the illegal villa.

Furthermore, at the same sitting the Tribunal also dismissed another appeal made by Mr Alfred Polidano against Mepa’s refusal to sanction an adjacent illegal villa.

The second ‘landmark decisions’ the Perit highlights in his article, relates to another appeals case whereby the Tribunal upheld Mepa’s decision for the refusal of a basement store in an ODZ area. What the Perit failed to mention when describing this case is that the Tribunal also stated that this was an exceptional case where there was to be no increase in the footprint other than that which had been previously approved and built as storage facility. The Tribunal upheld this decision on condition that the development granted "ghandu jitnehha kompletament u s-sit ghandu jigi ripristinat ghal dak li kien qabel ma inghata dan il-permess, a spejjez l-applikant, meta l-Awtorita` jidhrilha li l-operazzjoni deskritta fil-process tieqaf jew meta din tinbidel b'tali mod li l-izvilupp ma jibqax, fl-opinjoni tal-Awtorita`, necessarju ghall-operazzjoni."