Evidently Nigel is one of “the people” (also referred to as FAA). Like “the people”, he twists words around. I did not express any view for or against ODZ developments. The issue here is about intervention by the authorities on permits which have already been issued. The way the Lija case was dealt with raises many questions for which no reply can be found in the main Act.

If a permit can be withdrawn by MEPA but against compensation, does Nigel expect MEPA to use taxpayer money to pay compensation every time FAA does not like permit? Or worse than that, should MEPA pay up every time FAA does not like the applicant? The idea that government or MEPA can withdraw permits is very dangerous.

This is especially so in a situation where a section of the environment lobby picks and chooses which projects to shoot down (ex Ramla l-Hamra) and which projects not to object to (ex. extension of Mellieha hotel).

Daph, we are talking about a new development in an ODZ area which in the same way and manner as the shanty towns at Armier, St. Thomas Bay and other locations, should never be supplied with any amenities in the first place. Why? Very simple, because they should not, and should never have been there in the first place.

[Daphne – You’re confusing issues. Unlike the shanty people at Armier and elsewhere, Victor Scerri owns the land on which he is building, and has a permit to do so. Hence, given that he owns the land and has a permit, he has a right to the provision of utilities, as long as he pays for them.]

Nigel, please don’t put words in my mouth. Where did I say that I was in favour of a free-for-all situation regarding ODZ development? I did not feel the need to state explicitly that I disagreed with the DCC’s various decisions regarding this particular case because, at this stage of the debate, we’re not discussing environmental concerns but rule of law.

You will remember that some years ago, a man stood trial by jury for the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana. To everybody’s amazement, the jury acquitted him. Even the PM said he was surprised (or words to that effect) by the outcome. Do you think the he should have intervened and sent the accused to prison in spite of his acquittal? Of course not. Only a dictator even worse than MIntoff would have done something like that.

The principle is the same here: those who are clamouring for the PM’s intervention are conveniently forgetting that MEPA was set up expressly so that ministers and prime ministers could not intervene in development matters.

One may strongly disagree with a legal decision but has to accept it anyway because, to use an old cliche, the law may be an ass but it is the only ass we have.

Nigel, he use PV cells to supply his farmhouse for the same capital output. He can install a vertical axis wind generator with no noise (just seen one working near Buskett Forest Restaurant) . As Daphne pointed out, a cesspit solves the sewage problem.
Water? He will harvest rainwater or bring a few bowsers to fill the reservoir.

@ Daphne: I wrote something about Dr Scerri being legalistic. On that one I changed my view or rather cannot be sure whether Dr Scerri is ethically right. If I apply for a room in an ODZ and get a permit why shouldn’t Dr Scerri get one? One has to keep in mind the atrocities in the countryside by opposition MPs. Wistin Schembri is pointing to them his comment below.

[Daphne – People in his position have to lead by example, even if no one follows. Also, he is a key person in an organisation, and if by his actions he causes harm to that organisation (bad publicity and so on) then he should refrain from whatever it is he’s doing. That’s why I wrote that Victor Scerri should have applied for a permit if he wanted to, but the president of the Nationalist Party should not. As for the rest, just because ‘the others’ are doing it you shouldn’t do the same yourself ghax iss hej mhux fier.]

Are we expecting people in government to act like pure virgins while the opposition speculators and others do whatever they like without asking for a permit and then Mepa issues a permit? The buck stops at MEPA . Dr Scerri wasn’t asking for something which others did not get.

[Daphne – You’re quite wrong there, and my choice of living location should more than amply illustrate that. I would rather be bound, gagged and forced to listen to Astrid whining into a megaphone for days on end than live in a Sliema flat, as she does. To each his own – she’s an urban girl and I’m not, unless it’s a thrilling metropolis and I’m on holiday. However, I have neither left-wing nor right-wing political inclinations and as somebody who espouses liberal views I respect individual rights, personal property and the rule of law. I have very, very strong reservations about the interference of the majority in the rights of the individual, public interference in personal property, and the over-riding of laws to satiate the bloodlust of people with megaphones. If the permit was issued legally, then it was issued legally. If there is any one of those protesters and demonstrators who can say with conviction that they would not like to live in the sort of house that Victor Scerri is building, but would instead turn that precious land, if they were lucky enough to own it, into a nature reserve, then I would respect them for it. But for some odd reason, I get the feeling that many of them would sell their grandmother to have what he has, and if they’d turn it down, it’s only because they’re the kind of people whose horizon is bounded by the urban stretch between Sliema and St Julian’s, and who would never live anywhere ‘so far away’ (which are the words they use when asking me why I live where I do). A hundred years ago, those demonstrators would have been met by Victor Scerri brandishing a gun and yelling ‘Get off my land!’, which is roughly how I feel about it.]

John, always remember that a development right in middle of a valley or rural area such as the location of the development in question at Bahrija would require the supply of electricity, water and drainage systems, which would mean the installation of a number of pylons or poles to direct electic cables to the property, the digging of ditches from the nearest road through which water mains and drainage piping would have to be passed causing the uprooting of trees and plants and disturbing miles of virgin land.

We are not just talking about the building of a few rooms or a converted farm here, we are talking about a villa which I’m sure will be supplied with all the above utilities, amenities and facilities. This apart from the road which most probably would have to be opened at taxpayers’ expense for the Victor Scerris of this world to be accommodated.

There is more than meets the eye in such developments.

[Daphne – Don’t let your envy show, Nigel. When people live off the beaten track, they have to pay for services to be brought to their door, and I can assure you that the fees paid are exorbitant. In addition, this is only for water and electricity, not telephony or drainage. They also have to build their own road. People who live in that sort of situation have a cesspit and are not connected to the drains.]

Antoine Vella and MC, I take it that you are both in favour of a free-for-all situation were it involves development in ODZ regions or protected areas. Good for you, but I do not agree with you for one.

With reference to the “discontinuance order” and the “conservation order” debacle please refer to the Transfiguration Avenue, Lija, case, in which your friend has also been involved.

Antoine, we have been saying the same thing on the definition but in different words.

However, I do challenge those who preach in The Times and who are expecting the Prime Minister to behave as a dictator (his views become law and replace the laws enacted by Parliament) and withdraw the permit to declare whether THEIR OWN permits in eg Santa Marija Estate should be withdrawn (let alone Charles Mangion’s building in Siggiewi countryside; Anton Refalo’s in Qala, Helena Dalli’s in Marsascala, etc).

Come on chickens!

Jesomond, do you know who Joe Micallef is, who on 6 September 2005 (application no: 05560/05) applied for the building of 26 apartments (five of which are duplexes) and 24 underlying garages just few metres away from the watercourse of Wied il-Ghasel? http://mapserver.mepa.org.mt/malta_geoinfo/SQLresult.htm

He is a well known Labourite from Mosta, and the uncle of Jason Micallef. When the latter was contacted by the committee of residents to give his opinion, smiling Jason replied that there is nothing irregular in the granting of the permission for this development (which was given in March 2009).

Since Astrid loves protecting freshwater crabs which live in Bahrija, she was there indeed protesting against this development in Wied il-Ghasel. The Labour Party media did somehow show the story. However there is a eerie silence about this case … nobody really wants to follow it up. Perhaps Jason Micallef knows why

[Daphne – I wouldn’t either, but not if I were president of a political party. Then no, because of all the flak my party would get. It’s too idealistic to say: “But I’m within the law so there shouldn’t be flak. There’s always going to be flak, and most of it is driven by ulterior motives, not concern for ‘our children’s rural heritage.’]

It was up to MEPA to accept or refuse permission for development. The development is within the law. It is replacing a building which probably was ugly. Extending the building by around 25% is normal practice. Excavating a reservoir underneath the building is OK and may I add should be mandatory.

Being legally OK does not necessarily mean that no harm was done in the area. Why don’t these so-called environment groups go and protest near ‘Is-Salib ta’ l-Gholja’ which is full of developments? But then they will not be seen on One TV.