“The other serious problem is the negative mindset of case officers. From day one, case officers were not encouraged to exchange ideas with applicants and rather than considering a proposal holistically from a planning perspective, their task was just to check whether in the proposal there is anything that is remotely in breach of one of the myriad policies, regulations and guidelines.

How these same officers are going to suddenly change their mindset and reverse their negative attitude beats me. The reform proposals put more responsibility on case officers, urging them to discuss and dialogue with applicants and their architects as if the parameters that these officers have had to abide to for so many years never existed!”

1) This is essentially an architect’s report. Validation of the facts in an audit report before the report is issued and other forms of quality reviews may take longer that the audit itself but is essential to the credibility of the report. Even if one is a technically competent auditor, it does not mean that one can write good reports. That’s why audit offices in professional organizations usually have editors – people who may not know much about auditing but are experts in their field.

Another important principle is that of allowing the auditee to comment on the report – particularly with regard to the facts – before the report is finalized and issued. Granted that there may be some urgency in issuing the report (as in this case), but Victor Scerri and the chairman of MEPA could have been provided with a draft of the report and given 24 hours to submit any comments. If the right procedures are followed, yes, audit reports may be taken as evangelical truths in so far as the stated facts are concerned (one may or may not agree with recommendations), but only if the correct procedures have been followed.

2) Anne Zammit – thank you for mentioning Eliza. Thirty years or so ago, it was possible for a well-connected individual to buy a tract of land in a “green area” for peanuts. Because what existed before MEPA was a one-man show, that individual would then obtain building permits and hey, we have a new rich kid on the block. The whole area right down to Ras ir-Raheb and Fomm-ir-Rih is dotted with “footprints.” The chances that these rooms are allowed to be converted into villas would increase significantly if a similar permit in the area is granted to the president of the party in government. I think that Victor Scerri may have unwittingly allowed himself to be used as a test case.

[Daphne – I don’t see how that follows. Dom Mintoff had a country villa in Bahrija, isolated on the ridge, for donkey’s years, with a private road. When he built it, the policy was that if you had four tumoli of land, you could build a house on it. To date, the presence of Mintoff’s house has not opened up the ridge to development.]

Don’t tell me you don’t know that he is a senior lecturer, lecturing, researching and tutoring, at the university and until a few months ago he was the Dean of the former Faculty of Architecture and now Faculty of the Built Environment, and in the evening he is at the MUSEUM (where he actually does a lot of good – no sarcasm here).

[Daphne – Oh my God, tal-Muzew. Why am I not surprised? Come to think of it, you can read it off that photograph. Another bleeding Savonarola.]

It’s surely a thankless job. Probably he does not need to filter out emotive and subjective use of language at this stage, as infringments are not marginal or rare, but blatant and frequent.

If only George Debono, James Tyrell and a few others followed your example. Under the instigation of Astrid Vella, they spout their venom against anyone who expresses an opinion different from theirs. See the post “Astrid’s toy soldiers” which gives some idea how they operate.

[Daphne – Astrid uses them as a tool to spout venom on her behalf while she maintains a pristine Miss Buttercup image. It would be amusing were it not so very sad.]

For example, these are the adjectives used by Astrid’s toy soldiers against Stephen Calleja because he had the temerity to criticise Astrid in The Malta Independent on Sunday: “Puerile. Barbaric. Pompous. Ridiculous. Blinkered. Patronising. Snide. Superficial. Arrogant. Bully. NGO-hater. Aggressive. Troglodyte.” How’s that for dialogue?

In the Bahrija protest, there was a poster mocking Victor Scerri and in the Ramla protest they read the names of the MEPA board members to mock them. More recently, they attacked personally some members of the St John’s Cathedral Foundation. FAA attack the reputations of individuals and in a culture where he/she who shouts and writes most must be right, these individuals prefer not to fight back.

There are many people who are angry because they were insulted in newspapers simply because they expressed an opinion or who had their names dragged in the mud because they did their duty as board members.

The wording of the report, particularly in the use of certain phrases by the auditor – and I read it all shortly after publication – is often unacceptable because it impacts negatively on its expected objectivity.

His comments and innuendos during his participation in an obviously political programme on One TV on Thursday evening clearly indicated his agenda both in what he said and in his body language. In fact, I do not think he should have accepted to participate in the programme at all in order to protect not himself but the position of an ombudsman.

Even the Ramblers’ Association participant on that programme was trying to be objective and to avoid falling into the trap of the interviewer/presenter’s loaded questions. THE Ombudsman would never have issued such a report or participated in such a programme. But then they are two very different persons.

Hi Anne, no offence meant. I actually enjoy reading your posts.

I am only concerned about this proliferating negative attitude that the interests of some are unilaterally projected as being those of a population.

As for crabs and frogs, because I am interested, I do know that both are on MEPA’s protected list.

[Daphne – I don’t have a fixed policy of dealing with comments such as these, but use an ad hoc discretionary system. Most comments are not actually anonymous, in the sense that you will not know who has written them, but I do because they give me their real email address and/or (privately) their real name. The ones who are fully anonymous even to me, like Twanny and Disgusted, are almost certainly hiding their identity not because they are afraid of the consequences of their comments in general, but because they are people who know me and want to carry on being false to my face. Those are the ones who write in proper sentences. Then there are the others: the incoherent ones with their ranting insults. Sometimes I upload their comments for a laugh. Other times, I just delete them. That provokes them into what I have found to be the standard neurotic reaction: posting repeated comments accusing me of censorship.]

Anne, your piece is well-written, insightful and to the point. You seem to be very well informed on the subject and yet you maintain objectivity and pragmatism and stick to the facts. Unfortunately there are a couple of persons here who seem to spend their lives searching for a mistake in someone’s writing or spelling and that is very petty and contributes very little to the discussion. However I’m sure that there are many others who visit this site to listen to opinions and discuss maturely so please do not get offended and continue with your contributions.

Anne Zammit wrote: “What a mess. Go back ten years or more and look at all the developments in Urban Conservation Areas or Outside Development Zones that were granted permits against case officer recommendations. The system is rotten …..”

The conclusion that the system is “a mess” and “rotten” ignores the fact that case officers often interpret policy in a very restrictive manner and shift responsibility of policy interpretation to the DCC Board. It is safer for them, it involves them less hassle and they are less likely to be accused by some environmental crusader of abuse or worse.

It is therefore no surprise that there are many instances where a negative recommendation is overturned by the DCC board. Besides, many times the DCC overturns the recommendation after the applicant makes changes to the development proposal.

The real mess is the poor service MEPA’s clients receive because of the case officers abdication of their responsibilities.

On a different note, I would like to add that there are many environmental activists who do good work and Anne Zammit is one of them. It is a pity that the valuable work of these individuals and of the serious NGOs is tarnished with the indecent tactics which FAA have repeatedly adopted.