Later in the report (as reported in the Times):

“He (the Auditor) said that the applicant should be required to submit an amended application to comply with the topography of the site. This should be assessed on its own merits”.

Same audit report by the same author J. Falzon.

The application should not have been entertained in the first place? Submit an amended application now?

Isn’t this a contradiction invalidating the audit report itself?

Dr Scerri resigned his post yesterday but is to continue fighting his case as a private citizen.

In his report following an investigation requested by the former PN president himself, auditor Joe Falzon said that members were bent on seeing that the application was approved, irrespective of any policies.

In a reaction following the publication of the report, Dr Scerri said he was considering legal action.

In his report, published by the government, the auditor general said:

“The assessment of this application, particularly by the DCC, should read: How to damage the natural environment with the blessing of the authorities responsible to safeguard it.”

He said that “the extreme arrogance shown by the DCC in ignoring all policies and advice from the properly constituted bodies of Mepa without giving any plausible justification for such action is unbelievable.”

The auditor goes on to say that the submission of the application “was a puerile attempt at misleading Mepa”.

The applicant, he said, described the existing buildings on site as an existing dwelling when the photographs submitted indicated a building in a state of partial collapse.

The development, the auditor said, was described as the rehabilitation of an existing dwelling but what the applicant wanted was to demolish whatever existed and rebuild a new building.

“The application should never have been accepted in the first place…”

The auditor general said that in the outline application, the case officer had listed several reasons based on official policies why the development was unacceptable.

“As this file is misplaced I cannot be certain as to the motivations which led the DCC to accept the application. But whatever they were, the application was clearly in breach of policies, and I cannot see how this application could possibly be acceptable under any circumstances.”

Mr Falzon said that the DCC chose to ignore the fact that the development was located in an area of ecological and scientific importance and “in flagrant disregard to the provisions of the law issued the required permit”.

“Once the application was approved, the DCC went out of its way to ensure ambiguous information being relayed to the application.”

enough said, now i would like to hear what the PN apologists have to say. At least he was man enough to resign, others should have resigned before him

[Daphne – Look beneath the surface. It’s a useful habit.]