The auditor's report and what I think about it
Tell that Astrid that Victor Scerri's house won't bother me at all, and that it's the chemical sprays which are doing me in
I’m afraid I haven’t got the actual report so I’m basing myself for now on the relevant news item on www.timesofmalta.com. The text in bold is quoted directly from the news report.
“The Development Control Commission completely ignored all policies meant to protect and safeguard the environment in the case of a farmhouse on land in Bahrija owned by the former president of the Nationalist Party, Mepa’s auditor has concluded.”
Which policies would those be?
Why are they considered applicable in this particular case when they were not considered applicable in comparable cases where a home was built on the footprint of a ruined rural dwelling in a ‘protected’ area?
“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.”
I am interested in reading specific information to back up this subjective opinion/allegation. This information does not appear in the news report. Perhaps it is in the auditor’s report, to which I do not have access at present.
“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.’
This is an outrageous statement that rings every alarm bell on my ‘cahoots’ warning-system – alarm bells which had begun ringing already when FAA supporters posted comments on this blog defending the auditor and insisting that FAA has full faith in him – even before his report was issued.
These ‘we at FAA support Joe Falzon’ comments began to come in when I named the auditor as the chairman of the DCC which cleared within 24 hours, and before the period for objections was up, Joseph Muscat’s application for the demolition of a Burmarrad house and its replacement with two maisonettes, an underground store, overlying washrooms and a swimming-pool.
This was when Alfred Sant was prime minister, Muscat was his kokkolino, and Michelle was personal assistant to works minister Charles Buhagiar – whose professional partner Alfred Grech was the architect named on Muscat’s application.
“(The auditor) 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 use of hyperbole undermines the auditor’s credibility while the inclusion of FAA/Labour’s current buzzword ‘arrogance’ raises doubts in other directions.
If the auditor wishes me, and people like me, to take his claims seriously, then he should have formed a couple of clinical sentences along these lines: ‘The DCC did not conform to policies X, Y and Z. In instances X, Y, Z on (add dates) as cited in minutes of meetings X, Y, Z, the DCC failed to take note of X,Y,Z advice from (name the properly constituted bodies) of the MEPA and did not give their reasons for doing so.’
I am not interested in what Joe Falzon finds unbelievable and arrogant. I am only interested in the facts. If I want descriptions of what is unbelievable and arrogance, I can amuse myself by scrolling through the comments-board on timesofmalta.com or just read a couple of letters written by FAA’s exceedingly tiresome George Debono.
“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.”
I can’t understand what the auditor is trying to say, or whether he is attempting to add further fuel to the fire of The People’s belief that building a new house on the footprint of a rural ruin is unprecedented and illegal. Is he being disingenuous, or has rather a lot been lost in translation?
The fact that the building is partially collapsed does not make it any less an existing dwelling. Now we can quibble over whether it is only a dwelling as long as people are living in it. But that is irrelevant.
The law does not specify that people must be living in the building already for its replacement with another building to be permissible. The law specifies that there should be a building, once a dwelling if no longer so, for the ‘footprint’ factor to come into play.
It appears to me that if the applicant was attempting to deceive the MEPA, in a puerile manner or otherwise, he would not have appended photographs which show the building clearly for what it is. He would have relied on a written description.
“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.”
That has never been against the law. It is normal practice, and perfectly legal and acceptable. The auditor knows this, given his extensive background in planning.
I hope it is not the auditor himself who is suggesting that this is an outrageous and unprecedented prospect, but that it is due to the reporter’s desire to add zing to the news report.
“The application should never have been accepted in the first place…”
I don’t understand this. The way I see it is that the reason we have due process is that so anyone can apply for anything, but it is the various stages of due process which ultimately decide whether a permit is to be granted or not, and subject to whichever conditions.
If decisions are now to be taken on whether or not to allow people to present their actual application, as the auditor oddly appears to be suggesting, then we are going to need another system of due process to determine what sort of applications are allowed, even before the applications themselves are considered.
This is patently ridiculous – and dangerous. People are free to apply for whatever they wish, wherever they wish. Then it is up to the system to sort out the permissible from the not permissible.
“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.’”
Now it is my turn to employ the words ‘arrogant’ and ‘unbelievable’, but I am not the auditor writing a formal report and so I am able to.
Let me see whether I have understood this correctly. He couldn’t find the file, and so, with no access to important facts, he couldn’t be certain as to why the DCC accepted the application.
But whatever the DCC’s reasons might have been, and even though he does not know what they were, they were obviously wrong and suspect.
The application is not ‘clearly’ in breach of policies. There is nothing clear because nothing has been specifically explained or spelled out. Again, I trust this information is cited chapter and verse in the actual auditor’s report, because it is not in the news report.
I find it curious that the auditor mentions only in passing the fact that the file couldn’t be found. I would have thought that this is a singularly significant piece of information, and I wish to know more about it.
“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’.”
Which provisions in the law and how are they applied in similar circumstances? This is more than a little bit frustrating. Had I submitted a paper written in this fashion to one of my lecturers at the university, it would have come back scored all over in angry red.
“Once the application was approved, the DCC went out of its way to ensure ambiguous information being relayed to the application.”
I just can’t work out what this means. I’ve thought about it, I’ve translated it into the vernacular and back again, and now I’ve given up.
“Later in his report, the auditor points out that no action could be taken against the members who took this decision because they had since been replaced.”
That’s convenient, isn’t it? It’s also a rather nice way of having us know that no action can be taken against him for any decisions made by the DCC when he was chairman under Labour….because he has since been replaced.
“He 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.”
This thing is going to run and run.
“The development permit, he concluded, was invalid as the DCC had no authority to issue it.”
So who does Victor Scerri sue if no action can be taken against the ‘replaced’ DCC members? I find it interesting that the auditor misses the ‘customer care’ aspect altogether and instead approaches the applicant as a de facto cheat who deserves all he gets – without considering the possibility that he might well have a rather large case for damages here.
“The application should be referred back to the DCC for proper assessment as required by law for a special area of conservation. The applicant should be informed immediately and all works on site suspended.”
No comment here. I imagine this is the only possible way to go now that things have come to this pretty pass.
“The site should be monitored continuously to ensure that no further environmental damage was done.”
No ‘further’ environmental damage – meanwhile, the environmental damage to date has not been specified.
“Mepa should insist with the owner to take appropriate measures for the environment of the locality to be protected.”
What are these appropriate measures?
“Mr Falzon also concluded that the Environment Protection Department should commence proceedings against the developer as required by law for infringing the provisions of a legal notice.”
This is rather unusual. The auditor says that no action can be taken against the public officers whom he accuses of outright abuse. Then in the next breath he says that proceedings should begin against the developer. Bit of a friend of the machine, our Mr Falzon, I would say.
“He said that if the applicant failed to submit an amended application or if the applications submitted were required, he should be required to reinstate the site under the supervision and according to the instructions of Mepa.”
I’ve got to put down my tea here to tap my temple with my index finger. Reinstate the site? What – does he mean that the ruined building should be carefully recreated, complete with fig-tree growing out of the roof?
“In his report, Mr Falzon said that in view of the urgent need to put a stop to the continuous environmental damage that was taking place, he was attempting to list reasons that could have led to the situation.”
The auditor, like Astrid Vella and FAA and their fellow-travellers who know little or nothing about the environment, appears to conflate aesthetics and environmentalism and to fail to make the required distinction between them. A building in a valley might interrupt the view and the design might not be to our liking. But it does not cause environmental damage.
What causes environmental damage to valleys, on the other hand, is things that cannot be seen: over-use of poisons (insecticides) and nitrates (fertilisers) by farmers and the illegal extraction of groundwater through illegal boreholes.
Individual buildings in the country do not destroy wildlife, but rather the opposite: they become magnets for all manner of creatures. Wildlife is killed, in a chain reaction starting with insects which are a food-source for some animals which are in turn a food-source for others, through mass-spraying of large areas of land with poisonous chemicals.
“These included that the DCC was completely insensitive to the need to protect the unbuilt environment.”
It is hugely revealing of the prevalent mindset that we speak here of the ‘unbuilt’ environment rather than of the ‘natural environment’. Buildings do not destroy ‘the environment’. They destroy or obscure the ‘natural environment’, and then only when they are present in sufficiently large numbers.
I repeat that the natural environment is under threat not from building in protected areas, but from boreholes, poisons and nitrates – but nobody is talking about this or controlling it, and the group that calls itself Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar thinks only in terms of buildings and has yet to mention hedgehogs, groundwater, and poisonous chemicals.
I imagine that if pressed to mention five animals that live in ODZs, they would struggle to do so without speaking of frogs, lizards (which are found mainly by the sea and not in Bahrija) and snails.
“It believed it could set policies rather than enforce them, its members were grossly incompetent and there could be collusion between the applicant, directly or through third parties, with one of more members of the DCC.”
I’m going to set aside the merits or otherwise of this one. Victor Scerri has reacted strongly to it and is considering the scope for a law suit. It’s the phrasing that catches my attention immediately, because it reveals which side the auditor is on, or rather, which side he is against.
The way he put it was that there ‘could have been collusion between (sic) the applicant…..with one or more members of the DCC.’ In other words, he sees the applicant as the proactive/guilty party in the collusion.
Had he written that there ‘could have been collusion with the applicant by one or more members of the DCC’, it would have revealed a different mindset entirely: one that is more concerned with the possibility that DCC members are corrupt than with putting the focus on the applicant.
That’s how I would have put it if I were in his position, because that is how I would have seen it: Victor Scerri is just another applicant, but DCC members are public officers who deal with hundreds of applicants. Possible corruption at their end is therefore the crucial issue here.
I’m too exhausted to go through the MEPA’s replies to the auditor’s report right now. It will have to wait.
39 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Actually there is a frog that lives at Bahrija Valley – it is the rare and endangered freshwater crab (Qabru). The audit report is on DOI website now – here it is:
http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/press_releases/2009/07/PR1270.Report.pdf
[Daphne – Hi Anne. I didn’t say there are no frogs in Bahrija, only that your typical FAA person would be hard pressed to mention five animals that live in the wild in Malta, without resorting to frogs. I mentioned lizards as being denizens of coastal rather than rural areas, not frogs. And I can’t understand why you have described the freshwater crab as a frog. Is this a typing error or is there something I should know here?]
No Daphne No. Vox populi (otherwise know as FAA) may have decided that from now on frogs and crabs are one and the same thing. We silly commoners need to accept the opinion of the Maltese.
@joseph micallef – If you have read my reply below it was a typing mistake. It’s no excuse but I suppose one could also say that frogs and crabs both do happen to be on MEPA’s own protected list – another failing of that authority not to disperse this information widely enough if people are still in the dark about it and think they can just go ahead and build plonk in serene valley ecosystems.
So the qabru stands – I don’t suppose many people reading this blog have ever seen one – go and have a look before they disappear – that is if you care at all – maybe it means nothing to you.
[Daphne – I used to take my children and their friends there. Sometimes we’d see lots of crabs, and other times there would be none. Anne’s right: they are worth the trip to Bahrija.]
Please read also the rest of my second post and discuss accordingly if you wish.
Just a note – I am writing as myself and represent neither vox populi nor any environment group so please throw all the blame on me as a private individual for typing late at night the word “frog” instead of “crab”. Shall I resign now?
Before I go – as this does not seem to be a pleasant environment for reasoned discussion without sniping and jeering – let me remind anyone still in doubt that building in Bahrija Valley was also a mistake because landscape protection is proclaimed by MEPA but – surprise, surprise – even though the authority has designated many “Areas of High Landscape Value” and Malta has been host to international conferences on unique landscapes of international importance where development is to be highly restricted – this is frequently ignored – except when being presented on paper to impress at conferences abroad.
So shall we just get on with it and build everywhere then – wherever there is a dura or hunter’s hut? And if there is none then run one up quickly and get it sanctioned… I shall be writing about more goings-on in the vicinity of Bahrija under the now infamous architect. Yes there are others and they are also being watched. Extension of ODZ tool room with swimming pool anyone? Roof gardens maybe – so it looks greenish to tourists flying above? This is the mob that rules in truth and I cannot see the end of it – no matter how intense the publicity surrounding MEPA’s reform.
As to why FAA picks on Nationalists like JPO and Scerri – apart from the fact that these fellows perform so outlandishly it’s as if they have a death wish of the political suicide genre …FAA are Nats to the core – yes the Tigne Beach posh accent set.
[Daphne -Anne, do please stay in the discussion and don’t get upset. One point here: FAA members are not ‘Nats to the core’. Going to Tigne Beach and speaking with a posh accent are absolutely no indicators of political sentiment. These are the people among whom I grew up, and I am perfectly placed to know exactly how they think, and even why they think the way they do.]
So why are they turning on their own? Why are they not laying into Labour? Surely they have an agenda – to drop down this government and go prancing with the PL. What else could it be? Want my take on this?
Labour or anyone remotely brushing against it is expected to be bad, behave badly, do impossibly outrageous things. But when these bad, outrageous things erupt within the fold then yes – a body will turn against itself like an auto-immune response.
Of course the rot spreads across the system and is not easily nailed down. Mention Alfred Grech being in cahoots with the infamous ex-environment spokesman for Labour and architect Charles Buhagiar, with his many interesting permit histories – (all online if you care to download and purchase from MEPA but it will eat into your piggybank!) – Is he the same Ray-Banned figure now working with Malta Tourism Authority? And Minister Mario De Marco has been passed the parcel now. Chop up all the haxix, add steam and let simmer – what you get is Balbuljata Supreme.
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.
The wording of the Auditor’s report MUST be totally objective and devoid of any subjective insinuations. It is the very essence of an auditor’s role to identify facts objectively. Anyone who has worked in any large organisation knows precisely the role of an auditor – be it financial, quality, IS or other.
I have never ever seen an auditor’s report that contains such emotive statements as those cited above. It is very clear that the intentions of the auditor are now politically motivated and as far as I am concerned (and I have legitimate complaints due to non issuance of my own applications for permits) he has damaged his own credibility and credentials for the job to the extent that he should be immediately removed.
I have never had anything to do with living or developing in the countryside or in an ODZ area. However, I have been to many a restored and extended ‘farmhouse’ in ODZ areas. The implications of this case are such that each and every one of those permits issued in the last few years should be examined in the same way. I would hate to think what the result would be.
This is yet a very clear example of the inconsistency that MEPA is so widely criticised for. It strikes at the very core issue we all have with MEPA where subjective and inconsistent decisions can be and are made- depending on what? By implication an inconsistent decision leads to speculation that there is underlying wrongdoing, whether it is there or not.
Remove the auditor the minute he issues a report you don’t like?
[Daphne – It is not a matter of whether the report is liked or not, but whether it is correct or not. Nobody is suggesting removing the man, but there are objections to hysterical, emotive and subjective use of language in the compiling of a report that should be clinical. At the risk of mocking my own profession, he is not writing a newspaper column.]
Thanks Daphne for the invite to stay in the discussion and not lose my cool. I wish neither to be offended nor to offend but only to nourish intelligent and mutually respectful dialogue… (often as rare as the qabru itself !) …regardless of how different the views expressed here may be.
It is true, as the post from Xaghra states, that there are now many ODZ structures, and there is a chance that a good number may have been granted under similarly dubious circumstances. What a quagmire, but excellent carrion for the legal eagles.
So the posh-talking anti-PN group based at Tigne beach (core FAA closet Labour) are focused solely on Nationalist- linked MEPA scandals. All I can say is good for them and let’s have another, equal and opposite, faction of anti-Labour activists digging up PL-linked digressions from planning law. Then we might be able to reach that elusive ideal – a wide spectrum of environmental activism that is, as a whole, politically balanced and no longer susceptible to claims of being a front for the downfall of the opposing party. Let’s here it from the Nats so that this apparent imbalance might be righted.
Access to private land is certainly a grey area within local law. It could go the way of a countryside covered from head to toe in five foot high boundary walls wherever private landowners feel invaded and decide to wall off their land. U
But, with Bahrija as example, if a property owner hosts protected biodiversity within their land then the relevant protective legislation regarding the environment, whether natural or cultural heritage, is to be observed. Of course trying to enforce this precept has sometimes led to the swift annihilation of biodiversity (flora and fauna) by arson or weed killer or some other act of vandalism.
While we are at it – a wildlife unit is needed to stop the shooting at weasels and swifts off the Bahrija cliffs near Tal-Mas by men carrying guns under cover of a rabbit-hunting license. And to stop anyone who messes with our natural heritage, regardless of whether on private or public land. The Bronze Age site in a field at Tal-Mas, to which the public is denied access by the owner, is a case in point. The road to Victor Scerri’s property comes to an end just before the watercourse where a path continues alongside the stream then uphill to the organic farm.
God forbid our children should ever be locked out of this setting or that it should be developed to oblivion. Of course the jam jars should be left at home!
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.
Frantic attempts at damage limitation.
[Daphne – It’s not my damage, so I don’t have to limit it. On the other hand, I do have a reputation to protect as a non-hysterical person who thinks clearly, and when I see an auditor’s report with emotive language and highly subjective terminology, preceded by statements of absolute faith in him by Astrid’s organisation, the warning lights go off. You seem to be very bitter and resentful about something. Whatever it is, it appears to be obscuring your vision and preventing you from thinking straight.]
It is the PN’s damage and, therefore, yours.
“…And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
[Daphne – I am not part of the Nationalist Party and never was. I am not a candidate, never was and never will be. I have political opinions and they are clearly not the same as yours. However, my life and work are 100% in the private sector and will continue to be 100% in the private sector. I have never held a government appointment, don’t seek one and never will. Nor do I depend on government contracts for a living, never have done and never will do. I am fortunate enough to have been born with sufficient gifts and abilities to make my living in the competitive market-place. However, your line of reasoning betrays the source of your bitterness: that you feel cut out of the loop and that whatever it is others are getting you are not. It also reveals your your hopes that with a change of government you may be one of the direct beneficiaries of clientelism.
I have noticed that many closet or overt ‘new’ Labour supporters in my extended social network are really just people who are irritated at not being involved and whose hopes for ‘change’ are really just desire for personal involvement and personal benefit. The interesting thing is that several of them have benefited enormously under this government – justifiably or not -but, having noticed that this particular well-spring will soon run dry, they are busy excavating for another one. If I were the sort of person you think I am (and probably the sort of person you are), I would be doing the same thing. But because I have no need or desire to do so, I am free to stick with my public support of the Nationalist Party and my contempt for the risible Labour Party even though I know Labour will be in government in four years time. I shall leave the sucking-up, the brown-nosing and the sowing of fresh pastures to others, who may seek to justify their words and actions, even to themselves, but inventing reasons to despise the present government and not to despise the future one.
I have been around the block a few times and at this stage in the game there is very little you can teach me about human nature. ]
From the size of the digging I’ve observed on PBS, apparently Dr. Scerri was not going to be content with just a little home, more a full fledged double storey villa.
[Daphne – What makes a villa a villa and a farmhouse a farmhouse? To the Romans, what we call a farmhouse was a villa. I am given to understand that a villa is a crime against socialism and aesthetics but a farmhouse is not. Also, the size of the foundations and the ‘extent of the digging’ do not reflect the actual footprint of a building.]
But even if this is a case of two weights two measures (which I don’t think), if there were wrongdoing in the others, it does not mean that it shall continue.
[Daphne – The point is that there is no wrong-doing in issuing a permit for the building of a house on the footprint of an earlier dwelling, however ODZ the area may be. The two weight and two measures are coming into play not because there was wrong-doing by others – heaven forbid you should suggest that somebody like Magistrate Padovani Grima did anything wrong in doing exactly what Victor Scerri seeks to do, for instance – but that if you are person X you are going to get harassed and hassled. I don’t know about you, but to me this is just another version of what used to go on in the 1980s. Back then, the mob held chains and matches, now it has megaphones and placards and noisy protests and gets the same result without the violence.]
Having a collection of stones in an unspoilt area, which one calls a footprint, doesn’t allow you to do what you like in there. It has nothing to do with property rights. Rural environment is common heritage.
[Daphne – I’m afraid you are wrong and that your thinking is both simplistic and anarchic. The rural environment is not our common heritage. It is owned by individual landowners all of whom have rights as well as duties. The Joint Office owns large tracts of rural land and, like other landowners, would be perfectly within its rights to preserve it so that ordinary citizens can have picnics or walks. However, even the Joint Office behaves like other landowners, and certainly the state has no right to demand that landowners open up their land for other people to picnic on or walk around. The fact that Malta is small cannot be used to compromise the rights of landowners. The natural conclusion of that line of argument is the mass requisition of all rural land to be enjoyed by the public. What some people appear to be suggesting – I trust you are not one of them – is the replication with rural land of the situation we have already with the rent laws, which have long been used for the provision of social housing to ‘dawk li ma jistghux’ at the expense of and to the detriment of private landlords who have been deprived of the use of their property without compensation, while having to bear all the expenses of repairing it and paying tax on transfer and inheritance. This line of argument is that people with fields in which there is a ruin should not be permitted to build on the ruin’s footprint so that the public can enjoy the ruin without having their view disturbed, while walking and picnicking on somebody else’s land because God forbid planning permission should be obtained to put up a wall to keep them out. I can’t tell you the number of times I woke up after rain to find total strangers with plastic bags rooting around in our garden for snails, having first made their way down what is quite obviously a private lane with a sign at the entrance saying ‘Sqag privat – tidholx’. The usual response? ‘EEEE, mela hawnhekk ta’ xi hadd? Sorry ta hi, ma kontx naf.’]
I am no advocate to FAA, in fact I don’t know them. But it is useless blaming them for different measures. They can’t be everywhere, and they probably act on media reports, and possibly became active on this as soon as it was on Super One.
[Daphne – Actually, no. They work in tandem with Super One. If you observe developments closely enough, as I do, you will see an emerging pattern of behaviour and a network. FAA are not directly to blame for case X and case Y, but they are certainly directly to blame for their own irresponsible behaviour. They fail to understand that being in a position of influence on public opinion places great demands on you for responsible behaviour – even I, as a mere columnist, am very much aware of this and conscious of how everything I say will be taken. The strange thing is that they seem to do the opposite: using their influence on public opinion as a tool to mislead and thus achieve their objectives. Of course, FAA wouldn’t have been so effective in influencing a certain element of society some years ago, but they have come into their own in the current climate of resentment and bitterness, and have tapped into the general feeling of ill-will towards the government. With very few exceptions, none of the people who support them actually know anything at all about the environment, and think of it only as buildings, and matters of aesthetics – hence the very strange involvement of a supposed environmental lobbyist like Astrid Vella in the cultural issue of whether our capital city should have an opera house or not, but no involvement at all in the fierce problems associated with crop-spraying and illegal draining of groundwater.
It is not actually Victor Scerri’s farmhouse that people care about. Most of the Spartan 300 at that Bahrija protest had never been to Bahrija and actually thought it was where I live (Bahrija, Bidnija, it’s all the same to them). No, Victor Scerri’s farmhouse is a flashpoint, a symbol.]
Which brings me to the politicians’ argument. No, in some cases prudence suggest that they cannot do what other common citizens can. They can exert pressure even without them knowing, especially in such a sensitive issue. On the other hand they have privileges which other common people don’t have. But some seem to persist in wanting the best of both worlds, ending up having none.
[Daphne – Yes, I agree with you here, and it is exactly what I wrote in a recent newspaper column about the subject. Victor Scerri should have been able to predict what was coming, and should have resigned his post to pursue that development – irrespective of whether he was wrong or right. When you work for an organisation, whatever that organisation is and not just a political party, if your actions harm it you are a liability and must go.]
I think it would have been much better for him politically to have retracted the application as soon as he smelled problems, citing his party’s tougher line on ODZ developments. Everyone understands that one is prone to mistakes, but persisting in them will put you in where you deserve.
[Daphne – Now here I don’t agree with you. There is a difference between avoiding harm to your organisation and giving in to bullying. The bullies didn’t want him to resign. They wanted him to meet their demand that he use his own personal property how they think best and regardless of what the law says. He would have been a silly man to place greater value on his party post than on the legitimate use of his own land, and not just from the financial and long-term perspective, either, but because there is an important principle at work here: it is due process, and not a mob with a megaphone, that dictates what is permissible and what is not.]
Hi Daphne – Haha, yes sorry – a slip of the keyboard – I meant that at Bahrija there is a crab …not a frog (although am sure one or two green hoppers have set up habitat down there too!) Hope there won’t be public outcry about my clanger. It’s true that your average person is not all that familiar with the various weasels and whatsits that make up our biodiversity – or even gives a hoot.
That brings us to the “lanqas nistaw nibnu mkien ma jmurx nirfsu xi gremxula” approach. Sad that in Malta we do not, on the whole, put much importance on our rich heritage of species, small though they may be – some of them unique to Malta and not found anywhere else in the world.
On whether demolishing and rebuilding a structure in the countryside (ODZ) is illegal or not – there are some instances where this would not be permitted.
Checking the relevant structure plan policies should offer some guidance. Visit the MEPA website and click on Planning – The Official Manual (farcically this makes it sound as if there is an “Unofficial Manual”!) – The Structure Plan
If the relevant clause is not there then it may have been removed – this happens on a regular basis as things get chopped and changed and manicured – often just by MEPA posting a circular to architects. This is not always updated on the website (I’ve sent an email last week asking for updates and received a reply) so there is constant tinkering below the public radar (not that the general public are switched to high alert – until lately) … unless you spend the whole time digging and delving for it – or happen to be on some exclusive mailing list.
Certainly the Bahrija Valley application should never have got beyond first base, as there was a long list of reasons why not, based on the Structure Plan and planning restrictions in protected areas. I have the case officer’s report if you’d like me to email it t you.
[Daphne – Please do: [email protected]. Thanks.]
I reckon that if an area is listed on the Natura 2000 network of European green sites then we tamper with that at peril.
However, it’s no use the public asking for the EU to intervene, as in most cases – unless a directive has been breached – the case will be referred back to the local “competent authority” (Eurospeak) which leads us back to none other than MEPA.
My sympathies to the guy who thought he could get away with it – just because almost everyone else was getting away with it too (often regardless of whether they were someone or nobody …as long as they were persistent and/or persuasive enough).
Do bear in mind that the land was bought off the Eliza company that had a website selling ODZ villas at Bahrija on plan. When this was reported to MEPA (by Nature Trust) the website disappeared off the internet. I’m not inferring here that some zealous member of the Environment Protection Department within the planning authority – the “E” in “MEPA” – zapped them with anti-developer spray. Was someone in that merry band hoping to twist the DCC’s fickle arm with “What more can I do to encourage you to dosh out that permit. I’ve already sold the damned place and they’re moving in tomorrow!” Has it not been done before? Apparently they thought their chances were poor – so it appears they might have sold a parcel of the land to the poor (?) unsuspecting (?) PN Party president. A well connected individual? Maybe so.
Of course no one doubts the man’s integrity.
Victor Scerri is the sacrificial lamb, but he is also the tip of the iceberg. 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 and to be honest I do not know how the rot can be stopped from spreading even further, reform or not. A whistle-blower act passed through parliament might go some way toward improving things.
Now imagine fighting a development – one that you know is against planning principles. The permit is refused based on a very solid planning precept like scheduling at Level One or Level Two or a buffer zone. You breath a sigh of relief and go off to the next one (there is always a next one) But while you are not looking there is a reconsideration with overturning of the original decison and permit granted …or a fresh application on the same site – permit granted. Or the developer goes ahead anyway – permit granted on application to sanction works under enforcement order.
This state of affairs has been draining the environment groups for years. It’s no wonder they bay for blood. Some go about it quietly and studiously, others bellow, or shriek. Some are more in demand in the press than others. I am in favour of all approaches, as long as it brings awareness and better consideration of the dire straits we are in.
Of course you are right – we should not need to be wrangling with villas in protected valleys when all the planning precepts, carefully drawn up, are there to tell us this cannot happen. We should be worrying about the unseen problems poisoning our soil, our air and our water. Yes, it is our water – but the illegal bowsers are stealing it and selling it while extracting more than can be replaced by annual rainfall – a most worrying environmental deficit – even more worrying than the economic one if you ask me.
Actually it was the Ramblers Association that first came up with the idea of a protest march at Bahrija and invited all the other recognised NGOs in the Nature Group to attend. RAM General Secretary Alex Vella and Annalise Falzon of Nature Trust spoke. Alan Deidun spoke too.
While some might take the opportunity to shoot Alan down saying that he was there trying to get votes – why ever not? – he certainly had a good platform, and since he stood on the environmental ticket I would expect him to work it for what it was worth, even if some saw his descent into the political mire as a betrayal.
[Daphne – I don’t know about that, Anne. I would much rather an environmental lobbyist’s political beliefs and sympathies were overt like Alan’s than covert like Astrid’s.]
Even some hunters showed up with their logo – they had been debating on their website whether to attend. The ones who did show up had guts. Not surprisingly they were ignored by the throng.
Back to the frog – oops! I mean crab. The thing that shocked me most was discovering that this creature lives in burrows which were found on the excavation site by a naturalist. Yes they had their clothes on! (I do like to engage in this sort of teasing with the tree-huggers to balance out a real sense of gloom most of us feel.) It’s all so depressing to see the system that is MEPA – in which at its 1992 onset we had so much faith – collapsing.
There may be a mob out there but it is the mob inside that worries me.
As for reform on a national level – OPM had this in mind all along as a result of EU membership. I shall be writing about it in more detail Sunday after next. Meantime, hoping we can keep up the discussion on this level.
Anne is right, the system is rotten. Hopefully something good can come out of this mess. Change maybe?
Anne, in some ways, the issue has gone beyond the environmental realm and is now also a matter of human rights. Victor Scerri can reasonably claim to have suffered discrimination because, although the auditor was aware of similar cases (he says so in his report on page 13, second paragraph) no action was ever taken against them, certainly not to the same extent as against Scerri. Besides subjecting Scerri to discriminatory treatment, the auditor is also admitting to not having done his duty in all the other cases. In my view that certainly makes him less trustworthy. For similar reasons, the blatant discimination by FAA and RAM against Victor Scerri also makes them less trustworthy and credible. As you know, credibility is everything for an environmental NGO.
I’m not saying that no action should have been taken in this case. I’m saying that it should have been taken in all cases. The way it has been tackled by the NGOs themselves is counter-productive because it has been politicised. I’m assuming that, contrary to appearances, the NGOs in question are genuine and not political stooges.
On a different note, why do you suggest that Deidun’s involvement in politics may be considered a betrayal? I know you’re not saying it yourself but quoting “some who saw his descent…etc.”. I’d have thought you’d be indignant at this suggestion since you’ve also been a political candidate yourself. I hope you’re not going to justify this by saying that AD is “good” while PN is “bad”; an environmentalist is allowed to belong to AD but not to PN.
One last point I’d like to make is that there is not so much need for a whistle-blower inside MEPA because, in fact, a great deal of information – almost everything – is available to the public and no, at € 1.16 per report, the cost is not prohibitive. Critics of MEPA (who often also happen to be critics of the PN) generally fail to acknowledge this aspect of the system set up in 1992 by the PN government.
Practically every single application and enforcement notice submitted since1994 can be checked online. I understand that the 1992-1994 ones are still being inputted in MEPA’s server but the rest are available. Those who rant about transparency and lack of transparency and need for transparency should at least admit that MEPA is probably the most transparent and open authority we have in Malta.
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.
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.
Wasn’t it Dr. Scerri himself who asked MEPA to look closely into the matter, if necessary even with the help of the MEPA auditor?
[Daphne – Yes.]
With all the brouhaha that was going on, the auditor was bound to investigate whatever happened. So when Scerri “called” for an investigation, he knew that he was calling for something that was going to happen anyway – maybe had even already started.
[Daphne – Which me to the question of what exactly the auditor does all day in between waiting around for a political ‘scandal’.]
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.]
“there could be collusion between the applicant, directly or through third parties, with one of more members of the DCC.”
The way the auditor speculates as to what may have happened is worrying. If he has facts to sustain this allegation, he should forward it to the police to investigate. If he does not have facts as evidence of collusion, then he should not include it in his report. Facts meaning names of those involved, statements made, dates of meetings, copies of emails, names of intermediaries or any information which sustains this serious allegation.
Here is a person paid out of public funds who is slinging mud and tarnishing people’s reputation on a mere whim and guess.
No one should be surprised therefore that we get an NGO like FAA which bases entire campaigns on impressions and unfounded allegations. If people in public office do it, why shouldn’t they?
No there is nothing of obscure vision. Falzon has the guts. That is why faa has blind faith in him.he states the truth and nothing but the truth. He sees no faces or colours. He was dcc chairman for years and he never approved odz developments. He led by example. That is why he was never under investigation. Period.
Audit reports should not be taken as evangelical truths just because they are penned by the auditor. Ideally the auditor’s report should be taken as an independent, factual, professional, responsible document. But unfortunately this very often is not the case.
Auditors are human beings and as such are subject to error, to hidden agendas, to ulterior motives, ie auditors are subject to human weaknesses. It seems clear that this one should be included with similar other reports that made targeted individuals pass through hell with their half truths, unfounded allegations, unprofessionality, etc. The VOM Auditor’s report is a case in point.
Reports by auditors found to contain misinformation and speculation go straight against their mission and damage their own credibility. And when found faulty they should be challenged.
Daphne, your analysis is appreciated.
Then I guess he has to face the music now!!
I have not seen the auditor’s report, but from what is reported in the media it seems to me to be a very subjective effort devoid of fact and objectivity and full of personal views and statements. If that is the case, then it has no credibility.
The auditor’s report could have been written by a politician from the opposition benches. He even included phrases that could be used on posters by FAA during their next mob protest.
Not pertinent to the subject, but then again, I find it hard to envisage a subject where it would…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia
You are aware of this?
[Daphne – Yes, one of my obsessive stalkers keeps vandalising with libellous remarks and incorrect information a Wikipedia bio which I never put up in the first place. Whoever he is, he’s particularly obsessive because when his stuff is removed it’s up again within hours. You would be surprised just how many people have sick minds and not enough to do – though I have to say that this is nothing compared to the email circulated by somebody at the GWU office to the union’s members during last year’s election campaign, saying that my sons take drugs. I was alerted by the manager of a five-star hotel when the email was received by members of his staff. We immediately informed the police and the union and within hours there was a formal letter of apology from the GWU delivered to my husband’s office. We accepted the apology and let it go. But this is the kind of thing to which some people stoop.]
I imagine that nasty email was the product of a sick individual – one of those lonesome types who dreams up sick things to do on the internet.
There is also a Facebook pseudo profile which invites FB users to add Daphne Caruana Malizia as a friend with a silly picture of a horse. (Personally I’ve ignored it and hate this brand of bitchiness no matter who the victim) – so cannot say who’s on it and who’s not.
I would not lump all environmental NGOs together as “pseudo-environmentalists.” Admittedly there are some who have been at this for years, some are scientists or lecturers in environmental studies so know their stuff. Often they have been at it for so long they are worn out. Then there are the more vociferous amateurs, some still students – but that is how we started in the early eighties when Lorry Sant’s thugs came for us with chains at the first ever environment protest in Valletta. NGOs seem to have their plates full, shooting down the Development Control Commission’s weaker moments (of which there are a multitude) not to leave hateful emails and internet mischief to the genuine whackos out there.
Agree with you Daphne that there is a problem of information overload when anyone tries to delve into these cases – it’s a real bore sifting through it all, as I am sure you are finding too!
Forwarding those Bahrija case notes now…
“One of those lonesome types who dreams up sick things to do on the internet’ – spot on, Anne. I have the oddest feeling that it’s the very same person who tried to get on a plane with a gun. Apparently, he’s now a translator in Luxembourg, where one of his women colleagues had to ask for protection because he developed an obsession that she was ‘persecuting’ him.
As for the Facebook profile, I always thought the picture of a horse was an attempt at self-parody by one of the people who works on the site, who famously looks like one, which is why she never allows herself to be photographed for her restaurant columns in Malta Today. Unfortunately, she can attempt to put on a thousand poseur’s disguises, but her social and political background just comes cracking through. No number of ‘Manolos’ and freeloading trips on Emirates to freebie rooms in farflung hotels are going to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Sad, but true. Jealousy makes people do the oddest things.
That’s the problem with wikipedia, many people assume since it’s online it’s fact, when in fact it could be any idiot’s opinion, as it has often been!
Whoever it is doesn’t know what ‘espousal’ means.
Joseph Falzon should have stuck to facts, policies and reasons why the permit should not have been granted.
Finding that of the latter, there were few if any reasons for rejection (let alone precedents), he put in his personal feelings, allegations, innuendos and speculation.
For these reasons, the audit report lost all credibility and I hope that Dr. Scerri will use every possible means to seek redress on two counts: 1. Take libel action to clear his name and 2. Force MEPA to explain why the inconsistencies and why it took nine years to issue a permit which, in the eyes of Mr. Falzon, ‘should not have been granted to begin with’!
Jomar: Am I correct in saying you did not read the full report? Had you read the report, you would have seen the auditor mentioned the various policies which even case officers and others in MEPA had indicated to the DCC.
You would also have read – in the MEPA Board’s reply to the auditor’s recommendations – that four out the six recommendations were already adopted by the Board and the other two (numbers 2 and 6) are subject to possible actions which would be required from the applicant.
I feel – but this is my opinion – that if Mrs Scerri (who is the applicant mentioned in the report) or Dr. Scerri were to take action against the auditor then, I presume, that they would have to take action against the MEPA Board as well.
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.
Disgusted, you are beating about the bush.
1. The ownership of the land was not a determining factor.
2. Who commissioned the report from MEPA’s auditor?
3. If it was MEPA and MEPA agrees with its contents, then it too should be subject to the same scrutiny.
4. The auditor was inconsistent in his comments, first saying that the application should not have been accepted in the first place and later on suggested a new application should be submitted.
5. Personal feelings, innuendos and speculation were not necessary at all and only served to unmask a hidden agenda which appears to have been solely aimed at making the auditor appear to be a hero to FAA and the others who were fanning the fires behind the scene.
I too am disgusted at the lopsided report and your comments.
I happened to see parts of an interview with Joe Falzon on One TV (today Thursday at around 8.40pm). At one point, he was asked what is the political position of the PM following this case. The obvious reply should have been that political matters are outside his remit and it is not for him to make political comment. Instead he replied that if he were (politically) responsible for MEPA, it would be very embarrassing for him.
He is unable to draw the line between his responsibilities of auditor and political commentary.
Just as Joe Falzon speculated that there was collusion in the Bahrija application, I speculate that Joe Falzon spiced up his report intentionally to maximise the impact and be sensational.
Is he yet another ego-centric eager to attract attention to himself? Does he think that “embarrassing” the PM is a good way of attracting attention?
Daphne, when writing a comment the first field says “name (required)” and yet there are a good number of posts which are anonymous. Apart from the fact that whoever writes under anonymity is a coward unless he/she truly thinks his/her life is at risk, anonymity allows the author to write whatever he/she likes without a minimum of responsibility as their name is hidden. Since we no longer live in the dark ages of Malta where voicing your opinion can get you killed or hit with chains, I think you should not allow anyone to post without stating his/her name. Obviously one can always try to deceive by using a fictitious name but at least we will not get posts from people like “Disgusted” – what is he/she so afraid of after all?
[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 Zammit wrote: “I wish neither to be offended nor to offend but only to nourish intelligent and mutually respectful dialogue… (often as rare as the qabru itself !) …regardless of how different the views expressed here may be.” Well said. Words of wisdom indeed.
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.
I would like to make a couple of comments:
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.]
Michael Falzon in The Sunday Times:
“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.
They were obliged to recommend a refusal of an application if there is one such breach – however irrelevant it may be to the case at hand – as discretion was to be exercised only by the Development Control Commission (DCC). Situations abound where applicants or architects were told by case officers that a proposal should basically be approved but they have to stick to their obligation to recommend a refusal. In short, case officers were consciously directed by Mepa’s Planning Directorate not to use their brains but to act solely as robots.
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!”