Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/221559
9 News maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2013 New MEPA deputy director embroiled in Mistra scandal JAMES DEBONO SYLVIO Farrugia, the MEPA's planning directorate's newly-appointed deputy director, had endorsed the case officer reports recommending both the outline permit for the high-rise Mistra project in 2008, and now also the full permit issued in October. But planning ombudsman David Pace now contends that both permits should be revoked and has singled out MEPA's Major Projects Unit – which Farrugia used to run – for supporting this "flawed" proposal. One of the major shortcomings identified by Pace is that Gemxija Holdings's Mistra Heights 770apartment development was approved on the basis of an unapproved policy on building heights, which effectively ruled out tall buildings on the Mistra ridge. In a public hearing held in June 2008, it was Sylvio Farrugia who gave a presentation on behalf of MEPA's Major Projects Unit to recommend the approval of the project. Farrugia's appointment as the Planning Directorate's new deputy director was confirmed by MEPA last week. The new post was created to ensure the organisation meets "the obligations and performance targets" government has set for MEPA. Far- The original Mistra Heights project as envisaged in 2008 rugia will also have to ensure that "all policy and local plan revisions are carried out coherently and within the established timeframes". Major Projects Unit reprimanded Minutes of a 5 June 2008 meeting on the Mistra Heights project reveal that Farrugia had stated that the local plan allowed height of eight floors, plus penthouse, based on the so called FAR (floor area ratio) policy – which regulates high-rise development. The policy was proposed in 2006 but never officially approved by the government. In his report, planning ombudsman David Pace said that during the 2008 meeting on Mistra, whenever objectors and members of the public mentioned the FAR policy to point out that this ruled out development on ridges like Mistra, the MEPA board secretary said this policy "was not yet approved by the minister". On the other hand, no such qualification was made when Sylvio Farrugia referred to the same policy to justify the development. "It seems that the board secretary either through his/her initiative or as instructed, considered it appropriate to highlight the 'unofficial' status of the FAR policy as if to indicate that arguments referring to this document could not be given due weight." But Pace also noted that "similar comments however were not inserted in the record of the presentation by Perit Sylvio Farrugia." Pace concluded that "it is obvious that while the selective use of the FAR policy to establish the maximum height allowable (ignoring other provisions specifically prohibiting such development on ridges and even singling Xemxija as a case in point) was not considered the undermine the Major Project Unit's submissions in supporting the proposal." But such use of the same policy by objectors in their submissions "was deemed to be inappropriate and almost irrelevant." According to Pace, "the whole process was seriously flawed" as it selectively utilized the FAR policy document which was not officially approved. "Notwithstanding these major flaws, the Major Projects Unit actively supported this proposal, regardless of the detrimental effects it was bound to have on its environs." More reprimands for Farrugia Farrugia's role in recommending the approval of a Lidl supermarket protruding into the airport's public safety zone in Luqa had already earned him the censure of former MEPA auditor Joe Falzon. Subsequently, a board of inquiry found no evidence for criminal collusion in this case, but revealed that Farrugia and another case officer had possibly misled the MEPA board by showing it a wrong slide during a presentation. In another case related to a development in Kappara, a board of inquiry cleared Farrugia and another case officer of any "malicious intent" but concluded that the two officers "were used to interpreting policies and guidelines in a very flexible way" and "failed to appreciate that they had departed from MEPA policies further than what is normally acceptable". jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt FAA blasts 'obscene' Mistra decision < PAGE 1 There is a different and particular section of the law which regulates the special procedure for the revocation of a permit, which was duly followed. "In this case, the authority used the identical procedure which has been used in similar cases throughout the years under different MEPA boards. The correctness and legality of this procedure was never questioned, nor challenged." PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD Mistra decision 'obscene' Astrid Vella "There is no reason at all for us to resign," Cassar told MaltaToday, insisting that the authority's board acted correctly in granting a full development permit for the Mistra project. Asked to comment on the ombudsman's conclusion that the board acted illegally when it decided against the revocation of the outline permit behind closed doors, Cassar said that the MEPA board was still evaluating Pace's report and would issue its reaction in due time. On its part, MEPA itself said that it was duty bound to follow in principle the planning rights granted through an outline planning permission. "The Environment and Planning Commissioner incorrect- ly arrived at a conclusion that the conditions of the outline permission were somehow cast in stone. The outline permission sets out the planning parameters, which are further expounded in the full development application. In this case, there was no marked departure from the principle of development." MEPA claimed that the Environment Impact Assessment was a very thorough on, and that the law cited by the Commissioner requiring the authority's meetings to be held in public did not apply at the stage where it was considering whether to start the procedure for a revocation of a permission. "It only applies in the case of planning applications and planning control applications. Describing MEPA's decision to grant permission to the construction of 774 apartments on the former Mistra Village site as "obscene," Astrid Vella said that the ombudsman's report proved the green lobby's resistance to the project had been justified. Following the approval, the parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Farrugia claimed that had MEPA refused to issue permits for 774 apartments on the former Mistra Village, it would have resulted in government paying the applicant up to €70 million in damages. However, Edward Mallia said that the parliamentary secretary was "shooting from the hip" and said that such claims were ludicrous. Vella insisted that in his report, the ombudsman had highlighted a number shortcomings in the outline permit and this confirmed that the MEPA board had "every right and reason to deny the permit". She explained that the full development permit issued by MEPA was based on the Floor Area Ratio policy, which has never been ratified. Describing it as a "malicious" decision, Mallia said that the Mistra project, which will drastically alter the landscape, was based on a policy which was never ratified – the floor area ratio policy, which rationalized the footprint of a development to compensate for a height that goes beyond local plan limits. While not excluding the possibility of challenging the full development permit on legal grounds, Vella said that an appeal could still be lodged at MEPA. Mallia said that the Pace report compared the Mistra development with that of the revoked permit for the 'Spin Valley" discotheque on land owned by former MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in Mistra. "The same should have applied to this mega project on the Xemxija ridge," Mallia said.