Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/232206
10 News maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2013 2013 Land (reclaimed) ahoy! A new government committee will chose a land reclamation project without any policy to guide it while Malta will derogate from EU laws protecting marine habitats. JAMES DEBONO explores the ramifications of the government's land reclamation pipe dream 21 land reclamation proposals will see a government committee evaluating a new series of mega-projects that range from a motorsport racing track, to floating villages, business centres and hotel resorts. And despite an official DOI photo showing the committee witnessing the opening of a box of expressions of interests – amongst them lawyer Andy Ellul, who provided an electoral testimonial for parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Farrugia – the government is refusing to reveal the composition of the board which will assess these projects. The government dismisses MaltaToday's query by saying that "the evaluation committee is made up of persons who represent various entities and is chaired by architect Duncan Mifsud, from the Government Property Department". Ellul is also a "substitute member" on MEPA's appeals board, a quasijudicial tribunal which can overturn MEPA board decisions. All submissions for land reclamation are to be evaluated according to "the innovative aspects of the projects and on their environmental, social and economical viability", and short-listing will take place during the first weeks of 2014. Although a MEPA official has been involved in all proceedings for the land reclamation committee, there is intention to formulate a policy on land reclamation despite the massive environmental impact on Malta's coast. In the meantime, MEPA finds time to create new policies to increase development in outside development zones, and for new fireworks factories. And in fact MEPA turned a request by planning ombudsman David Pace to formulate such a plan. The government has not revealed the names of the 17 companies whose proposals include projects extending from Gozo to Marsaxlokk. And no answer was given to MaltaToday's question on whether the final bidder will be chosen through a public tender issued by the department of contracts, or through a sheer 'expression of interest' where the decision would be taken by government. MEPA took vote to keep revocation decisions secret JAMES DEBONO Vince Cassar (left) at the MEPA board meeting that decided on Mistra. Inset: Ryan Callus THE Nationalist Party's representa- tive on the MEPA board, MP Ryan Callus, has called into question the authority's claim that it can decide on requests to revoke planning permits, behind closed doors. Callus had voted against a decision by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's board in August, that revocation requests not endorsed by MEPA's own planning directorate, could take place behind closed doors instead of in public. Now he is contesting MEPA's claim that its decision to refuse a request to revoke the controversial Mistra permit, was not in breach of planning law. Planning ombudsman David Pace has questioned the legality of MEPA's behind-closed-doors decision, on 30 October, not to accept a request to revoke a 2008 outline permit for the Mistra Heights high-rise project, from conservationists Din l-Art Helwa. Pace said such secretive meetings were ruled out by the Article 6 of the Environment and Planning Act, which states that MEPA meetings must be open to the public, and that although the board can deliberate in private, "every vote has to be conducted in public". MEPA replied that the law did not apply at the stage when considering "whether to start the procedure for a revocation of a permission" and that Article 6 only applied to cases of planning applications and planning control applications. Callus disagrees with this interpretation, insisting that he had made this clear in a meeting in August. "In August, three months before the Mistra decision, the MEPA board had already taken a decision not to discuss the revocation of permits in public, whenever the planning directorate found no grounds for a revocation." The decision was taken after a vote in which the vast majority of board members outvoted Callus. "I was very clear on that point, insisting that any vote in favour or against a revocation of permit was effectively a decision and that the law makes it clear that any decision must be taken in public as specified by the Environment and Development Planning Act." Callus raised this point again on 30 October, when the MEPA board met behind closed doors to discuss Din lArt Helwa's request for a revocation of the Mistra permit. "I argued that the project had a massive impact on the entire country due to its impact on the traffic infrastructure. In view of this I made it clear that any decision related to the permit must be taken in public." Callus walked out of the room when the vote was taken. "A MEPA board member has no option to abstain. They either vote in favour or against. Therefore, faced with a vote taken behind closed doors on an issue which should have been discussed in public, I had no option but to leave the room." Callus said that whoever requests a revocation has a right to hear the reasons why his request was turned down. "Instead we are now faced with situations like Mistra, where the chairman simply pronounces the board's decision against revocation, without even reading out the reasons for not acceding the request." At the start of the public hearing on 31 October, MEPA chairman Vincent Cassar simply announced that the board had turned down the revocation request after it evaluated the arguments presented by Din lArt Helwa. MEPA's refusal to substantiate its reasons sparked an angry response by representatives of the NGOs present. It was MaltaToday that first revealed the MEPA decision had been taken behind closed doors. MaltaToday asked MEPA to explain its position on the decision taken in August, but no replies arrived by the time of going to print. jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt