Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/441179
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 JANUARY 2015
7
JAMES DEBONO
THE Malta Environment and Plan-
ning Authority's Appeals Tribunal
has re-issued a permit revoked in
2012 for a car wash in Dun Karm
Psaila Street in Birkirkara.
The Appeals board insists that
that there is no evidence of 'fraud
and misleading information' in a
permit case involving Daniel Cor-
dina, who simultaneously chaired
the MEPA board which issued the
permit and also signed a plan, in his
role as a Transport Malta official,
submitted by the applicant.
In 2012 MEPA, following an inves-
tigation, had revoked the planning
permit granted in September 2010
to Saviour Schembri by the Devel-
opment Commission (DCC) for a
carwash facility, on a vacant site
located just outside the Birkirkara
development zone.
The Planning Directorate started
investigating the case after it was
notified that a Transport Malta plan
submitted by the applicant was not
the official position of Transport
Malta.
Subsequently the permit was re-
voked in accordance with the Pro-
visions of Article 77 of the Environ-
ment and Development Planning
Act, which allows MEPA to revoke
permits when the board is misled
by fraudulent, incorrect or mislead-
ing information.
The Transport Malta plan was
presented by the applicant's archi-
tect as an official plan of Transport
Malta.
But it later turned out that Daniel
Cordina, the chairman of the DCC,
which took the decision to approve
the permit, had authorized the plan
in his role as a Transport Malta of-
ficial.
The authorized plan was cited as a
reason for overturning the Planning
Directorate's recommendation not
to approve the permit.
In its investigations the Planning
Directorate notified Transport
Malta and submitted for its atten-
tion the 'approved' Transport Mal-
ta plan, which had guided the DCC
in its decision.
Transport Malta confirmed to the
Planning Directorate that the plan
was not to be considered as official
correspondence between Mepa and
Transport Malta.
"The outcome of this investiga-
tion clearly showed that the DCC
was misguided when deciding on
this case since the plan resulted not
to be an official document of Trans-
port Malta," Mepa said in 2012.
Prior to the DCC's decision back
in 2010, the Planning Directorate
had recommended that this ap-
plication be refused because the
proposed carwash facility was to be
situated within a designated area
for future sports facilities/activities
as identified in the Local Plan.
It had also noted that the pro-
posed carwash would have a signifi-
cant and unacceptable impact on
the road network in the area.
Cordina defends himself
But MEPA's appeal tribunal, com-
posed of lawyer and Labour candi-
date Simon Micallef Stafrace, Free-
port chairman Robert Sarsero and
planner Martin Saliba, overturned
the revocation and proceeded to is-
sue the permit.
The tribunal concluded that on
the basis of the testimonies of those
involved the document considered
by the DCC was neither fraudulent
nor misleading.
But the same tribunal also con-
firmed that architect Daniel Cordi-
na, the Acting Chairman of MEPA's
Development Control Commission
which decided the application, was
also a Transport Malta employee
in the Roads Infrastructure Direc-
torate of Transport Malta who was
directly involved in certifying the
document in question.
"Things could have been man-
aged better by the board and by
architect Daniel Cordina but even
if there was a conflict of interest,
this was not the reason cited for
revoking the permit," the Tribunal
concluded.
When interrogated during pro-
ceedings in front of the Tribunal
the former DCC board member,
Daniel Cordina, insisted that he
had asked the architect to sub-
mit further documentation from
Transport Malta simply because
the other four members of the
board were intent on approving
the project. He claimed that he was
concerned about safety aspects of
the project due to its proximity
to the roundabout. In view of his
concerns he asked the applicant
to submit new plans which had to
be approved by Transport Malta,
outlining the distance from the
roundabout.
Cordina also claimed that the
TM plan he requested as DCC
chairman and which he approved
as Transport Malta employee had
no bearing on the decision.
"When I saw that the board was
intent on approving the permit, I
wanted to be 100 per cent sure be-
cause there was a safety issue."
Cordina claimed that even if he
had abstained or voted against, the
other board members would still
have approved it. He claimed that
his request for further documenta-
tion simply delayed the issue of the
permit.
Cordina confirmed that although
the plan was formulated by Trans-
port Malta's design office he had
taken responsibility for the plan by
signing it.
TM official Lucienne Stafrace
confirmed that Transport Malta
had never approved the plan.
"The plan was never issued of-
ficially by the Road Infrastructure
Directorate." Stafrace confirmed
that the plan signed by Cordina
lacked the required signature of
other officials.
MEPA official Victor Sladden
denied that the plan was false or a
fabrication, insisting that the main
reason for the revocation of the
permit was Daniel Cordina's con-
flict of interest.
The applicant protested that he
was not even informed by MEPA
when it met to decide on the revo-
cation of the permit. The applicant
also argued that MEPA was too ge-
neric in the application of Article
77.
News
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"#$%#!&'(!)(#**'+!,-(.'+-/!0'1'%-2!'3.'%-/!
#$$!'3%-(-/%-2!4#(%'-/!%5!/671'%!%8-'(!%-32-(!*5(!
!
!
"#$%"&!'!()*+),!-.,!/0)!1,.2343.*5!6*4/7887/3.*!7*+!
9.::3443.*3*;!.-!/<.!=%%>?@!A)*),7/.,4
!
$#$%"&!'!()*+),!-.,!1,.2343.*!.-!/<.!B.7+!(,7*4-),!
C<3/D0)4!7*+!/<.!93,DE3/!F,)7G),4!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!)8-!%-32-(!25+61-3%/!1#9!7-!25:3$5#2-2!*(51!
56(!:-7/'%-!<<