Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/584253
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2015 26 Letters Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. St Julian's development on public foreshore Reference is made to the article 'Abusive building on public fore- shore? €425 discount!' on Sunday, 4 October. In 1998, my clients acquired from third parties a number of proper- ties, some under a title of perpetual emphyteusis and one under a title of temporary emphyteusis, for 150 years commencing from 1895. This property and all the sur- rounding area in St Julian's was originally owned by the ecclesiasti- cal authorities and was only trans- ferred to government as a result of the 1993 Church-State agreement. My clients proceeded, as bound by the said contract, to pay the laude- mium due over the properties to the Government Property Department. This payment was accepted by the department, as was in the follow- ing the year, the ground rent due to the government for that year for which the relative receipt was duly provided. With the ground rent regularised, my clients commenced prepara- tions to develop the properties, including obtaining all necessary permits from MEPA. No building or development took place without the relative MEPA permit and/or which was not covered by a MEPA permit. When the development was completed, my clients applied to the GPD to redeem the ground rent under a scheme which was in place at the time. It was only at this time, during the processing of the request, that the GPD raised an issue regarding a small portion of land which by then had already been developed. According to the GPD this por- tion of land was government land as a result of a mistake in a contract, which land should never have been sold to my clients back in 1998. It contended that the contract of em- phyteusis was for 99, not 150 years, and had actually lapsed before my clients purchased this portion of land and that basically, a portion of land was sold to my clients by a person who had not title to it. The interpretation of the root of title was contested by my clients and following disagreement and the lack of a solution, the GPD in- stituted proceedings against my cli- ents which were eventually decided on appeal, with the result that the parcel of land forming part of this development upon which a small portion of the block of apartments was build was declared government property. Had the GPD properly carried out its responsibilities back in 1998, it would raised the issue that part of this land was government-owned by ownership and not under a title of emphyteusis; it should never have accepted the payment of the ground rent by my clients and the latter would not have built the develop- ment in the way this was subse- quently built. Subsequently, the GPD issued a public call for the sale of this por- tion of land. My clients submitted an offer on the basis of a valuation they obtained for €192,000, which offer far surpassed market value per square metre of land in the vicinity at the time. The GPD declined and informed the company that it had a valuation in hand for €950,000. My clients immediately contest this as an unrealistic valuation of the portion of land, as it was evident that there was some mistake in the calculations made, since the portion of land had been considered as land which could be developed up to nine storeys high, when in reality the land could only be developed up to one storey above ground level, as the property had to be built in a receding manner as a result of plan- ning policies in force. Moreover, the portion of land in question could never have been developed on its own as a result of its size and location, it only faced the sea in part and its value had accrued solely as a result of the fact that it formed part of my clients' developed property. After a number of discussions with the GPD, it was agreed as was the practice to set up a verification board of three experts to consider whether the previous valuation was a correct and realistic valuation of the portion of land and whatever its conclusion, it was agreed that my clients would then be bound to pay the amount established. The GPD nominated two mem- bers of this three-person board, which included the same architect who issued the original €950,000 valuation. The board subsequently established the value of the land at €525,000 which amount the company committed itself to pay, despite the fact that the valuation was still clearly inflated when com- pared to the price of property per square metre in the vicinity. It is thus evident that my clients did not carry out any illegal development, did not abuse of any situation and more impor- tantly, were not given any favours or reductions in the price for this portion of land. This issue concerns a mistake on the part of the GPD, as a result of which my clients commenced development and the consequences of which they paid for dearly. Dr Peter Fenech obo Eighty Two Co. Ltd Editorial Note: At no point in the report was there any sugges- tion, direct or indirect, that the development was not covered by a MEPA permit. It was the courts of law that said the developers had to 're-pristine' the public land that had been encroached upon. All other facts in this letter were contained in the original report, save for the root of the misunderstanding over the title of land. I refer to the item "St Julian's foreshore 'deal' to be probed by Auditor General" published in MaltaToday in the printed and the online versions of Wednesday, 4 October 2015. I firmly believe the publication of this item should have been pre- ceded by an unbiased and impartial verification of all the facts in issue, including, but not only, with the undersigned. The story left out salient facts which any reader ought to know. The case has already been referred by the government members on the Public Accounts Committee to the Auditor General on the 23 June 2015, bang in the middle of the wall-to-wall media coverage of the Old Mint Street multi-million euro land scandal. This was nowhere stated in your story, besides other facts in issue, and proves what a red herring to deviate attention this was meant to be by government. Since I was not contacted by your journalist to give my side of the coin, I reiterate what I had said in June last, that I relish the opportu- nity to meet the Auditor General to give his office all the facts, docu- ments and information in my pos- session on this case and which will show the difference between the two parties-in-government in the administration of public land. For now, I will limit myself to state that neither myself nor my then minister ever, even remotely, including in this case, attempted to interfere, let alone interfered, in the valuations of the land or decide the sums payable by the Lands Depart- ment. Unlike the present Prime Minister, both Tonio Fenech and myself never met the individuals concerned to negotiate and discuss the millions in taxpayer money to be paid to bail out anyone, as hap- pened when Joseph Muscat wasted €4.2 million to pay the debts of Cafe Premier. Two and a half years later, enough time for a court case (if this govern- ment had filed it in 2013) to rescind the Café Premier emphyteutical deed and save €4.2 million of our money, those premises are still vacant. In this St Julian's case, my input in 2012 was limited to approve, in line with previous similar cases dealt with by the Land Department, the Director General's advice to go for arbitration in view of the huge discrepancy between the valuations done by the Lands Dept and by the tenant. I never met, even to date, the individual concerned. The tenant of this public land ended up paying the Lands Department almost three times (€525,000) what he believed to be the fair value of the building in question (€192,000), all of which was covered by a MEPA permit. This latter fact was also omitted in your story. I very much doubt if "usurpation" of public land, as your journalist termed it, takes place by a MEPA permit. I also point out to your readers that contrary to what your journalist wrote, the land in dispute was around 90 square metres, and not 165 sq. metres as stated. I fail to see in what way were your readers done justice by doubling the area which had been in dispute nor by not telling them also, for instance, that the Land Depart- ment always and annually, even well before before 2008, accepted the ground rent by the individual concerned for all the land on which the building was built, with all the relevant legal implications of this acceptance. I look forward to meet soon the Auditor General to give him much more facts and information, not just on this case. I'm quite sure he will find them very useful. Jason Azzopardi MP Tarxien Editorial Note: Dr Azzopardi is misreading and misinterpreting what was reported. (1) At no point in the report was there any sort of suggestion of ministerial interfer- ence by either himself, or the finance minister. (2) The report dealt en- tirely with the Government Property Department and its negotiations with the owners of the apartment block, an eyesore that thousands walking along the St Julian's seafront find hard not to notice. (3) At no point did MaltaToday mention that Azzopardi met with the individual concerned, or that he used his influence on the outcome of the 'ad hoc' arbitration committee. (4) The crux of the report lies in the fact that although the law courts ordered the removal of the offending construc- tion from public land, the original €950,000 price tag on the sale of this land to the developers was whittled down to €500,000. Was this a fair way of dealing with developers who encroach upon public land? ment in the way this was subse- commenced development and the YOUR FIRST READ AND FIRST CLICK OF THE DAY WWW.MALTATODAY.COM.MT maltatoday Brikkuni frontman Mario Vella interviewed 15 14 MALTATODAY SURVEY Opposition leader gains three points over summer BIGMOUTH STRIKES AGAIN! Tattoo you! Newspaper post JAMES DEBONO PRIME Minister Joseph Muscat enjoys a strong 11-point lead over Opposition leader Simon Busuttil in MaltaToday's latest survey. Muscat saw his trust lead increase by 1 point over the last survey in June 2015, while Busuttil increased his trust rating by a convincing 3 points. Significantly, Labour leads by 4 points over the PN when it comes to voting intentions, down from a five- point lead in June 2015 and an eight- point lead in March 2015. Muscat emerges as clearly more popular than his party, being trusted by 40% of voters. That's 8 points more than the percentage of voters who are sure of voting Labour again in a forth- coming election. On the other hand Busuttil is just 1 point more popular than his own party. The survey comes after the summer recess, which was dominated by alle- gations of sleaze and ongoing investi- gations in the Lands Department and Identity Malta, traffic problems and controversy on environmental issues, albeit against a backdrop of economic growth. The survey indicates considerable movement among voters of both par- ties, with 6% of PN voters in 2013 now opting for the PL and 9% of PL voters who are now choosing the PN. Importantly, MaltaToday's survey registers the narrowest trust gap ever between the two leaders since June 2013. With Muscat gaining 1 point and Busuttil three, the trust gap falls to 10.7 points. Their gains correspond to a decrease in undecided respond- ents. MALTATODAY columnist Michael Falzon will return to his regular Sun- day column after an absence of seven months since his public admission to having held an undeclared overseas bank account when he was an MP. The former Nationalist min- ister returns to PBS where he will review the Sunday newspapers with lawyer Ramona Frendo, and to write on MaltaToday every Sun- day. He was formerly a columnist for the Sunday Times as well. Now he speaks of being convinced that his name did not feature on the alleged Swissleaks list of HSBC's private clients in Geneva. €1.40 46/%":t0$50#&3t*446&t16#-*4)&%&7&3:8&%/&4%":"/%46/%": 10 Get set for the Malta Tattoo Expo 17 16 The last of the militants FREE! How will GWU boss Tony Zarb be remembered by the workers' movement? Michael Falzon returns to MaltaToday PG4 40% (+1.1p) 29.3% (+3p) Trust rating October 2015, and difference over last survey in June SURVEY PAGE 12 Muscat leads by 11 point as Busuttil gains trust boost YOUR FIRST READ AND FIRST CLICK OF THE DAY WWW.MALTATODAY.COM.MT FREE! EXERCISE TO KEEP ILLNESS AT BAY PUMP UP THE VOLUME The ultimate path to thicker, longer hair OLD SCHOOL A season with a twist of old school this autumn WITH MALTATODAY ABUSIVE BUILDING ON PUBLIC FORESHORE? €425,000 DISCOUNT! MATTHEW VELLA A court order to drop down one of St Julian's most notorious of con- struction eyesores, after it abusively extended onto the public foreshore, was ignored by the previous ad- ministration which – documents seen by MaltaToday show – granted the offending developers a massive €425,000 'discount' on the land's original value. In documents obtained by this newspaper, which inquired over the 2009 court order to demolish the abusive apartment building, Mal- taToday learnt that not only were the developers allowed to retain the building that was illegally protruding onto government land; but that the Government Property Department's (GPD) request for a €950,000 sale of the property on government land was decreased almost by half to €525,000 paid over five years. PG4 Courts ordered demolition, PN government discounted sale price The Appeals Court decision ordering the developers to remove the offending development from the public foreshore, and (below) the GPD informs Eighty Two Co. to raise their offer to €950,000 as orginally valued