Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/614946
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2015 12 News 12 News Ombudsman's inquiry that exposed planning Same case officer, same location, but different verdicts for MEPA applications filed by Kevin Bugeja and then by a junior minister, the latter now part of a corruption probe. How was this possible, JAMES DEBONO asks in his analysis of planning ombudsman David Pace's report IT was a plot of undeveloped land in the Santa Katerina hamlet of Rabat where the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had refused a permit to Kevin Bugeja to construct a new dwelling instead of an old farmhouse. Fast forward one year, and that same land was acquired by the young parliamentary secretary, Ian Borg. But this time around, no ref- erence to the refusal of Bugeja's per- mit was made in the case officer's report assessing Borg's application to develop two dwellings on the same site. Borg was in fact granted a permit, that should have been refused, be- cause the local plan for small ham- lets like these does not permit new developments that take up "fresh land, notwithstanding the location of the site in relation to existing buildings". The local plan also says MEPA must "seriously curtail the taking up of fresh land for buildings for the creation of new dwelling units, which increase densities and activity in the settlement". But it was the same case officer, Mariella Haber, who dealt with both Borg's (approved) application and the (rejected) application on the same land by Bugeja the year earlier. Only that no mention of this part of the local plan policy was found in her re- port assess- ing Borg's application, after having used it as ground to refuse a permit only a year before. All it needed was a "simple cut and paste" exercise, the planning ombuds- man David Pace noted in his own- initiative report into the Borg per- mit. In the first application that was re- fused a permit, the take-up of "fresh land" was noted, while the case re- port for Borg's application did not even refer to the undeveloped land still forming part of the application. "The crux of the matter is that the definition of fresh land applied in the first permit which was not ap- proved, was not applied in Borg's permit," the ombudsman noted, leading him to the conclusion that this omission was not down to human error but a "deliberate attempt to remove the one remain- ing obstacle blocking ap- proval of the application". Case officer Haber has defended herself, in- sisting that while in the first case the undeveloped plot earmarked for construction was considered to be "back land", in the second case it was considered as a "back yard", the result of a reconfiguration of the site. But the ombudsman has reiter- ated that the local plan simply bans the uptake of new land in rural hamlets "notwithstanding the loca- tion of the site in relation to existing buildings". A tale of two permits Originally, in February 2013, MEPA turned down Kevin Bugeja's application to redevelop part of the building occupying a footprint of 35 square metres, to make way for one dwelling over a floor space of 243 sq.m. The development was turned down because of the impact on the rural landscape, the uptake of unde- veloped land, and because the local plan ruled out any redevelopment on sites with a footprint of less than 50 sq.m. What Borg did was to apply for two dwellings on a 95 sq.m. land parcel footprint, fulfilling the policy criteria limiting redevelopment to sites over 50 square metres. The end result was that while the rejected application doubled the built-up footprint from 35 to 70 sq.m. to make way for one dwelling of 243 square metres over two sto- reys, Borg's application increased the built-up footprint from the ex- isting 95 sq.m. to 150 sq.m: meaning the application finally approved by MEPA involved the take-up of more land than the one it rejected in 2013, specifically a total floor space of 489 sq.m. that comprises a basement and two dwellings. How Borg evaded scrutiny Curiously, Borg's application to "demolish existing substandard structures with no rural value and construct two residential dwellings" was filed by Renald Azzopardi, who was listed as the site manager, while Ian Borg, whose name did not ap- pear on the application, was listed as the owner on the site notice. Azzopardi could have still applied on Borg's behalf and declare that he was not the owner of the land in question. "It is strange that Borg chose a somewhat devious method to file the application when all he wanted was for third parties to ap- ply on his behalf during the process- ing of the application," the ombuds- man said in the report. The ombudsman concludes that the incorrect declaration of owner- ship on the application amounted to a "technical error", but which on its own did not warrant a reassessment of the application. Borg told the ombudsman that he asked Azzopardi to apply on his behalf because of his "heavy work schedule". But now he gives the media another reason for his omis- sion: that applying in his own name would have given the public the im- pression that the permit was issued because of his position in govern- ment. "I am convinced that if I were to Planning Ombudsman David Pace