Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/661117
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 APRIL 2016 9 duly demonstrated through the necessary assessment, that the development does not compromise the site scheduling character- istics. It is difficult to find a more convoluted situation: because al- though the development was fully approved, the permit included a clause stating that before works start, the applicant was required to submit a copy of approval from the Superintendence for Cul- tural Heritage. Which effectively meant that MEPA had thrown the ball back in the court of the Su- perintendence after blatantly dis- regarding the Superintendence's advice by issuing the permit. Three months after issuing the conditional permit, the same ME- PA board has now again rebuffed the Superintendence and the Planning Directorate. In its report the Planning Directorate insisted that only the Superintendence could monitor conditions for archaeological investiga- tions. But the architect for the pool application argued with logic that since the Superin- tendence had already objected to the ap- plication before it was approved, it could not be expected to issue its clearance now. So, to make the objectionable permissible, the architect called on MEPA to change this condition to enable the developer to hire a private firm to carry out the required archaeological monitoring, as he claimed had happened in nearby sites included in the 2006 extension of building boundaries. But the case officer replied that archaeo- logical monitoring in sensitive areas can only be carried out by the Superintend- ence for Cultural Heritage, as required by the Cultural Heritage Act of 2002, and only after clearance issued by the Superin- tendence. The case officer insisted that the request made by the developer's architect should be refused. But the board, apparently solidly deter- mined to oblige the applicant, ignored the recommendation to retain the clause re- quiring approval by the Superintendence for any works on site. So it decreed that details of an archaeological monitor cho- sen from an approved list of consultants should be submitted to the Superintend- ence "15 days before the commencement of works". The developer is also bound to report any archaeological findings to the Super- intendence. jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt News stewardship of chairman Aus- tin Walker, the MEPA board rejected 17 similar applications to sanction those boathouses which had not been regularised in 2008. During the meeting, Walker underlined that a line had to be drawn on sanctioning illegal structures in outside develop- ment zones, deciding that re- fusing the applications was in the "public interest and proper planning". The owners appealed to the Environment and Planning Re- view Tribunal, insisting that the boathouses be sanctioned ac- cording to the 2005 action plan. In March 2014, one of the EPRT's panels – whose mem- bers were appointed by the newly-elected Labour adminis- tration – concluded that MEPA could not declare that the pro- posal runs counter to "public interest and proper planning" without providing supporting arguments. But a month later in April 2014, another EPRT panel – this time, with members appointed by the previous administration – turned down an appeal on one of the rejected boathouse per- mits, saying that MEPA cannot sanction any development in designated protected areas. Then came a new policy regulating development inside ODZs, and the EPRT once again passed the buck to the MEPA board, requesting it to decide on whether the 2010-2011 cases of rejected boathouses could be approved under this new policy. In April 2015 the MEPA board simply decided that the policy did not apply to these four cases, and rejected them for the third time. But the buck was passed again to the EPRT, which is now reassessing the permits accord- ing to the action plan approved in 2005, which has never been withdrawn. The proposed site of the swimming pool outside the Mgarr residence located next to the site of archaeological importance