Another wasted day with MEPA

stafraceToday happened to be the sitting of the MEPA appeals board regarding the outline permit PA2185/06 which had been granted at the appeal on the 30th June 2011.

The permit had been issued with following justifications:

  1. It was noted that several two floor buildings are in the vicinity of the proposed site.
  2. The proposed development is below street level.
  3. The proposed site, although ODZ, is close enough to other dwellings and not in open countryside.
  4. The applicant has a vinery in the vicinity.

The lawyer representing the residents opposing that construction had filed a request at the Appeal’s Tribunal on the 27th June to overturn its decision for the granting of the permit PA2185/06 for various reasons, namely being in breach of its own MEPA policies.

The Policy and Design Guidance for AGRICULTURE, FARM DIVERSIFICATION AND STABLES of December 2007  clearly states:

POLICY 2.8B: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS FOR PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION OF ‘QUALITY WINE PSR’  (NEW WINERIES)

Permission for the construction of a new winery building ODZ may only be granted for the processing and production of ‘quality wine psr’, provided that all of the following criteria are satisfied:

the applicant submits an official statement from the Department of Agriculture stating, to the satisfaction of MEPA, that the proposal is essential to the needs of agriculture, and that:

(b) the applicant’s registered vineyard holding occupies a total land area that is covered by vine varieties of  the species Vitis vinifera of at least 2 hectares in size,  all of which should be owned by the applicant and  located within a radius of 500 metres from the site of the proposed development;

The applicant, Stephen Galea, has no vineyard located with a radius of 500 metres from the site of the proposed development. Fact.

At today’s hearing, we would have expected the appeals board to void the issued permit. It came otherwise.

The applicant turned up with his lawyer, Dr Ian Stafrace, how till four months ago, was the CEO of MEPA. We highlighted to the Chairman that Dr Ian Stafrace has a clear conflict of interest in this case and therefore the Chairman adjourned the sitting to the 5th November, during which the applicant can defend his position with his new lawyer.

This decision is clearly indicating that nothing has changed at MEPA, only the faces.

Leave a Reply