Reference is made to the Planning Authority’s statement in response to the Kamra tal-Periti’s press release of the 6th December 2017.
The Authority is invited to peruse the full press statement (https://kamratalperiti.org/pr-17-17-planning-authority-acts-with-impunity/), which includes all the documentation that substantiates the Kamra’s claims, including an official document from the Office of the Ombudsman, confirming the correctness of the Kamra’s position, and which the Planning Authority blatantly ignored. On the contrary, the Planning Authority failed to substantiate its own claims by publishing the report it makes reference to.
The Authority is once again called to confirm that the remedial works allowed by the Dangerous Structures procedure are not permitted to affect the integrity of a “historic, listed or scheduled” building, such as the ex-Sea Malta building, and that consequently the permit it granted is vitiated. It is also called to confirm whether the wholesale destruction of a building is permitted through a Dangerous Structure procedure, as opposed to interventions which are “limited to the minimum emergency works required to remove the source of danger, until any required permission for more lasting interventions is obtained”, as the relevant Legal Notice states.
In the case of Villa St Ignatius, the Authority is called to confirm that the Courts only ordered remedial interventions and not wholesale demolition, and that therefore the Authority should have acted when it realised that what was happening was not what the Court ordered, or what it itself had permitted. Given this knowledge, the Planning Authority should at the very least endorse the Conservation Order issued by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.
Finally, the Kamra tal-Periti confirms that it will continue to monitor the professional conduct of its members, and investigate as necessary, as is its remit according to Law, including cases reported to it by the Planning Authority. However, as a quasi-judicial body at Law, it will not pronounce itself publicly on any specific cases until they are concluded and referred to the Minister for endorsement. If the Planning Authority believes that, in these two cases, or others, it has been misled by periti, rather than offer half-true explanations for the cases referred to, it has all the necessary remedial measures at law to act accordingly. If there are details of such misleading information, the Kamra would like to receive them, so that it could then act.
