MEPA replies to AD’s statement on Ramla permit revocation
Email Story
Print This Post
- MEPA - The revoking of the Ramla development permits
- Enforcement notice requested on Ulysses Lodge site at Ramla
- Technical Reports on Ramla Development published
- MEPA revokes the Ramla l-Hamra development permit
- Call for revocation of Ramla development permit
- Save Ramla Committee fears revival of development permit
- Ramla Bay Planning Appeals - The Save Ramla Committee
- MEPA to decide whether to revoke Ramla permit next week
- MEPA ‘assessing’ request to revoke Ramla permit
- Permit to develop villas on a public road at Ramla
- The case of the development of villas at Ramla Bay: A declared misdeed
- Mepa Replies to AD over Development in Gozo
- Permit issued by MEPA for a nightclub at Mistra is an outrage
- NTM and AD welcome MEPA decision on Mistra
- Nature Trust Malta welcomes the resignations at MEPA
Email Story
Print This Post
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has replied to a statement made by Alternattiva Demokratika regarding the revocation of permits relating to the re-development of the former Ulysses Lodge.
Mepa's comments are as follows:
· "The Authority stands by all its decisions, which include the issue of all permits on the Ulysses Lodge. There were no irregularities in the process from MEPA's side in spite of the various unfounded allegations.
· All decisions taken by the Authority were in complete conformity with all policies and legislation regulating development.
· The Authority, while consulting the public at the appropriate junctures, does not take decisions by public acclamation.
· On the contrary, whilst taking into account contributions by the public and NGO's, MEPA bases its decisions on policies and regulations, facts, as well as on scientific studies.
· The revocation was carried out because a specific condition in the permit could not be satisfied.
· In this particular case MEPA sought to contain this development and safeguard the environmental as well as the socio-economic aspect by including a number of conditions so as to ensure a sustainable tourism project in an already disturbed area.
· Even after the principle of development is approved, the Authority places great emphasis on detail in the formulation of conditions. This diligence should not be used to discredit the Authority.
· The reasons that led to the revocation of the permit were as a result of errors in submitted information that was wholly the responsibility of the applicant. Had there not been these deficiencies, the permits would not have been revoked.
· These errors only came to light as part of the natural progress of the permit in question. During researches carried out in preparation for the signing of the public deed imposed in the permit condition, it-resulted that due to the incorrect information supplied, the conditions of the permit could not be fulfilled."















You may if you wish add a comment below.