11/12/2023: In my letter dated 11 December 2023 to the Review Board Chairman, I conveyed my concerns about the handling of my complaint against the Development and Planning Authority (DPA):

  1. Concern over Time Allocation: I argue that the limited time allowed for presenting my case during the hearing was insufficient, compromising the fairness of the process.
  2. Prejudgment Issues: I was troubled by the Board’s premature conclusion that further documentation elaboration was unnecessary, hinting at a possible prejudgment of my case.
  3. Flaws in the Investigation: I point out undeniable flaws in the re-review/investigation, including overlooked key evidence and factual inaccuracies.
  4. Ignoring Pre-2009 Usage Evidence: A critical aspect of my complaint was the continuous oversight of the property’s office use before 2009, vital for the immediate issuance of theĀ  Certificate of Lawful Use, which was ignored or sidestepped in the review processes.
  5. Seeking Clarifications: I pose specific questions about the Board’s unanimity, any undisclosed communications, and the rationale behind neglecting the pre-2009 usage evidence.
  6. Transparency and Fairness Lacking: I criticize the lack of a reasoned judgment in the Board’s conclusions, which I believe diminishes the integrity of their decision-making process.
  7. Demanding Answers: I assert that this matter is far from concluded without responses to my queries, challenging the finality of the Board’s decision.

Through this letter, I express my continued pursuit of a transparent, just, and properly adjudicated resolution to my grievance.

I also asked 6 questions. Here they are:

  • A. Was the Board’s decision unanimous?
  • B. Has there been any undisclosed communication between the civil service and the Board that I am not aware of?
  • C. Why was the pre-2009 pathway not followed by the Director of Planning or his subordinate?
  • D. Where is the explanation of this pathway, in each of the reviews?
  • E. Why did the reviews ignore this pathway?
  • F. Why did the Board ignore this pathway?

They remain unanswered.