Harsien Patrimonju Mosti

7th January 2013

Yet another year has passed and nothing had changed, other than the topography of Wied Il-Ghasel's world protected valley ridge. The developers are still working at full speed to see their project completed, despite MEPA's promises that if the permit is revoked, the site shall have to be returned to its original state. A fallacy and blatant excuse for justice and little more.
But the cherry on the cake comes with the recent news of the arraignment of the magistrate handling our case. So needless to say, our last dash of hope for justice has yet again been denied to us, since the sentence due for this Spring shall never be delved. It shall take months to replace the said magistrate or re-assign his cases. And the developers happily rejoice as their projects gains momentum, undisrupted, unstoppable!

13th November 2012

DISASTER AT WIED IL-GHASEL

NO ACCOUNTABILITY! NO JUSTICE! NO DEMOCRACY!

Here we stand, bearing witness to what shall always be a case of extreme shame and absolute abuse!

The issue has now taken a very worrying turn and perspective, well above environmental concerns.

We are now facing a serious case of maladministration and a total lack of accountability. And unfortunately, we can prove it!

But we do not have the competence to judge, nor are we enabled to do so.

Hence we shall simply do what we have always done: Show the world what is going on, compared to what the law dictates, while we leave the final verdict with you.

In essence, we have little choice to do otherwise, for when we went to the state and its authorities for satisfaction, to see the right thing being done, to ensure justice, all we got is courteous apathy, disinterest, and worse!

Nothing more and nothing less than feckle excuses from the people we trust to ensure our social integrity and national interest. In any serious country with a real understanding of ethics and democracy, all this could have never happened.

Anyway, here are the black and white facts for you to draw your own conclusions:

1. The President:

On the 1st October 2012, HPM wrote to the President's office requesting his excellency to take note of our plea and the 24,000+ signatures submitted in this regard. We got a rather prompt reply on the 4th October by one of the President's personal assistants.

This reply was also very to the point and simply asked us to take note that since the Wied il-Ghasel case is pending before a Court of Law, the President's position precludes him from intervening.

So HPM wrote back on the same day, having taken note as suggested, of the technical reason which precludes the President from intervening. We informed the presidential office about our readiness to retract the pending court case, (a joint initiative by Nature Trust and our organisation, both being recognised objectors). This to 'preclude' such a legal technicality from preventing HE to intervene, since we believe that no technical issue should get in the way of the will of some 24,000 people.

This is the reply we got:

2. Parliament:

The said petition was also submitted to Parliament, that body of men elected by the same 24,000 people to represent the interests of the Nation in a democratic and truly representative manner.

The petition was duly tabled on the 4th, June 2012. Since then, HPM has made several internal inquiries to find out what is going on with the request made to this body of men by some 24,000 constituents.

This is the reply we got:

3. Minister De Marco, (Minister for tourism, environment and culture):

On the 20th October, HPM was copied into correspondence between the  residential association, complaining that the authorities concerned were not intervening in view of repetitive and renewed breaches by the developers.

A reply was sent by Minister DeMarco who declared his appreciation and understanding of the Residential Assn.'s concern. We have decided to quote just one phrase, this being the first line, as to ensure that our verbalisation does not change anything.

"It has been explained to me however that the development that is the subject of your email is entirely within the existing development zone."

Here at HPM, this phrase in itself was enough to create a stir, and we decided to intervene. We are reproducing our text word by word, due to its significance and importance, and shall then tell you about the reply we got. It is in singular form since penned by our secretary:

Dear Hon. Minister de Marco,

I have been copied into this correspondence by the residential assn., and would like to thank you for taking time to inquire about the Wied il-Ghasel case, as well as for your kind reply.

There are two separate issues that derive from such correspondence, the first concerning the legal validity/aspect of the permit, while the second concerns site and works government/enforcement. I shall stick to the legal side within this email, since there is much to say about this.

I can readily confirm that the area is indeed within the development zone. While this is entirely correct, I must however bring to your attention a number of legal provisions that apply to areas of specific interest or value, irrespective of their location, in terms of whether within the development zone or in ODZ locations.

Such provisions specify that the said areas of interest are to be preserved and protected, due to a number of qualities inherent to such sites, which include historical, environmental, cultural and other features of importance.

There are several examples of these sites, that are to be found right at the centre of fully developed areas, such as the cart ruts in San Gwann, or the Tarxien Temples.

Now in our case, here in Mosta, if one had to examine closely the Mosta Constraints Map,(MOM 7) one can clearly see that close to 50% of the land conceded for this permit is actually an environment constraints zone, and this since 2005. Deeper examination shall also reveal the original proposal for the establishment of these constraints, dating from mid-2002.

So although the area concerned is indeed not ODZ, it is still designated officially as an environmental constraints zone. Does this not beg the question, constraints to what? In my mind and following the legal spirit behind such regulatory plans and relative legislation, the reply is from building / development.

I have long been troubled by this factor, and how a massive commercial development for more flats and garages could be approved on a factually proven constraints zone. Perhaps, you can put this query to rest, once and for all.

Another legal provision, RCO 29, in force since 1990, states that

  "No new physical development will normally be allowed on the sides of valleys and especially on valley watercourses except for constructions aimed at preventing soil erosion and the conservation and management of water resources"

This clause applies to all valleys anywhere on our islands, and since it deals with a particular landscape feature with specific features and qualities, applies equivocally and irrespective of whether the valley falls within or without development zones.

The entire site is an integral part of a valley ridge, as confirmed within official case officer descriptions of the area.
Some of the approved land is also situated on the very border of the ridge constituting the valley side proper.

So what is the validity of RCO 29, and how was this clause completely ignored by the authority governing and enforcing such laws?

Other case officers reports also recognise that the site has landscape value. And other MEPA provisions are also in place in view of the last existing Girna (in its original and typically Maltese rural environment), within any town or village centre on these islands. The area is also at the very heart of a world protected area, as may be confirmed by accessing the UN's Protected Planet website. The valley bed and inner ridge is also full of trees here, (additionally) protected locally under various clauses.

So it is difficult to understand how a place with such unique qualities, iconic of Mosta's very heritage as inscribed in our motto 'Spes Alit Ruricolam' (Hope strengthens who the land tills), has been conceded for obliteration.

I was under the impression that MEPA was supposed to ensure that areas like this, of proven value, and covered by several provisions of law, including the aforementioned constraints, are protected, and not destroyed.

There are more issues, but I have already taken too much of your time, and that of the other ladies and gentlemen copied in.

A more detailed elaboration and synopsis of all the points mentioned here is attached with this email. This includes links, graphic evidence, legal references and background to all our claims. Additional material may also be found on the home page of our website. (link)

I trust you shall examine the said details as it is essential to review and carefully evaluate and see for yourself how there is no doubt about the veracity of our observations and concerns, in their clarity and full legal integrity.

My apologies for the length, and my sincere regards

Secretary ~ HPM

And here one may view the details we requested the minister to review and carefully evaluate, expecting an objective reply after a thorough investigation of our EVIDENCE.

CASE RESUME':

-

Read about the dodgy history of this shameful permit and see for yourselves the innumerable clauses of law that were ignored or broken altogether, and come to your own conclusions.

We now have evidence in hand to prove that both MEPA and the developers are aware of the negative impact that this project is going to cause. Written declarations, as well as verbal, publicly debated concerns about this by a number of MEPA board members, as well as within material penned by the developers architects and consultants themselves.

There was little doubt that considerable negative impact would occur, but for the first time ever since the beginning of this unfortunate struggle, we have the first admissions by a number of authority members of certain rank, as well as from the developers' side that fully confirm lots of what we have been saying for these past years. We shall be sharing the evidence shortly, in case anyone is in doubt.

The only real problem is that we at HPM actually believed that with MEPA's institution, such abuses would become something of the past, surpassed and best forgotten. How silly we were to do so, when we see the damage being committed in a scenic protected area which should have never been tarnished, let alone obliterated!

The facts speak by themselves, and there are more listed here than many have the time, mind, energy and stomach to read and see.

------------------------------------------------------

 For the most recent developments also see our:

SOS Wied il-Ghasel Page VI

&

SOS Wied il-Ghasel Page VII

HPM would like to point out that the concerned application PA/03882/02 was submitted on the 9th July 2002, while policy map A.11. was issued in June 2002.

For this reason, the applied-for development permission should not have been granted under the provisions of Structure Plan Policy BEN 4, whereby it is stated that:

“During the interim period between the commencement date of the Structure Plan and the adoption of any particular Local Plan, permission will not normally be given unless the Planning Authority is satisfied that such permission would be unlikely to compromise the objectives of the review forming part of Local Plan preparation.”

HPM would also like to bring to attention to the fact that approval of the second permit 05560/05 was approved by the DCA in February 2009.

This despite the ratification of map A.11 in the revised CMLP of July 2006, and the following policies found within.

Central Malta Local Plan (CMLP)
2.1.3

"Most of the urban areas in the CMLP localities are residential in character. The Local Plan’s primary goal is therefore to improve the urban environment mainly by means of policies that protect the amenity of all residential areas. These policies safeguard residential areas against bad neighbour developments and from overdevelopment, promote residential rehabilitation projects, protect existing urban spaces and important streetscapes, restrain car usage, improve conditions for pedestrians and ensure the additional provision of open spaces. The remaining rural areas in the central localities also require protection and this is achieved by restraining further urban expansion, by protecting areas of conservation value and by designating strategic open gaps between existing settlements."

2.2.4
"Certain residential areas have become unpopular to live in due to the establishment over a period of time of a number of commercial and bad neighbourly uses. As a result, a number of urban areas have been transformed into areas of mixed use.
The importance of safeguarding the character of all residential areas cannot be overemphasised, and to this effect the objective seeks to improve the residential environment by controlling bad neighbour developments."
(relevant SP Policies BEN1, IND7)
(relevant CMLP General Policies CGO7, CG08)

2.3.2
"The provision of public open spaces within the urban areas of the Central Localities is very limited. Policies are therefore required in order to ensure the protection of these important landscaped spaces. The progressive introduction of more greenery in strategic urban locations and the embellishment of public open spaces and squares, including enhancement of the character of town and local centres will gradually upgrade the public realm. Within the various Urban Conservation Areas, internal open space enclaves play a very important role in maintaining a very high quality urban environment."

"The plan therefore identifies and protects these open space enclaves. The conservation, protection and enhancement of existing public open spaces private open space enclaves and urban ‘lungs’ is an objective of the Local Plan for improving the urban environment."
(relevant SP Policies BEN18, BEN19, UCO4, UCO6, UCO12, UCO13, RCO32)
(relevant CMLP General Policies CG09, CG11, CG18)"

The area concerned in Mosta was duly designated as

The Mosta Environmental Constraints Map MOM7

The Mosta Environmental Constraints Map MOM7
(which as the name suggests specifically designates which areas may be built and otherwise). It clearly shows that most of the area is a listed Ecological Area/Site (See policy CG 22). The approved plans were not issued according to these constraints and are fully in contrast with several DPA policies, more of which are hereby reproduced.

So it is clear that the development permit violates several of MEPA’s own urban and rural policies.

And when it comes to the validity and meaning of constraints, let us take a look at MEPA's own website for the anwsers:

HPM would also like to share the following information taken from MEPA's website. Any comments, at this stage, are superfluous!

LOCAL PLANS INTERPRETATION DOCUMENT

This guidance is intended to achieve a number of objectives namely :

a) To facilitate policy interpretation of Local Plan Policies

b) To indicate the procedure when identified situations arise

c) To guide interpretation when identified anomalies arise

"It is a dynamic document in the sense that it is envisaged to be continually updated to serve as a reference point when issues of policy interpretation arise..."

 "It is hoped that this guidance will also serve to reduce inconsistencies in recommendations and decisions so that the planning process is rendered more equitable and disagreements arising from different interpretations on broadly similar cases are as much as possible avoided."

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THE

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL PLANS:

Vi. WHAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF CONSTRAINTS?:

"Those constraints that have been adopted in the Local Plan, together with constraints made by MEPA or any entity within MEPA or the Planning Appeals’ Board, are to be applied and interpreted as policies of the said Local Plan.

All other constraints made at the request of third parties, including government entities, are to be interpreted as a requirement for consultation, the outcome of which must be applied in accordance with usual procedure."

1.1   Constraints:

How are constraints arising from constraints Maps to be interpreted?

HPM asks whether the approval of this permit can seriously be considered to be in line with all the above.

HPM would also like to know the meaning of a 'protected site' and asks WHO is responsible and accountable for the monitoring, protection and preservation of such sites?

HPM awaits clarification on why policy RCO.29 was clearly not adhered to, along with all the above quoted relevant policies and including Mosta’s constraints map MOM7

HPM appeals yet again to all those with the authority and responsibility, and all those of good sense and will, to act and implement justice with immediate and absolute effect, by withdrawing development permit PA05560/05.

This in view of several factors brought to the authority’s attention over the past 3 years, and including the persistent lack of adherence to the conditions determined in the reconsideration report.

HPM has presented ample evidence of these breaches, some of have already been verified and found to be correct and others which are still under investigation. This is no more than a repetition of what happened in 2009.

HPM would like to remind the authority that the decision was upheld subject to a number of conditions. The fact that these have not been respected by the developer on more than one instance and in several ways makes the party concerned a relapser.

This apart from the fact this permit should have never even been considered, due to its absolute contrast with all the relevant policies listed earlier and due to its protected status.

How is it possible that we are to rest our minds that the permit was issued with due diligence when in July 2011 a question put to the authority concerning the part of the building where excavation two floors deep will come to within less than a metre of the valley wall proper, with the near-surety that this will collapse?

So far, the only reply this particular concern is that it is currently being discussed internally and being looked into, or examined accordingly.

Since when are such fundamental issues concerning such an important site debated and considered AFTER the permit has been issued, and only after the insistence of HPM and other NGOs for MEPA to do so? And why is this being considered over 2 years from the original commencement notice?

Going back to MEPA’s own statement taken from the aforementioned PR:
 
"However, Mepa is an institution that is mandated to act within the parameters of existing laws and policies, and in this case it has acted entirely within these parameters,"

HPM asks whether the approval of this permit can seriously be considered to be in line with the above. HPM believes that laws are there to be observed by everyone, especially the same authorities who are supposed to enforce them.

We also believe in correctness and legality, and we certainly expect the institutions entrusted and paid by us, as citizens and taxpayers in a modern democratic EU country to assume the responsibility of fair government.

Above all, we believe that discrimination and lack of accountability should not be perpetrated nor supported by any such authority or institution.

It is in this regard that HPM would like to bring to your attention another application lodged with this same authority. We hereby refer to PA/06546/07 for a development just across on the opposite valley ridge.

The relevant case officer reports are being uploaded here (in part). In both case reports the permit was refused.
HPM would therefore like to point out the many policies and regulations quoted by the respective case officers in justifying their refusals, for what is an integral part of the site we are fighting to save.

It is crucial therefore that regulatory procedures be initiated and action taken immediately in order to safeguard our rural heritage and to curn this gross abuse.

The evidence presented above, shows black on white, that this permit was not issued in accordance to a considerable number of policies and regulations governing such applications and subsequent permits in such sensitive areas.

MEPA’s own case officers’ reports list with eloquent clarity the full list of these measures, several of which have been in place well before 2009 and as far back as 1990, ie 12 years before the first application of 2002. And what about the following?

STRUCTURE PLAN FOR THE MALTESE ISLANDS

POLICY UCO 13:

PART 2:
POLICIES

15. CONSERVATION

Natural Resources in Rural Areas

15.21

The countryside and the coast are recognised as being two of the nation's most valuable natural resources. Together, countryside and coast provide the backdrop and raw material for much of the country's industrial, commercial, agricultural, and recreational activities. The intensity of use of these resources, and the delicate equilibria operating within and maintaining them, necessitate very careful management in order to harmonise the various uses of the countryside and coast and derive maximum benefit from them without their deterioration. 

Recognising this, the Planning Authority will rigidly control development of the countryside and coast in general, and particularly of aquifer recharge areas and other important water catchment areas, afforestated areas,

sites of ecological and scientific importance, sites of scenic value,

coastal cliffs and sandy beaches, established and proposed bird sanctuaries, nature reserves, national parks, other types of protected areas, and of areas prone to erosion.

15.25

The limited land area and high population density result in strong pressure being exerted on the natural environment, particularly in areas which are relatively undeveloped. Many species, endemic and other valuable ones included, are threatened with extinction, while habitats are fast degrading. Some geological sites are in danger of complete obliteration, while many intrusive elements are spoiling the scenic value of the landscape.

15.26

The natural landscapes of the Islands are intimately related to agricultural activity. Both have to be protected from urbanisation, and conflicts between them have to be resolved.

We hereby conclude our own list of reasons, fully substantiated with fact and legal references, and demand that the required measures to rectify, and put a final end to this abuse be taken accordingly. HPM sincerely hopes that good sense and justice shall prevail, and that this unfair and undemocratic abuse of both nature and residential rights is curbed immediately.

It is not only MEPA that has a say when it comes to rural planning and conversation. The Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs have their own policies. Read more about them and also about relevant EU legislation here:

Supplementary Legislation...and abuse!

Other news and events:

HPM very concerned over Wied Il-Ghasel Oil Spill

To view our recent objection to a commercial development in Gharghur Valley kindly open this link:

HPM Objects to Commercial Development in Gharghur

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------