

.jpg?timestamp=1352860259548)

.jpg?timestamp=1352860873792)
Footage taken between the 26th - 29th September 2012 | DISASTER AT WIED IL-GHASEL - LATEST NEWS 24th April 2013 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. |
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.
|
Wied il-Ghasel Case.pdf Size : 756.233 Kb Type : pdf |
CASE RESUME':
-

![]() | ![]() |




World Database on Protected Areas
United Nations Environment
Programme
(UNEP)
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCPA)
It is also considered to be so by the
International Union for
Conservation of Nature
(IUCN / The World Conservation Union)


![]() |
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
DECEMBER 1990
POLICY UCO 13:
PART 2:
POLICIES
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------