30th JUNE 2013
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.
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.
Democracy and Justice MUST prevail!
5th JUNE 2013
Despite our detailed report to Dr. Mario Scicluna of MEPA's Enforcement Directorate, (see 18th May update below), no acknowledgement was received, far less any action was taken to curb the blatant infringements being committed by the developers.
This photo taken yesterday shows the state of the hoarding as well as tampering with the rubble walls and the lack of adherence to permit conditions as explained further down on this page.
Furthermore, a year ago, on the 28th June, 2012, HPM submitted the largest environmental petition in Malta's history to the highest authorities of the state including both the President and Parliament. No action has yet been taken to honour the will and requests of over 24,400 people.
As for the last legal step in Nature Trust's & HPM's joint appeal, the decision due this Spring was never proclaimed since the magistrate concerned was first removed from office, and eventually found dead. No word of when his cases shall be rescheduled for a second hearing. This despite an investment of nearly 1,000 euros in legal fees, and work on site still being permitted regardless of all!
And to add further insult to severe injury, works are now commencing at 5.15am, with police reports by disturbed residents being ignored.
This serious state of affairs is now being reported to the press
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18th MAY 2013
HPM REPORT TO MEPA ILLUSTRATES FLAGRANT INFRINGEMENTS
The following points were conveyed by email to Dr. Mario Scicluna at MEPA earlier today:
ISSUE 1: SITE HOARDING / SCREENING
The perimeter hoarding should be
resilient and able to resist up to Force 8 winds, and kept in optimum
condition throughout as to satisfy its purpose and function. Countless
reports have been submitted to all authorities concerned with the issue
and enforcement of permit conditions over the past 2 years and beyond.
The persistent bad state of this hoarding shows that it was never
constructed to withstand anything close to force 8 winds, and far less
was it ever repaired unless due pressure had been exerted.
Ineffective Hoarding - Supposed to resist up to Force 8 Winds
This constitutes a lack of adherence to the actual and
official permit conditions. It also reveals a lacking by the said
authorities in verifying whether such hoarding was indeed as resilient
as necessary (clearly not the case), as well as ensuring that it is kept
in good condition at all times, given the sensitivity and protected
status of the site.
As for the permit & works notices, the law and permit conditions clearly stipulate that such documentation should be affixed in a specific area and be visible and legible throughout the construction phase. The lack of adherence to this, for whatever reason, and especially given the blatant excuses made by the developers, is an illegality in itself and it is a shame that no serious regulatory action has ever been taken over this matter. Even more so when one considers that permits have been revoked due to non-adherence to this very point. Unless these developers enjoy some privilege of sorts, one fails to understand how this issue was left unaddressed.
The development notices may be seen affixed to the wall, illegible and contrary to what is specified by law in terms of fixture and positioning
The
current location of the notices is in contravention to established
regulations and all the work done in the past months has therefore been
carried out in breach of this point of law.
The site entrance is monitored by CCTV cameras. If it is the case that 3rd parties have tampered with such notices, how come there is no record to prove this, and why did the developers not report the matter to the police?
ISSUE 2: PERMIT NOTICES
As for the permit & works notices, the law and permit conditions clearly stipulate that such documentation should be affixed in a specific area and be visible and legible throughout the construction phase. The lack of adherence to this, for whatever reason, and especially given the blatant excuses made by the developers, is an illegality in itself and it is a shame that no serious regulatory action has ever been taken over this matter. Even more so when one considers that permits have been revoked due to non-adherence to this very point. Unless these developers enjoy some privilege of sorts, one fails to understand how this issue was left unaddressed.
The development notices may be seen affixed to the wall, illegible and contrary to what is specified by law in terms of fixture and positioning
The site entrance is monitored by CCTV cameras. If it is the case that 3rd parties have tampered with such notices, how come there is no record to prove this, and why did the developers not report the matter to the police?
The explanations given to the residential association and copied to HPM, sound very much
like an ad verbatim echo of what the developers told Dr. Scicluna and other enforcement officials, but one fails
to see much objectivity within. The enforcement directorate's stance concerning this permit notices issue being merely justification for why the permits are not in the place
they should be, rather than what legal action is being taken for a
proven breach of law.
The law does not make exceptions nor allows developers to
affix notices where they deem fit due to some alleged "unknown 3rd
party" actions!! What is does stipulate is that any such permit is subject to each and every clause. By default, any breaches of one or more of its binding conditions are subject to corrective legal measures.HPM has copies of
both the permit and legislation in hand. Since these clauses are MEPA's
working tools, we have no doubt its officials are fully aware of them too, so we
need not quote directly.
This is not the first time that the notices were
found to be missing or in the wrong place, so any potential action would
necessitate the recognition of these serious relapses and persistence
in defiance, both in face of the law and the authority itself.
ISSUE 3: THE PROTECTED RUBBLE WALL/S
When the Wied il_Ghasel Residential Committee wrote to Dr. Scicluna, copies of plans were sent along with other details concerning an imposed distance the developers were to leave from the proected valley ridge rubble wall. Reference was made to Plan 35 of PA 0556/05. Dr. Scicluna's reply stated that he could not find any trace of such conditions on file. However HPM pointed out that although the permit was issued in
February 2009, the document bears the date of October (2009). The plan is taken from MEPA's website and is 100% official and
approved. This can be verified by all parties concerned, and reference
is made to the document number and various relevant details visible on
it.
Approved plan from MEPA's Website clearly showing that "Line of excavation to be retained approx. 0.75m away from rubble wall"
This is an important document which MEPA used as a basis for
a press release concerning the safeguarding of the Girna, (incorrectly
defined by the developers as a pseudo-girna). Dr. Ian Stafrace, when in
tenure as MEPA's CEO, also made ample reference to this plan and more importantly the
conditions within, to HPM officials in person in front of witnesses, while discussing the
0.75 metre boundary from a protected rubble wall that should have
remain completely untouched.
We had complained that 0.75 metres was not adequate to
safeguard the wall and he informed us that MEPA was indeed concerned
about it and that discussions were in hand with the developers in view
of finding a solution. We were eventually notified that the developer
had forfeited his right to build in the area closest to the wall.
We have correspondence in hand concerning this
issue, and although Dr. Stafrace is no longer a senior member of MEPA's
administration, his statements concerning this matter where given in his
official capacity as CEO, and as far as we are concerned, reflect
MEPA's official position in the matter.
We shall be happy to publish any details or correspondence concerning this information if the need arises.
Considering
that plan 35 is indeed a valid and approved document, the developer is
to be held responsible for breaching serious conditions in not keeping
the correct distance and destroying / tampering (with) the said
protected rubble wall/s.
It is hoped that the relapsing attitude and consistent
breach of permit conditions and other regulations is taken into
consideration and serious enforcement action be taken at once to rectify
this huge abuse.
The photographic and other material accumulated over
several months, and going back to 2009 shows that since the permit has
been issued, all its binding regulations have been consistently ignored
or abused by the developer. It also shows the lax attitude and lack of
proper enforcement by the respective authorities, and this in itself is a
serious miscarriage of justice as well as an abuse in its own right!25th APRIL 2013
Works are going on despite further irregularities and abuse by the developers.
The above photo taken this morning, shows
material placed in the ODZ area. This has been explicitly
prohibited and has also led to enforcement action in the past. MEPA Enforcement Director
Alex Borg in person had written to the developers making it clear that
such practices were illegal and unacceptable.
This area was supposed to be hoarded off entirely, and not to be used for any reason whatsoever, other than during the final landscaping stages. The placing of any material in this area was and remains strictly prohibited.
The hoarding itself is in very bad condition and totally ineffective. There have been several issues and reports about the state and maintenance of this hoarding, and despite several visits by the enforcement directorate's officials, no concrete action was ever taken over this, which is why works are still being carried out with total disregard and in defiance of both laws and authorities.
Other infringements may be noticed. Excavations were to be kept 0.75 metres to the rubble wall. This was not adhered too and the wall has been defaced with markings in red paint. This is a protected rubble wall. Another part of this rubble wall was also destroyed, (closer to the bridge). This should have been retained.
Works are also starting at 6.00am on a daily basis, with the
crane also in operation before 7am. This is causing further anguish to
the elderly and other people, including families with baby children in
the immediate area.Although several reports were made to a number of authorities including the police, no enforcement action has been taken and works are still underway at full speed.
BACKGROUND
The largest cluster of remaining fields, right at the heart of the valley, contain various protected rural features including a rare square-shaped Maltese corbelled stone hut (Girna) and several rubble walls, all resulting in a beautiful scene of great value and aesthetic quality. Most of the area concerned is listed as an area of ecological importance by the local authority responsible for environmental planning (MEPA) and a world protected site, as shall be proven further below.
This area is furthermore made unique by the fact that no valley crosses through any other town on village on these islands. These fields are situated at the very heart of the valley, right at the spot closest to the town centre, directly in line with the magnificent Rotunda Dome. According to the Central Malta Local Plan the area has been indicated as being an integral part of a ‘Primary Town Centre’ This is the last remaining example of a town having a preserved green core, complete with several iconic features of Maltese countryside and its rural qualities.
Despite
all
the above, an application to build an old people's home was submitted
back in 2002. This was met with considerable opposition by several
entities including the Mosta Local Council, Harsien Patrimonju Mosti,
Nature Trust International (Malta), Alternattiva Demokratika, scholars, environmentalists, and a
large number of residents.
These
objections served to no avail for a building development outline plan
was approved and a second application was submitted by the developers,
using a different name and details, for a massive development consisting
of 24 apartments
and 26 garages!
This was consistently refused by MEPA but after 4 years, precisely in February 2009, a reconsideration was approved by the authority's Development Control Commission Board (DCC).
To add insult to injury, withdrawals of the building lines suggested by MEPA itself in 2002 were approved in 2006 making most of this area a building-free zone. It is now referred to as a site of ecological importance, as per the authority's own server maps on its website.
But before we carry on, let us go a few steps back, right to the origins of this whole catastrophe. First of all, HPM would like to refer you to parliamentary question 16584 of the 30.05.2000.
The largest cluster of remaining fields, right at the heart of the valley, contain various protected rural features including a rare square-shaped Maltese corbelled stone hut (Girna) and several rubble walls, all resulting in a beautiful scene of great value and aesthetic quality. Most of the area concerned is listed as an area of ecological importance by the local authority responsible for environmental planning (MEPA) and a world protected site, as shall be proven further below.
This area is furthermore made unique by the fact that no valley crosses through any other town on village on these islands. These fields are situated at the very heart of the valley, right at the spot closest to the town centre, directly in line with the magnificent Rotunda Dome. According to the Central Malta Local Plan the area has been indicated as being an integral part of a ‘Primary Town Centre’ This is the last remaining example of a town having a preserved green core, complete with several iconic features of Maltese countryside and its rural qualities.
This was consistently refused by MEPA but after 4 years, precisely in February 2009, a reconsideration was approved by the authority's Development Control Commission Board (DCC).
To add insult to injury, withdrawals of the building lines suggested by MEPA itself in 2002 were approved in 2006 making most of this area a building-free zone. It is now referred to as a site of ecological importance, as per the authority's own server maps on its website.
But before we carry on, let us go a few steps back, right to the origins of this whole catastrophe. First of all, HPM would like to refer you to parliamentary question 16584 of the 30.05.2000.
Translation: Hon. Michael Borg asked the Ministry of the Interior:
What possibility is there that this valley be scheduled, both because of its characteristics as well as the preservation of an amount of Carob Trees?
Hon. Tonio Borg: Mosta Valley is one of the most important valleys in the Maltese Islands for environmental, ecological, agricultural and cultural reasons, as well as due to water resources. The planning authority (MEPA) intends protecting the complex of valleys that form part of Wied il-Ghasel by scheduling it as soon as all the studies have been finalised. So far, a substantial part of this valley complex has been studied already.
The scheduling exercise is aimed to provide protection of all its important constituents including the large quantity of Carob, and other trees, that grow in the valley.
Subsequently, in 2001, the central part of the valley was eventually registered within the World Database for Protected Areas lists as
WDPA ID 174768 and given a Category III Natural Monument Status of international importance.
Since then, Wied il-Ghasel remains listed as a Nature Reserve within the:
and of
It was classified as a CATEGORY III – Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features:
“Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature, which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.”
This may be verified by opening the following link to the IUCN's Protected planet Database:
WDPA ID 174768 and given a Category III Natural Monument Status of international importance.
Since then, Wied il-Ghasel remains listed as a Nature Reserve within the:
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)
In the
IUCN Management Category -
‘Protected Areas and World Heritage Programme’
the definition of a protected area adopted is:
IUCN Management Category -
‘Protected Areas and World Heritage Programme’
the definition of a protected area adopted is:
"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity
and of
natural and associated cultural resources,
and managed through legal or other effective means "
It was classified as a CATEGORY III – Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features:
“Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature, which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.”
This may be verified by opening the following link to the IUCN's Protected planet Database:
It shows a map-server which clearly illustrates the area of Wied il-Ghasel that is protected. Now the fields and valley ridge concerned are at the very centre of the protected area.
This is unquestionable evidence of HPM's persistent claims that this site enjoys international recognition and protection. There are another 154 such protected areas in Malta.
It is also unquestionable that the development has been approved on the very ridge of the valley, which shall be excavated and built up.
This is evidenced by the following extract from MEPA's own Case Officer’s 2007 refusal recommendation:
"1 - The proposed development is unacceptable as it would result in a deleterious impact on the amenity of the area and of existing adjoining uses. It therefore constitutes bad neighbour and overdevelopment and so conflicts with Structure Plan policy BEN 1 which seeks to protect the amenity of existing uses and DC2005 policy 2.7."
"2 - The proposed building, which is situated on a valley (ridge), does not conform with Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2000 policy 2.7 (iv), that each floor shall be sucessively setback on the side elevations. The development would be unduly obtrusive and detract from the landscape, and so would be counter to Structure Plan policy BEN 2 and DC2005 policy 3.8(d)."
May we draw your attention to the highlighted text, constituting official and professional acknowledgment to our claims.
In face of this evidence, no person or institution may deny the facts as they stand, black on white, public, for all to see. This IS the valley ridge of an internationally protected valley.
HPM would now like to refer to a Press Release from 2011 issued by MEPA in relation to the permit in question.
Link:
MEPA Insists it acted within the parameters of the law
HPM would like to bring particular attention the following statement made by MEPA within this PR:
In face of this evidence, no person or institution may deny the facts as they stand, black on white, public, for all to see. This IS the valley ridge of an internationally protected valley.
HPM would now like to refer to a Press Release from 2011 issued by MEPA in relation to the permit in question.
Link:
MEPA Insists it acted within the parameters of the law
HPM would like to bring particular attention the following statement made by MEPA within this PR:
“It (MEPA) pointed out that this particular case was determined much prior to the coming into force of the new legislative and administrative procedures, which were intended to enhance and ensure that all decisions were transparent and subject to sustainable development principles.”
HPM would like to remind you that the first permit for an old people’s home was made in July 2002. A second permit was then applied for in 2005, under a different name. This eventually led to a final approval in February 2009, for apartments and garages instead. Since the DCC board approved the permit in 2009, the permit should have been issued according to the legislation then in force. And what about the following?
We hereby make reference to policy RCO.29 of 1990.
"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"
HPM cannot understand the meaning of this policy, and demands an explanation as to why it was not adhered to, in allowing an outline permit to be approved 12 years later, and yet another full development permit to be approved 19 years respectively after the regulation was made public.
The regulation contains a loophole of course, and such is the word ‘normally’. Normally is not permanently and thus in abnormal circumstances, this policy may be waived. Such an abnormality would perhaps constitute an application for something on the lines of an old people’s home!
It would not surely not constitute some 2 dozen apartments and nearly as many underlying garages. Or would it?
What is certain is that no appropriate assessment was carried out prior to the approval of the outline permit in accordance with the provisions of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations (L.N.311/06)
Back in 2002, the Planning Data Base Map (Co-ordinates: 47883/74518), shows that more than 60% of the site earmarked for the proposed old people’s home was already designated as being outside development zone (ODZ). This is also shown in the Temporary Provisions Scheme Number 23.
It would not surely not constitute some 2 dozen apartments and nearly as many underlying garages. Or would it?
What is certain is that no appropriate assessment was carried out prior to the approval of the outline permit in accordance with the provisions of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations (L.N.311/06)
Back in 2002, the Planning Data Base Map (Co-ordinates: 47883/74518), shows that more than 60% of the site earmarked for the proposed old people’s home was already designated as being outside development zone (ODZ). This is also shown in the Temporary Provisions Scheme Number 23.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Policy Map 47 in the Central Malta Local Plan, (Policy Maps for Public Consultation), indicates that the limits-to-Development Boundary passing through the site is to be changed in a manner which would render most of the site ODZ.
We hereby refer to Area Policy Map M001 in the CMLP (General & Area Policy Proposals) and Map.A11 in the appendix A of the said CMLP (Policy Maps for Public Consultation). The yellow line in dashes is the old demarcation line. In 2002 MEPA proposed retreating the borders as not to allow any further developments directly adjacent to the valley. This is the Green dotted line.
We hereby refer to Area Policy Map M001 in the CMLP (General & Area Policy Proposals) and Map.A11 in the appendix A of the said CMLP (Policy Maps for Public Consultation). The yellow line in dashes is the old demarcation line. In 2002 MEPA proposed retreating the borders as not to allow any further developments directly adjacent to the valley. This is the Green dotted line.
