Harsien Patrimonju Mosti

SEPTEMBER 2012

Above: File Photo - 2nd October 2012. Heavy machinery tears the valley ridge right next to the last-standing Corbelled Stone Hut (Girna), in any Maltese town centre. Notice the inadequate screening meant to protect 3rd party property from dust and stone chips as the rock is pounded to smithereens. This not to mention the noise generated non-stop between 7/8am-3/4pm on a daily basis which is having to be withstood by the entire residential neighbourhood including elderly people, within their own property or in the nearby retirement home, others with depression or frail health conditions, and a number of young children, including toddlers. All this within an integral part of a world protected valley ridge.30th

HPM TO REQUEST URGENT PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTION - DECLARES SITUATION AT WIED IL-GHASEL A BREACH OF DEMOCRACY!

HPM fully condemns the abuse being committed within Wied il-Ghasel's green core. A site protected both locally and internationally, by several legislative clauses, being obliterated on a daily basis.

The current situation is not only leading to the destruction of a unique and cherished site, but may now be considered a full and intolerable breach of democracy.

This not only due to over 24,000 people signing a call for revocation of the abusive permit, but more so since legal proceedings are still underway.

The first court sitting is due in the second half of October (details to be announced later).

Considering changes in legislation governing such development appeals, any new cases lodged cause an automatic suspension of works, for the duration of the hearings, and are only allowed to start if the objections are determined to be invalid.

This change in law was fully welcomed by HPM and related NGOs since it shows that the authorities have recognised the futility of fighting to save something, while it is being destroyed.

In the case of Wied il-Ghasel, the original appeal by Nature Trust was submitted in Spring 2009, in a time when the old law prevailed. This permitted works to go on unhindered, but on condition that in case of revocation, the site would have to be fully restored to its original state.

HPM has on several occasions lamented that this was already undemocratic and farcical, since time, energy and funds were being committed to a struggle which even if won, would have found the valley ridge irreversibly destroyed.

Although MEPA had stressed the point that the developer would have to return the site to its original state, in case of dismissal, it never addressed our concerns as to the impossibility of regenerating smashed rock or fixing any such damages that are irreversible.

The appeal was lost, but the process has not been fully concluded, and only after the court case has been terminated, shall the final word have been said as whether to allow this development or otherwise.

Considering that work on site has resumed again, and is proceeding at alarming speed, there is no chance any eventual ruling shall serve to save the site.

So this takes us back to square one, whereby we are fighting to prevent the destruction of something which is being destroyed.

This is a huge abuse, especially when one considers that 900 Euros have just been invested in court and legal expenses, with the very aim of saving this important site.

HPM understands that the court proceedings relate to the appeal, concluded in June 2012, but we cannot fathom how the impending court case, (which stands on its own despite its direct relevance to the said appeal), does not qualify to suspend works on site until proceedings are concluded and a final decision taken.

This especially in view of current legislation, and the legal spirit behind such a change.

HPM intends meeting the President of Malta, to re-affirm its petition as well as to highlight this shameful state of affairs. We believe in justice and democracy, and feel that this abuse has now gone too far, and for too long!

So this takes us back to square one, whereby we are fighting to prevent the destruction of something which is being destroyed.

This is a huge abuse, especially when one considers that 900 Euros have just been invested in court and legal expenses, with the very aim of saving this important site.

This especially in view of current legislation, and the legal spirit behind such a change.

Footage taken between the 26th - 29th September 2012

2nd OCTOBER 2012

A flash press release was held today at 11.00am. The press was addressed by senior members of FAA and HPM. Features should be aired on both PBS and One News.

13th NOVEMBER 2012

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

This is the reply we got:

4. MEPA - The Malta ENVIRONMENT PLANNING authority:

A r
Before we put the Minister's input aside, we must draw attention to the rest of his reply to the Residential Assn. whereby he stated that as (they) were aware, MEPA's enforcement has been "constantly surveilling the development to ensure that permit conditions are being observed"
He added that when this was not the case, works had been halted, and assured the association that contact had been made with the MRRA (Ministry for Resources & Rural Affairs) for them to ensure that building regulations falling under their remit were also being observed.

In our next update, we shall be showing graphic images, more undeniable proof, of how well these authorities handled the matter. We shall also be divulging other 'interesting' material, showing how consistently the developers have followed permit conditions to the letter. This after their suspension due to the renewed abuse of permit conditions last year.

However, in the meantime, do digest today's lengthy dissemination of what has really been going on at the top levels of this democratic republic, while the developers tear the valley ridge apart, day after day, in determinate and relapsing defiance of the very clauses their permit is subject to, and additional conditions to which the lifting of their suspension was bound, as issued and dictated by MEPA's enforcement director in person!

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

SOS Wied il-Ghasel Page VIII

OR

BACK TO HOME-PAGE