Mepa denies Mellieha residents' claims

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority yesterday filed a counter protest in which they claimed that allegations made by residents at Tas-Sellum in Mellieha, over a development in the area, were unfounded.

Last week the residents filed a judicial protest, through Dr Franco Vassallo and Dr Norval Desira, explaining that in January 1995 an outline permit was issued for a development at Tas-Sellum and in October 2003 Mepa approved a change in the outline permit which exceeded the terms of the original permit.

The residents added that Mepa had received an application for the development of the second and third phases of this project, which application was not acceptable to them as they claimed it could damage their property and was in violation of the structure plan and the north west local plan.

Mepa, they said, had in effect committed the site for development before deciding upon the applications for the second and third phases of the development as the developer was authorised to excavate the site. No mention had been made by Mepa of two legal notices that prohibited the removal of rubble walls and which protected carob trees.

In the counter protest, signed by Dr George Abela and Dr Ian Stafrace, Mepa explained that three permits had been issued over the land at Tas-Sellum. These were two outline development permits and a full development permit. These permits covered phase one of the development as approved in one of the outline permits.

The application referred to in the protest was still pending and covered a different phase of the development. This pending application was being evaluated by the authority according to parameters established in the outline permit.

The residents were "manifestly mistaken" in claiming that members of the authority's board were not notified about the content of the draft north west local plan.

In fact, in the report of the applications there was a detailed reference to the draft and what it proposed for the area.

Mepa noted that the residents, who were now complaining, had not complained at earlier stages of the applications. Had the residents exercised their right to participate in the processing of the applications, they would have noticed that their allegations were unfounded.

As for the excavation, it was all in conformity with the Construction Management Plan and as for the rubble wall and trees, Mepa had the authority to take such decisions.

Mepa added it would ensure that the developers made good for this and plant a large amount of trees.

Mepa concluded by calling on the court to stop the residents from making such allegations and initiating such proceedings.