Couple objects to narrowing of planned road

A married couple yesterday filed a case in the First Hall of the Civil Court accusing the Malta Environment and Planning Authority of abuse of power when it altered road plans, claiming public purpose, without giving a reason.

Nazzareno and Dolores Scerri filed their application against Mepa and against the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment.

They said that a regulatory plan had indicated that a road would be passed through land belonging to them. The proposed road would link Valley Road and Valletta Road, Qormi.

But the Department for Building and House Repairs had filed an application with Mepa requesting that the proposed road not be built. The request was made so that the department could develop Joint Office property on Valletta Road.

Mepa had partially approved the department's application on February 2 in the sense that the projected road would not connect Valley Road and Valletta Road. The permit stipulated that the proposed road would only link up with Valletta Road.

As a result of this, the Scerris claimed that the projected road would be narrower than originally planned.

According to Mepa, the permit was issued as the land was required for a public purpose, but it had never explained what this public purpose was.

The Scerris claimed that Mepa's decision was contrary to the principles of administrative law, as there was no valid reason why the road should be narrowed or why it was to only link up with one road.

Besides, the decision had not been taken for a public purpose as the department could not develop all the land since the road linking with Valletta Road was to run through it anyway.

They further submitted that the value of their land had diminished as a result of this decision, and that the proposed road, as varied by Mepa's decision, would give rise to flooding of their property.

The road, as approved, would give rise to bad traffic management too.

According to the Scerris, the decision taken by Mepa was null and void as it had been contrary to their fundamental human right to property, and because Mepa had not observed the principles of natural justice.

They also claimed that Mepa had abused of its powers at law.

In conclusion, the Scerris asked the court to declare that the decision was null and void, and to find that the authorities were responsible for the damages they would sustain.

Lawyers Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and Joseph Sammut were counsel to Mr and Mrs Scerri.