Lobby submits counter arguments

The lobby against the Marsascala recycling plant upgrading has submitted a report countering the environmental impact assessment on the basis of which an outline planning permission was issued.

The report was filed during the hearing of an appeal against the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's decision to approve the outline development application.

The decision in favour of the reconstruction of the recycling plant was made last September. The committee against the plant, which embraces a number of bodies, is battling the ruling both at Mepa's appeals board and in court.

The EIA, prepared for the applicants WasteServ by SLR Ltd, has also been called into question by the head of the Church Environmental Commission, Victor Axiaq, who described the second draft as "a disaster".

A few days ago, the lobby submitted a technical report, drawn up by architect Lino Bianco, which, members of the lobby say, counters some of the points raised by the impact assessment and questions the application process in general.

Members of the lobby argued that the time constraints imposed on them in making their submissions were unfair given the mammoth task the analysis of a document such as the EIA presented.

Moreover, they complained yesterday that certain documents were unavailable, pointing to the fact that Mepa had told them it had no documentation relating to the recycling plant's early history.

Mepa officials at the appeal hearing insisted there were no files and denied withholding anything from the lobby's committee.

"Basically, what they are saying is that they have no records relating to the recycling plant up until 2003. I find that very hard to believe... that's not how the government works," committee secretary Joe Sant said.

Mepa and WasteServ lawyers argued that when the recycling plant was first built the government did not need any permit under the then PAPB regime.

But Toni Abela, the lobby's lawyer, argued that it was hard to believe there was no documentation whatsoever connected with the recycling plant despite the rules of the day.

"So you mean to tell me that the plant has no permit?" he asked, pointing out that it had actually started working in 1993 after the Development Planning Act had been introduced.

Dr Abela raised once again the issue regarding the impartiality of the appeals board. The matter had already been raised during the hearing but the board had dismissed the complaint. In fact a separate court case challenging this decision was filed in court.

Yesterday, however, Dr Abela raised it again, directing the matter at the chairman, Ramon Rossignaud, claiming, among other things, that his impartiality had been jeopardised by the fact that he worked as a consultant for Mepa.

After the hearing, Mr Bianco pointed out that Mepa cannot issue a permit if there is a legality problem, suggesting that the authority should have verified the history of the plant before issuing the outline development permit.

The hearing was put off to July, after Dr Abela complained that a reply which, he said, Mepa and WasteServ had to submit on May 24, was only filed yesterday, thus not giving them enough time to react.