It is good that Jimmy Magro raised the question (Ocotber 20) about the uprooting of four majestic Aleppo Pines on the Mdina Road. This illegal act of environmental vandalism should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Furthermore, the highly unsatisfactory and evasive press statement issued by Mepa in response to a press release issued by Flimkien ghal-Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) deserves to be answered.
Mepa's press release ignored the major part of the objections raised by the FAA, namely, that Mepa is obliged to conform to regulations and laws in respect of uprooting trees. In particular, it failed to address the question regarding the apparent breach of law which seems to have occurred in this instance. The response from Mepa dwelt upon compensatory planting of trees which was not the point at issue at all.
The attention of Mepa is drawn to the following:
1) Aleppo Pines are protected under Schedule I (and Schedule III for those over 50 years old) of the Trees and Woodlands (Protection) Regulations, 2001 (LN12/01) which means a licence would be required to uproot them. Granting of such a licence includes, as a precondition, mandatory adherence to a statutory three-week period of public notification of intention to uproot such protected trees.
2) Citing "a strong landscaping plan already in place" at the petrol station for which a permit is still pending is no justification for illegally uprooting trees. Neither does it justify taking such short cuts. Furthermore, the "landscaping" referred to in the press release mainly benefits the applicant's own commercial premises and not the public interest.
3) Legal Notice 12 of 2001 was totally bypassed. No notice informing the public of the intended felling of four mature protected trees was posted in public for a period of three weeks before the uprooting, as required by law. Neither was anything regarding the felling of these protected trees published in the Government Gazette before granting of the licence to remove them. This aspect was not touched upon at all in the Mepa press release. We would also like to ask why, when FAA contacted Mepa, it was informed that everything had proceeded according to law when this was clearly not the case?
4) Mepa stated that the four trees were uprooted "due (sic) to the traffic management improvements". This does not make sense since the trees had existed for well over 80 years and had never, at any point, caused traffic problems. Under the circumstances, FAA would appreciate a precise clarification of what is meant by "traffic management improvements", in this instance.
5) The question of uprooting of these trees arose only in the context of planned construction of a petrol station which does not as yet exist. There are, therefore, no grounds to claim that the trees were removed because they were causing traffic problems, as incorrectly implied in Mepa's press release. The permit pertaining to this structure is still at appeal stage. This being the case, why were the trees uprooted prematurely when the validity of the building permit was still in doubt?
6) The permit to uproot the trees was issued in what must be record time, namely, within three working days of permission being requested. The trees were uprooted as soon as the permit was served to the developer. The indecent haste with which the trees were uprooted suggests that this was done as quickly as possible so as to pre-empt any public opposition to uprooting the trees which might have arisen during the statutory three-week period, the purpose of which is to permit the public to raise objections.
Unless Mepa can provide plausible reasons to the contrary, the public cannot but regard as an illegal act the uprooting of these pine trees within three days of application for a permit to remove them. Furthermore, Mepa's attempted cover-up of this infringement makes it an accessory to the crime. As Mr Magro stated in his letter, every breach of the law should be regarded as a criminal offence which has to be investigated by the Commissioner of Police. If the uprooting of these trees is found to have been illegal, the persons responsible should be charged in court.