Uproar as Mepa approves waste plant upgrade

The board of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority yesterday approved the controversial Marsascala waste recycling project during a nerve-wracking three-and-a-half hour long public hearing.

Calls for the resignation of the board members were made throughout as those lobbying against the demolition and rebuilding of the Sant'Antnin plant claimed the process lacked transparency and had been flawed from the start.

They hurled accusations at board members, even calling them "wax puppets", when Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja called the vote at the end of the meeting.

That the meeting would be noisy was clear from the start as the objectors questioned the timing of a public meeting four days before Christmas, arguing that Mepa was purposely fast-tracking the decision to get it over and done with during the festive season.

They said Mepa should postpone its decision to give adequate time to objectors to make their representations given that the voluminous development permission application (DPA) report was only published on Mepa's website on Monday evening.

There were several interventions by policemen who were called in to calm objectors. They were called in half way through the meeting to expel Marsascala mayor Mario Calleja, who was then allowed to stay in the boardroom after strong objections by lobbyists.

Mepa architects, case officers and board members - adamant to get on with the meeting - hardly reacted to the shouting and outright provocations by objectors, who even passed personal remarks aimed at board members and at Mepa's PRO several times.

The shouting was especially deafening when the case officer was presenting the project, to the point that he could not be heard.

The main objection, presented by architect Lino Bianco, was that the plans presented during the board meeting were not the same ones submitted with the original application.

The amended plans had, therefore, not been exhibited as requested by law and by Mepa's own regulations, which meant that no consultation with the local councils had taken place.

Mr Bianco cited article 32 (5) of the Development Planning Act, which lays down that Mepa is obliged to inform anyone who has made written objections to a particular development when fresh plans are filed.

"Plans were changed and the seven local councils that objected were not even informed. The original plans are not valid by Mepa's own rules," Mr Bianco insisted, saying the drawings did not have a scale and the floor plans were missing.

When challenged by the objectors, Mepa architect Saviour Farrugia said the plans were "almost the same" as the original plans, insisting it was not the first time that the planning directorate did not start fresh consultations when the changes in plans submitted are insignificant.

At this point, the objectors contended that board members should be shown the changed plans as they would be deciding on plans that were different from those produced earlier during the presentation.

Commotion ensued again as the objectors vociferously told the Mepa officers to present the changed plans to board members, arguing these were the plans on which they would "really" decide.

A board member was heard suggesting that the plans be shown to the board. Several objections and questions, especially on the fact that plans had been changed without consultation, were left hanging amid the hubbub.

The Mepa chairman soon called for a show of hands that approved the master plan unanimously without the new drawings being shown to the board. Commotion ensued till the end, as the protesters were escorted out of the room by the police.

When objections were being made, lawyer Toni Abela - the lobby's consultant - argued that beyond any objections against the building of a waste recycling plant in Marsascala instead of the existent one, it was a fact the application was in itself flawed.

Although Wasteserv - the government agency applying for the plant's redevelopment - was asked to select alternative sites to determine whether the plant could be transferred to a more suitable location, the sites selected could take a plant of 18,000 square metres when the waste recycling plant required 47,000 square metres. This was prejudicial and unreasonable, and rendered the application defective, Dr Abela argued.

That there was no real attempt to find an adequate alternative to Sant'Antnin had been the conclusion of a dossier containing confidential e-mails and Mepa memoranda published by the Committee Against the Proposed Recycling Plant earlier this year.

There was lack of transparency in the process, as Mepa was approving changed plans that had not been published for consultation, Dr Abela insisted. On the same lines, Mepa auditor Joseph Falzon had recently chided the authority for not consulting the public on substantial amendments and additions to the draft local plans after the original drafts were issued for public consultation. The same was happening in the case of the Sant'Antnin plant, he argued.

"The DPA report has long been in Wasteserv's hands, and this is not a level playing field," Dr Abela said.

Labour MP George Vella said most board members did not even know where the plant would be built and were therefore taking a decision blindly.

Opposition MPs Carmelo Abela and Helena Dalli, and former Nationalist MP and independent Marsascala councillor Josie Muscat also spoke against the project.

The government's representative on the Mepa board, architect Joe Falzon, was not present at the meeting yesterday.

Neither was the opposition's representative, Joe Brincat. In a statement yesterday evening, the government said more than €25 million of EU funds would be invested in the plant to produce compost and energy from waste, insisting that thanks to the latest technology no smells would be emitted.

It said yesterday's decision was one step of a long consultation process which went back to 1998 when the Labour government had stated that all of Malta's waste would be sent to Sant'Antnin.