AD loses bid to stop issue of permits

A court yesterday dismissed an application filed by Alternattiva Demokrattika and a number of individuals to stop the Malta Environment and Planning Authority from issuing development permits in the areas recently included in the development zone.

According to AD, the extension of the development zone, which had taken place after what was termed a rationalisation process by the government, involved a large area of land. The aim was to authorise extensive changes to the use of the land.

However, according to AD, this large project was not carried out in accordance with the European Parliament and Council Directive of June 2001, known as the SEA Directive.

This law stipulated that a Strategic Environmental Assessment had be carried out, which would include a scientific and detailed report about the impact of the proposed changes.

AD added that the directive also provided for public consultation when changes or alterations were made to the development plan.

However, Mr Justice Raymond Pace, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, yesterday dismissed the application.

He found that AD had no legal interest that would justify the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction against Mepa.

Nor had it been proven that the issue of the warrant was necessary to protect applicants' rights.

Mr Justice Pace found, prima facie, that the extension process had taken place on the basis of provisions of the Planning Development Act.

This law was not being contested by applicants in their request for a warrant.

When referring to the SEA Directive, the court noted that Article 4 of the directive did not apply to this case.

A strategic environmental assessment had to be carried out for projects which commenced after July 2004.

In this case it resulted that the preparatory work for the changes of the development zones had commenced prior to this date.

The process had been an ongoing one and had started before July 2004. The law itself provided for a continual process for the revision of the Temporary Provisions Schemes, 1988, and Mepa was obliged to fulfill its legal obligations.

AD's contention that the extension to the development zones had commenced in May 2006 was therefore incorrect.

Mr Justice Pace added that the Audit Team appointed in terms of the regulations which had rendered the SEA Directive part of local law had advised Mepa that no strategic environmental assessment was required, as the preparatory works for the extension of the development zones had taken place prior to 2004.

In conclusion, the court found that the applicants had failed to prove that Mepa had not observed the provisions of law and dismissed the application.

In their reaction, AD and the 64 applicants said yesterday they are not disheartened by the Court's decision.

AD chairperson Harry Vassallo said the legal challenge by AD continues unabated with the court case they have initiated and they look forward to the opportunity to bring evidence that will show that EU Directives were not adhered to.

"It might be a long process, but we are prepared for it as ultimately we are certain we are right," Dr Vassallo said.