Environmental impact assessments

Diane Barker lives in London. In 1997 an application to the London local planning authority for outline planning permission was made by a UK company seeking to develop the Crystal Palace site, by providing leisure and recreational facilities there together with a car park. Ms Barker raised a number of issues. The foremost issue she raised was with regard to environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Under the system prevailing in the UK, as is the same in Malta, planning permission may be sought by means of an outline planning application for development. This system allows permission to be obtained in principle. Further permission would then be required for the details of the project. The matter that arose was the interpretation of the manner in which environmental impact assessments are handled since due consideration to environmental impact often becomes necessary only when the details are concerned or when there is a significant change in the application.

A referral was made to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) with the intention of interpreting the applicability of Council directive of June 27, 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. This directive indicates, among others, the following:

"Whereas development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of these projects has been carried out; whereas this assessment must be conducted on the basis of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be concerned by the project in question."

By applying the above directive to the facts at issues the ECJ concluded that the effect of the 1988 UK Regulations is that, when it is faced with an application for planning permission, the local planning authority must determine prior to any grant of planning permission whether the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. It must refuse permission if it is of the opinion that it does not have sufficient information to come to a decision on this point at that stage.

Effectively this points to the necessity of allowing an EIA whenever the need arises in order to arrive at a proper decision on the merits of an application.

Much can be said about this judgment and keeping in mind that ECJ judgments are all potentially applicable locally, the following questions arise with regard to applications in Malta.

• Under present rules is it possible at any stage of an application to invoke the necessity of an EIA?

• When plans change midway through an application, does Mepa impose upon itself the obligation (as guarantor of our environment) to invoke the referred council directive to insist on a new EIA?

• Are we after all in full conformity with the referred council directive?

• Are we applying the directive in its full extent in order to ensure that environmental impact is at its lowest?

Recent decisions and statements by Mepa have now become more than just worrying. Mepa's reply to complaints by residents is too often to ignore them in favour of short-term gains which, quite frankly, make no sense. If we take the Sliema St Julians area as one example most people would be shocked to learn that all Mepa documentation since its inception has been against further proliferation of living spaces!

To make matters worse Mepa waived the necessity of an environmental planning statement with regard to the application in the Fort Cambridge area. (No. 151 Development Planning Act (Cap. 356) provision 3 (8) of Legal Notice No. 204 of 2001). Are we to take it that Mepa will no longer require environmental planning statements with regard to similar buildings and large-scale developments?

I find all of the above shocking and, in my opinion, in direct contrast to the referred EU directive.