The long and winding road to Sant'Antnin (1)

1978: In a preliminary survey, a Swedish consultancy firm recommended the Sant'Antnin site in Marsascala for a sewage treatment plant on the basis that the area was not a residential one. The surrounding area was predominantly an open agricultural land. The population at that time was merely 900. The main road leading to the Marsascala centre was still unplanned.

1987: A call for tenders for the construction of the composting plant was issued and was awarded.

1993: The plant began its operation. In the meantime, the government continued to issue building permits in such a way that the place developed very rapidly as a residential area. Residential housing estates effectively encroached on the site.

December, 1993: The resident population mushroomed from 900 in 1978 to almost 3,000. New housing estates were built around the plant, including the Bellavista area, and Ta' Monita in Marsascala and Ta' Ganza and Hat-Tmiem in Zejtun. Hotels, commercial outlets and several catering establishments had also began to operate. The current main road leading to the centre of the town had also been constructed. It is evident that the main condition that lead to the decision to build a composting plant at Sant'Antnin, taken way back in 1978 (being that the site was not a residential area), was no longer valid in the late 1980s. That was the biggest blunder.

Since its inception in 1993, the plant was operated by a private company called Malta Environmental Technology. Thousands of liri in public funds were spent to maintain the company. The residents suffered great inconveniences. Big protests were held. The action committee at the time was accused of being politically motivated. Nothing seriously was done by the government of the day to remedy the situation.

1995: The government was prepared to invest about Lm12 million to demolish the plant and build a new one. A Dutch company by the name of Grontmij was about to take on the job. It failed, though, to guarantee an "odour free at the boundary" clause in the contract. The local council and the action committee insisted on that clause, and the project was stopped. The action committee made it explicitly clear to everyone, including the Labour Party, that "if the inconveniences continue, the plant should be dismantled and build in another site, away from residential areas".

1996: Labour Minister George Vella took the bull by the horns. The eco system was introduced. The company was replaced. The plant was operated by government employees. The inconveniences were almost eliminated.

2001: WasteServ took over. The inconveniences started again. Complaints were the order of the day and protests started again. The same insinuations: "Complainants and protesters are politically motivated". The same old story!

May 2003: WasteServ applied for the "upgrading of the existing plant" (PA 2838/03) and declared that the footprint required for the plant is 18,000 square metres. WasteServ deceived the Marsascala local council by explaining that the application deals only with a minor project, the upgrading of the existing plant.

November, 2004: The Zejtun local council protested with Mepa that WasteServ's application was misleading as the plans and drawings did not reflect the contents of the application. WasteServ was compelled by Mepa to re-apply. The original application was then amended from "upgrading of the plant" to "demolish of the existing plant" and its replacement by four new plants: MRF, MTP, composting and digestion. In spite of the new application, WasteServ continued to deceive the public by insisting that the project was just "upgrading". WasteServ was then forced by Mepa to carry out EIA studies. WasteServ was "very reluctant" to abide by Mepa's instructions.

July 2004: Mepa issued the revised terms of reference. These included "a comparative analysis on site selection and technologies". Three sites were proposed by Mepa, limited to a footprint of 18,000 square metres as declared by Wasteserv. On its part, Wasteserv failed to propose a site knowing that it had already decided on the Sant'Antnin one. This was the most fundamental blunder of the process, as the EIA focused on justifying the predetermined choice of the site at Sant'Antnin.

July 2004: The "alternative site selection" report was published. It transpired that the footprint of the plant should be no less than 40,000 square metres as compared to the 18,000 square metres as already declared by Wasteserv and admitted that it "was erroneously stated". However, this gross error was never rectified. The conclusion of the report was that the only site that can accommodate the plant was that of Sant'Antnin as the other three were "by far too small".

Comments by Mepa officials on this exercise include: Case officer - "The developer (Wasteserv) only considered the sites mentioned by Mepa as possible sites without really bothering to consider seriously the choice of locating the new plant in a more appropriate area. If the study were to be taken seriously the sites with the site boundaries as indicated by Mepa would not even have been studied as it is clear that the sites are relatively smaller than that of Marsascala". Another official commented - "The three sites were unsuitable due to the restricted land available. From a strategic point of view, therefore, it appears that the alternative sites did not qualify as alternative sites primarily because of size. Therefore, the choice for the Sant'Antnin site was a foregone conclusion from the beginning".

July 2004: The Mepa board approved the Sant'Antnin site. This decision was taken in spite of the contents of the report. The board was also warned by an official of Mepa's directorate that WasteServ was taking them for a ride as they were giving the wrong size of the plant's area. Technologies were not yet known. The decision was taken behind close doors and no public consultation was carried out, in breach of Mepa's own rules and regulations.

Mepa became aware of the gross discrepancies and that the footprint as declared by Wasteserv in May 2003 was incorrect and Wasteserv was forced to reapply. In the fresh application, Wasteserv declared a footprint of 47,000 square metres, an additional 29,000 square metres over and above its original application. Yet the "alternative site selection" process was not rectified. Nobody bothered to correct this fundamental issue.

The Sant'Antnin site was not considered by Mepa as a suitable location for the new project. Some comments by Mepa officials on this issue include: "The development is substantial and the term 'upgrading' minimises the entity of the project". "... the sensitivity of the existing plant, which is very close to residential area". "It is my opinion that, environmentally, there is to gain from consideration of alternative sites." "The question, therefore, arises: Why not consider an alternative site which would be more suitable in terms of current Structure Plan policies regarding to obnoxious industry?"

September 2004: WasteServ applied for EU cohesion funds. The application was based on the upgrade of the Sant'Antnin plant. Studies were not even completed and the application for the "outline development project" was not yet approved. In fact, the Mepa board approved the "outline development" in September 2005.

November 2004: The Minister for the Environment, George Pullicino, in a meeting with the Marsascala local council, instead of consulting them, informed them of the project. Worst still, according to the minutes, he told them "the plant was to be built in Marsascala for sure". This statement was made almost one year before the "outline development application" was approved.

Mr Sant is secretary of the Committee Against the Recycling Plant Proposal.

(To be continued)