
Thursday, 10th April 2008 - 12:48CET
Updated: Residents fume as Mepa approves controversial pig farm
(Adds Mepa statement)
A group of 10 residents of Maghtab walked out of a Mepa boardroom in disgust this morning, saying they had been treated worse than pigs, after the authority's board approved development of a pig farm just 20 metres from their homes.
The farm, for 80 pigs, was approved despite a Mepa policy which lays down that pig farms cannot be closer than 200 metres from an inhabited area.
The case officer explained that both the Criminal Code and Mepa's own internal policies define an inhabitedarea as having at least 100 people. Since this group of houses did not have 100 residents, a pig farm could be located practically in their back yard, the residents were told.
Furthermore, since a policy of the Veterinary Department establishes that for health reasons, pig farms have to be separated by at least 100 metres, the new pig farm had to be moved closer to the residences than would otherwise have been needed, because of the presence of another pig farm near by.
"We would have been better off being pigs" a resident shouted during the meeting.
The residents also pointed out that there were other areas in Maghtab which could be used to house the pigs, notably abandoned former animal farms.
Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja said Mepa could not go against established policies.
The residents walked out of the room in disgust after calling for common sense.
Mepa in a statement this afternoon said the outline permit was issued in accordance with all planning policies and regulations.
"This permit carries with it a number of conditions including a restrain on future expansion. The permitted development will be adjacent to another 10 operational farms," the authority said.
"For this application the planning directorate carried out the necessary consultation, as stipulated by law, with the Department of Public Health, Department of Agriculture, Department of Veterinary Services and the Malta Resources Authority which found no objection to this development.
"The development is situated in a rural area close to a number of other operational farms."
The authority said there were another 10 farms close-by.




RSS
Comments
How about Mr Calleja does the right thing for Once ! And use Common Sense !!
They shouldn't allow pig farms in agricultural land. Such areas are only fit for villas with pools...for the few.
MEPA will not permit proposed development which, in its opinion, would cause an unacceptable conflict with adjacent legitimate activities. *Amenity The term ‘amenity’ refers to the “pleasantness of the surroundings” (source: Peter Collin Publishing, 1995, Dictionary of ecology and environment, 3rd ed.).
Normally, the amenity of an area is determined by various interrelated natural/man-made features and factors (e.g. the quality of the scenery, traditional rural features, quietness, pleasant facades, presence of trees, etc.) within a particular place, thereby making the surroundings and the environment pleasant for the people. ** Dwelling: Also referred to as ‘dwelling unit’. A self contained building which was constructed for habitation purposes and usually accommodates a single household. The terms ‘farm dwelling’, ‘dwelling for a livestock breeder/farmer’, ‘proposed dwelling’ and ‘farmhouse’ refer to a dwelling where a farmer lives. Source: Policy and Design Guidance AGRICULTURE, FARM DIVERSIFICATION AND STABLES - APPROVED DOCUMENT December 2007
Are we, residents of ODZ anything less than the rest of Maltese citizens? Do we not enjoy the same rights and freedom as the rest of all citizens?
Then I suggest to these people to visit a pig farm and imagine being there 24x7x356 days. Smells, noise, dirt, parasites, etc.
If MEPA board thinks that this is OK to us inferiors to live in such a state, then I would not like to imagine the state they keep their houses and families in..... maybe worse than a pig sty?
As a matter of fact an alternative site was identified (PA 08228/06)and is right next the the applicant's recently aquired farm(ex-MGP - PA02631-06) .
This farm was confirmed to be for sale complete with the Pig Slater Quota (26 pig heads/month)and livestock included and is double the size of the plot of land on which the permit has been granted.
But.... they expected the residents to pay the hefty asking price of circa Lm 200,000.
By the way this is Goverment owned land as well!
Once again, I would like to emphasize that all the recidences have been there between 300 years and 80 years, whilst the animal farms have ALL been constructed after 1990s.
MEPA 1967 aerial surveys confirm this.
John Kenneth Galbraith
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best.
Will Rogers
Man is a credulous animal, and most beleive something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
Bertrand Russel
The difference is that in Malta a big to do is raised about an 80 pig farm!
Here, the operation would probably be for an 8000 pig farm and yes, even if Canada is a million times larger than Malta, these problems still arise. Malta's size is a larger problem because distance to inhabited areas is much smaller. So, do away with farms? If these few homes were recently built apparently in the shadow of Mghatab, surely the owners were coping with the odours emanating from the dump but find a problem with 80 pigs.
I have some empathy for the turn of events for the residents but their selection of a site for their new homes should have been researched a bit better.
Some of these Maltese(!) -who are delighted that Malta is governed by the P.N. but prefer to reside abroad- have acquired such a superiority complex, that they feel competent to give us, locals, lessons on everything that passes their mind particularly who ought to govern Malta and on how to govern it .
These individuals probably do not contribute a dime to Malta’s exchequer hence they ought not to try to interfere in local politics.
Let them write to local papers; they may be ignored but help to fill the pages and entertain us.
But is it not pertinent that only those who pay local income tax ought to have a right to vote in Malta’s elections? Others who do not contribute to the local exchequer have no right to interfere by their vote on who should impose taxes in Malta.
It is suggested for MEPA to review and update their policies and refer to sites as the one stated below before going one step further in this development.
Mepa Policies should and must be updated according to research regarding environmental hazards to humans irrespective of where they might come from.
Below is the website from which i extracted parts regarding 'Hazards from pig fattening farms'.
A lot more information exists on this topic which if looked into prior to the decsion being taken would have surely had MEPA officers think twice .
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-111200672.html
EXTRACT
'Pig-house dust originates from feed, bedding, feces, and the animals themselves.
If the animals receive drugs such as antibiotics, residues of these substances may occur in manure, in the air, or on surfaces of the respective animal house.
In a retrospective study, we investigated dust samples collected during two decades from the same piggery for the occurrence of various antibiotics.
In 90% of these samples, we detected up to five different antibiotics, including tylosin, various tetracyclines, sulfamethazine, and chloramphenicol, in total amounts up to 12.5 mg/kg dust. High dust exposure in animal confinement buildings is believed to be a respiratory health hazard because of the high content of microorganisms, endotoxins, and allergens.
Further risks may arise from the inhalation of dust contaminated with a cocktail of antibiotics. Apart from that, our data provide first evidence for a new route of entry for veterinary drugs in the environment'
'Large-scale pig production represents a considerable source of dust (Hartung 1997, 1998; Pedersen et al. 2000). This results both in high dust exposure for farmers and farm workers in animal confinement buildings, causing respiratory health hazards (Iversen et al. 2000; Nowak 1998; Platz et al. 1995; Radon et al. 2002), and in emissions of dust particles into the environment by way of the exhaust ventilation air (Hartung 1995; Seedorf and Hartung 2002). About 85% of the dust from animal confinement buildings consists of organic material, including protein (from pig skin), animal feed, endotoxins, fungi, and bacteria (concentrations of up to 50 million colony-forming units per gram of dust) (Hartung 1997).
All animal farms in the Maltese islands should be investigated and studies should be carried out combined with research to see if in this day and age they can still remain where they are.
We have old animal farms which have become a burden and need to be relocated in areas where they do not pose hazards of any kind to humans living in the vicinity.
Besides, it is pointless speculating on what would have happened had the MLP been in government. It is not.
The MEPA motto says "ghall-bniedem u ghall-ambjent"
Three Oinks to MEPA for that.
I would never allow a pig farm within 20 meters of a residential area, regardless of the amount of people living there and regardless of their political beliefs!
Did you suggest to mepa any new location for the pig farm like say Bidnija.Of course away from someone particular residence!
Would such a situation be allowed to happen in Canada Mr Martinelli?
I also suggest that the owners of the houses take up the matter in Court and if need be to the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights and in the meantime hold the MEPA persons who are taking the decisions personally responsible for any damages and expenses that they may incur.
After all, the MEPA boards are not constituted by abstract persons and the law in Malta clearly states that every person is responsible for his/her actions.
Stand up for your rights and start suing to protect them.
As for Joe Martinelli's question regarding MEPA reform, I believe that many people and even NGOs have provided ample lists of actions which need to be taken to fix the miserable and contentious situation of development in Malta.
My first and immediate suggestion - as posted elsewhere in this site - is for MEPA not to accept applications on ODZ or otherwise protected land since this is creating most of the problems:
Either land is protected or it is not and I cannot understand how MEPA's DCC or Board can overturn ODZs when these were so designated by Cabinet / Parliament.
There other areas of concern such as the inanity of Planning Appeals - in instances where the DCC Boards grant permits despite Case Officers and Planning Directorate (and other entities) recommend for a refusal of the issuing of a permit and then MEPA has to stand in (and not the DCC Boards) to justify the DCC's decision.
But worse of all, in my opinion, is the sheer lack of consideration for third party rights: It is not enough to place clauses such as 'saving third party rights' on permits. People have died because of cowboy construction practices and no apparent action was taken.
Where shall it end?
Perhaps the residents and/or the owners of the houses concerned, the promoter of the pig farm, and the appropriate MEPA officials could meet in an informal private meeting and try to find a win-win solution. Public meetings are not conducive to finding the right solution. Public meetings should be the last stage to inform the community that everything is being done above board and to consider any other implications that might have not been considered in an earlier stage.
Why can't the authorities and the people concerned begin to look for integrative solutions instead of negative zero-sum outcomes?
1 It is correct to state that the MEPA Chairman stated so, but in the evaluation process the Chairman led the discussion into the conclusion by ignoring the new policy document.
2 The "MEPA Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables - Policy and Design Guilines" approved only last December 2007 by the Hon Minister George Pullicino, clearly states that :
"POLICY 1.3B: AMENITY
In considering applications for development permission, the Authority will seek to protect the amenity of the surrounding areas, particularly any nearby dwellings and/or public open space. MEPA will not permit proposed development which, in its opinion, would cause an unacceptable conflict with adjacent legitimate activities."
The Residential homes are ALL legally built and long before the existance of any animal farms in the vicinity. MEPA surveys evidently show this.
3 POLICY 2.3C: NEW OR RELOCATED LIVESTOCK FARMS:
(4) the proposed development is not located within:
(b) a distance of 183 metres from an inhabited area or an area which is intended for residential, residential institutions, hotels, education, assembly or leisure buildings, or tourism development, as specified in the Animal Welfare Act (2002), or any subsequent amendment thereof;
I can state several other policies which have been infringed by granting of this permit and we, the residents will be taking all necessary action to protect our home and families.
This approved PIG farm, is literally behind citizens’ established residences, clearly creating a health hazard and violating our fundamental human right to the enjoyment of our property. This outline permit violates established planning policies, and is therefore in violation of Article 33 of the Development Planning Act, and should not be allowed under any circumstance.
The MEPA DCC board when conducting a site inspection, noted that they found this development as highly objectionable but this fact was shoved aside today. Basically, PIGS have more rights than Maltese Citizens.
Thank you MEPA, you have just ruined the lives of three Maltese Families.
It seems to me that the houses are there now... while the pig farm is a proposed project...so the houses existed before the farm. Now what? The farm should not be developed? And what about other controversial projects? One that comes to mind is the Recycling plant, where this was developed within a few tens of metres from inhabited areas and the houses were there much before the plant existed....no compensation was given to residents for their property's devaluation and all the inconveniences associated with the plant!
"Had you the responsibility of MEPA reform, where would you start?"
my reply is simple:-
Close it; The same way the government is considering to close the drydock - he should close MEPA and start all over again. It is underachieving and scandalous - so should be closed.
This state of affairs is unacceptable. Development applications stirring up controversy and objections exist should be put on the back burner until, at least, the reform starts taking shape.
In this sense, the Prime Minister must set clear timeframes for MEPA reform.
Mepa Chairman should have granted the permit on condition that these residents are adequately compensated for the devaluation and degrading of their property.
Would Mr Andrew Calleja abided by the ploicies if the pig farm was to be at his backyard?
Had you the responsibility of MEPA reform, where would you start? To suit the few residents and deny the pig farm permit would be 'business as usual' would it not? This is not business as usual but a starting point. Unfortunately if it does not suit the residents, it is the policy that has to change - blaming MEPA or the PM is just a cop out or a politically biased ploy.
The second question is: Who was there first, the pig farm or the houses? If it was the pig farm, then the homes were built there without much foresight and whoever built there took a risk of finding themselves in the situation they find themselves in now.
Reforming MEPA and its policies cannot be accomplished in a couple of weeks, unless of course, the complainers themselves have better, faster ideas which will work to everybody's satisfaction.
I believe it is quite a remarkable achievement for MEPA's Chairman to now start referring to established policies and I have a feeling this statement may as yet be used over and over again to haunt MEPA in the immediate future.
I think common sense - and fairness - should dictate that if pig farms (a) cannot be located 200m from inhabited areas of over 100 people and (b) cannot be located within 100m of other pig farms, I think there is merit in consider 20m as being an unfair and risky distance from the residences of current inhabitants. - be they 100 or less.
This is yet another pot-hole served to our PM's road to rebuilding MEPA.
I humbly ask did MEPA go against established policies when someone was given a permit to build a supermarket in Kirkop? Again did MEPA go against established policies when some one else was awarded a permit to build a night club/discoteque in Mistra?!...Once again did MEPA go against established policies when another person was warded a permit to build 4 villas with pools instead of his pig farm in Safi?
Mr. Andrew Calleja I would be very happy if you were to kindly reply to my questions.