Mepa's Peter Gingell (April 15) makes some valid points about Mepa's new-found obligation to stick to regulations, but fails to justify why a pig farm should share a common wall with family homes. Mr Gingell confirms that Mepa's decision "strictly adheres to the policies and regulations of this area".
However he still fails to acknowledge the fact that Mepa's Agricultural, Farm Diversification and Stables Approved Document clearly states in 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.
"Mepa will not permit proposed development which, in its opinion, would cause an unacceptable conflict with adjacent legitimate activities." Furthermore, Policy 1.3D on Protection of Landscape Features (soil conservation) and Policy 2.3C regarding new or relocated livestock farms have all been violated with the granting of this outline permit.
What is the use of approving policy and guidance documents if these are ignored or used according to whim?
In painting a picture of residents intruding on farmland, Mr Gingell also gives a misleading impression that these are mostly livestock farms, whereas in fact it is predominantly arable agriculture that is practised in Magħtab, therefore it is the large farm building that would be the encroacher on fertile arable land. Talk of "Mepa's difficult role in finding a delicate balance between development and its negative impact" might be credible if it were not for the fact that alternatives are available. This reluctance to force developers to look at alternative solutions is Mepa's major shortcoming, accepting to consider applications wherever a developer finds cheap land. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the countryside is under attack, arable land being much cheaper than land within the building scheme.
In this case, the pig breeder in question did find an alternative in one of the many abandoned farms littering the area, farms which are at present being used as scrapyards or requesting permits to be converted to "mini-industries" like panel-beaters, instead of fulfilling their original function as animal farms. Such an option is more expensive than buying arable land.
According to the Development Planning Act, Mepa is authorised to carry out mediation between developers and residents, but a mediator was never appointed. It seems to be far easier to appease developers than to defend residents' rights.
On a final note, why did Mepa depict the "Approved Pig Farm" as a small blue blob on the map printed with the article, when the whole footprint of the development should have been shown? More significantly still, the fields to be destroyed are government land.
One asks whether these have already been sold to the developer at a pittance, or whether the developer simply compensated the farmer who previously worked the land. If he has purchased the land from the government, were the correct public tender proceedings adhered to? We would also like to hear from the Lands Department what policies are being followed as regards protection of arable land and whether sustainability criteria are being taken into account in the disposal of the public's land.
Maybe Mr Gingell would like to enlighten us on all of the foregoing issues?