Ramblers take Bahrija development case to court

Joseph V. Grech

Jan 26th 2010, 23:59

Ramblers are doing the right thing. They should consider putting this case in foreign newspapers and (if possible) objecting with the E.U.
This case shows how inefficient Mepa is. Prime minister Gonzi's inaction is scandalous.
As for the contribution by George Cutajar , implying that such a scandalous ''development'' is OK simply because it has a ''valid Mepa permit'' does not convince: we all know how many illogical and harmful permits were obtained over the years.
It is such a pity that Victor Scerri decided to build a residence at this precise spot! Simply barbaric!

Joseph Calleja

Jan 26th 2010, 19:00

In all fairness, I think that since there is a judicial protest against Mepa calling on it to stop work on Victor Scerri's property in Bahrija, the court is obliged to stop all work at this property till the court decides what is right or wrong. This should have been done a long time ago, ever since the first protest was made. Dr Scerri and The NGO have to abide by the court's decision, in the meantime stop the work and wait for the courts outcome.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Jan 26th 2010, 18:34

@ G.Pisani
I don't know what Joseph Muscat has in his mind but if the accusations of illegality are founded and ignored by the property owner with the blessing of Mepa and the Government,then the new administration would be an accessory to the illegal act if it does nothing about it.

George Cutajar

Jan 26th 2010, 18:30

The Ramblers seem to ramble on and on labouring under the impression that they will stop this development or get MEPA to stop it. The works are being carried out under a valid MEPA and any objections to it should have been filed many moons ago - that is when the application was filed.
I think it is about time that we put our hands on our heart and be honest with oneself - don't we all wish that Victor Scerri's land, permit and all belonged to us. And if that was so would we not be doing the same?
The Rambler's seem to put forward a totalitarian concept of land ownership but that is not on in this day and age. Do they expect to ramble on private land if this happens to be i the countryside and privately owned?
Anyway I am convinced that once Victor Scerri's development is finished there will be no scars left on the land and all will be rehabilitated.

G.Pisani

Jan 26th 2010, 16:39

Victor Scerri should hurry up his works before the elections came up as I think Joseph Muscat is ready with his bulldozer to take this thing down once he is PM.

J Brownie

Jan 26th 2010, 16:35

What a scar in this pristine patch - my heart cries at our inability to value what really matters not for the distruction per se . All Europe is racing to conserve its natural habitat and we are hell-bent to destruct the little we have – we are simply impoverishing ourselves

John M. Grima

Jan 26th 2010, 16:05

What a shame! Of all the rocky, wasteland areas of Bahrija, why would anyone be PERMITTED to build a modern dwelling in such a beautiful, fertile, pristine area?
OK this new building IS replacing another. However, the previous dwelling was a farm house, with one used bedroom/kitcheon upstars and the downstairs three rooms were used to house a cow, a mule and the other used for hay.
The Government should purchase the land from the Scerri family and keep it for farming. After all, this particular area has been used for farming for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Anthony Mizzi

Jan 26th 2010, 15:57

Well done Ramblers

Thanks to you, future Maltese generations may enjoy the last remaining countryside. You are just doing what the country's administration with its law enforcing powers is failing continuously to do.

One just cannot blame MEPA anymore even if the blame is being shifted by the Gonzi administration to the Monster that was in turn created by Gonzi and the P.N. in Governement.

MEPA is just like a hand puppet in a Punch and Judy show and we all know who the PUPETEER is even if we only see the puppets he manipulates.

Doesn't one ever feel a twinge when he was elected with billboards full of green pastures?

J. Borg

Jan 26th 2010, 15:50

How much is MEPA costing the taxpayer?

Taxpayers should reduce the tax they pay - and support NGOs instead in all the legal expenses and more it is incurring.

Dr. Gonzi - since you are PM and responsible for MEPA - wake up pls!

Dr. Muscat - sweet dreams - any chance of some effective pressure - to save this unique location!

J.Bonnici

Jan 26th 2010, 15:47

Keep up the pressure Ramblers. Sooner or later the government will have to do something to save face.

M Saliba

Jan 26th 2010, 15:40

How could it be possible that the permits were issued? Can Mepa justify its position? Who was the architect who applied for the permits?

savior cordina

Jan 26th 2010, 14:39

This association should have the backing of all maltese of good will for doing the work of mepa which is strong with the weak and weak with the strong.

lgalea

Jan 26th 2010, 14:27

3.
Have a look at
1. Case C-226/08
2. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (OJ L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ L 363, p. 368).

lgalea

Jan 26th 2010, 14:25

2.
and definition of sites to be proposed to the Commission as SCIs without jeopardising the achievement of the objective of ecological interest at EU level.

In the Commission v Ireland ruling (C-427/07), the ECJ recalled that, at the time of classification of a site in a protected area, a member state cannot take into account economic requirements to the extent that they respond to imperative reasons of overriding public interest, neither can it enact national rules, which would generally render it exempt from the obligation to carry out an impact assessment on the site of management projects that are not directly linked to, or necessary for, management of the site but are likely to affect it in a “significant manner” (Greenpeace France and Others ruling, C-6/99).

More specifically, in the Commission v Luxembourg ruling (C-174/01), the ECJ considered that member states are obliged to provide, in their national law, adequate modalities for information on compensatory measures adopted in the event of realizing a project that could pose a risk to the environment, in order to allow the Commission to examine whether the said measures are likely to guarantee global coherence of Natura 2000.

lgalea

Jan 26th 2010, 14:22

In 2004, the ECJ considered that a plan or project likely to affect a protected site in a significant manner may not be authorized without prior assessment of its environmental impact. It decided that as the Habitats Directive does not define the notions of ‘plan’ and ‘project’, it is appropriate to refer to Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment with a view to clarifying the notion of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ (Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging ruling, C 127/02 and Dragaggi and Others ruling, C 117/03).

In 2006, the ECJ recalled that, from the moment a site is included in a national list transmitted to the Commission with a view to its inclusion in the SCI list, it must be exempt from any intervention likely to compromise its ecological nature (Bund Naturschutz in Bayern and Others ruling, C 244/05).

Furthermore, in its Linster ruling (C-287/98), The ECJ specified that the Habitats Directive (92/43 at the time) must be interpreted in the sense that a member state cannot take into account economic, social and cultural requirements, as well as regional and local characteristics, at the time of the selection

J Magro

Jan 26th 2010, 13:48

When is the book about this Saga coming out?

Charles J. Buttigieg

Jan 26th 2010, 13:19

The building looks like a nuclear shelter to me.

P.Cassar

Jan 26th 2010, 13:15

BUT IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE TO SEE THIS RAPE OF ONE OF THE FEW NATURAL VALLEYS AND REMAIN AT PEACE WITH ONESELF.
WORSE THAN THIS YOU FIND SOME (ESPECIALLY PN BLOGGERS) WHO AGREE WITH MEPA AND ALL THIS DESTRUCTION . POOR MALTA.