Mosta valley project ‘within development zone’
The planning authority yesterday defended its decision to grant a permit for the development of apartments and garages in the Mosta valley, saying the area was within the development zone.
NGOs and Mosta residents on Thursday protested against the building of 26 apartments and garages in Wied il-Għasel but the Malta Environment and Planning Authority said it had acted within the parameters of the law.
It said that, in 2004, it granted an outline development permit to demolish an existing dwelling and build an old people’s home, which included a considerable area outside the development zone.
At the time, Mepa insisted the development would only be permitted within the development boundaries. Eventually, an outline permit was issued for deve-lopment on the same site, within development schemes.
It said that although the outline development permit was issued for an old people’s home and the full development permit was granted for the construction of apartments, both uses were acceptable within development boundaries.
Mepa said the NGOs were wrong to assume its decision threatened the girna on site. Moreover, permit conditions included a €50,000 bank guarantee and a condition to restore the girna.
The regulator decision is subject to an appeal pending before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, which is completely independent of Mepa.
“It is pertinent to note that under the provisions of the Development Planning Act, most of which have been repealed, a third-party appeal does not suspend the execution of a development permit,” it said.
It added: “Under the provisions of the new Environment and Development Planning Act, in case of an appeal involving a site that lies in ODZ or in a protected area, in a case of a scheduled property (level 1 or 2), in a property where there is archaeology or in cases of demolition of facades in UCA, the execution of a development permit is suspended pending such an appeal.”
It pointed out that this particular case was determined much before the new legislative and administrative procedures came into force.
It welcomed active participation by residents and NGOs and said it listened to their concerns.
“However, Mepa is an institution that is mandated to act within the parameters of existing laws and policies and in this case it has acted entirely within these parameters,” it said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
JL Abdilla
Jul 2nd 2011, 15:06
Anyone want to check out the real line of development where it is protected just go to this site....http://www.mepa.org.mt/cmlp-docs read he intro and then click on view on MOM7 Mosta. This is what the intro states...
Central Malta Local Plan Documents
The Central Malta Local Plan is one of Seven for the Maltese Islands. Local Plans set a framework to base decisions on land use and development over the next ten years. Decisions on the use and development of land clearly affect all members of the community including residents, businesses and visitors.
The main purpose of the plan is to provide a land use strategy that balances environmental, economic and social issues.
The Plan includes protective policies to safeguard the area’s remaining open spaces and historic buildings but also highlights opportunities for development.
The plan will be implemented by both Government and the Private Sector.
The local plan was approved by the MEPA board on 11th July 2006 and endorsed by the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment on 03rd August 2006.
Especially the last paragraph.
Mr James Tyrrell
Jul 2nd 2011, 12:58
I would like to ask a very simple question of MEPA which of course I know they won't answer as they don't have an answer. The question is, with 76,000 empty housing units as things stand at the moment what justification can MEPA give for allowing the destruction of another of Malta's valleys in order to end up with 26 apartments and garages? This is nothing more than development for the sake of development. What are these developers going to do once they run out of virgin land to destroy?
MEPA has long ago outlived its usefulness if it ever actually had any. It is obvious to a blind man that one authority cannot be responsible for both planning and environmental protection. These two need to be totally separated with a new authority dealing with the legal side of planning applications and nothing else. Once the legal part has been put to bed the application should be passed to the environmental protection authority who should have the final say in whether or not a development gets permission to proceed. This environmental authority should be made up of NGO members with no ties whatsoever to Government and their decision should be final with none of the present appeal processes where the developer is allowed to continue his environmental rape during the appeal.
MEPA says it welcomed active participation by residents and NGOs and said it listened to their concerns. The point they don't seem to grasp is that if they were doing their job properly there would be no need for NGO's and the residents wouldn't have any concerns!
JL Abdilla
Jul 2nd 2011, 11:49
What Mepa failed to mention about the Girna is that the developer had not mentioned the girna in his application and that should be reason for the permit to be revoked and NOT ask for a bank guarantee of 50000 euros and restoration AFTER the girna was brought to their attention by the NGOs and the residents and the condition included after the permit was already issued....Looks clear Mepa is going for the money and not in adhering to its policies. Two weights two measures. Just like the application not being placed in the proper site in the first application and again the removal of the second application. Why was it not revoked as it did with others mentioned by the same developer`s architect in and article in March 2009.
Mepa is saying it is listening to the residents concerns, lets see and her is their own statement...
"In this regard, one has to mention that the way the proposal was restrained within development zone will also manage to screen a considerable stretch of less attractive back elevations."
May I ask why did Mepa propose the withdrawal of the line of development to protect the Valley which proposal ended up with MOM7 coming into effect in 2006. The second application for flats and garages was in 2005 where it was rightly refused TWICE and lo and behold in 2009 this permit was granted when the line of development was pushed back to protect the valley but still the permit granted was given also OUTSIDE this same line. This is just what the developlment is going to be with a balcony hanging right over the valley ridge. So Mepa put your act together and decide if you want to PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT OR DESTROY. ONCE LOST YOU ARE TO BLAME.
Astrid Vella
Jul 2nd 2011, 10:17
"Mepa said that the NGOs were wrong to assume that its decision put a girna on site under threat.
The conditions of Mepa development permit stipulate a bank guarantee of €50,000 and require the developer to restore the girna" - like its the first time that a protected heritage feature fell 'accidentally' - would MEPA like a list of such incidents in case it doesn't have one of its own?
"The way the proposal was restrained within development zone will also manage to screen a considerable stretch of less attractive back elevations." This is the second time we're seeing this hollow pretext being used to defend an abusive permit. Is it a sign of things to come? Does MEPA realise that if we're going to start building to hide ugly back elevations we will increase our existing empty housing stock of 76,000 units by as much as 50%?
In all this long piece, why has MEPA not found the time to mention the matter of the missing site notices? The Outline Development Application was posted on a different building, and the Full Development Application was removed very soon after it was posted, as confirmed by an affidavit signed by 26 neighbours. Since this had caused the revocation of a permit in Lija in 2009 why not here? A case of two weights two measures?
Why is MEPA now allowing the destruction of protected old dry stone walls when it blocked this destruction two years ago, causing the project to stop? Why is MEPA not issuing an Emergency Conservation Order.
No amount of legalistic arguments will convince us that if it wanted to, MEPA could stop this destruction that it was set up to prevent. Irrespective of the fact that this permit passed before MEPA Reform, its shadow is going to hang heavily over the MEPA of today.
A speedy solution must be found if MEPA wants to avoid its name being forever associated with the destruction of one of Malta’s most beautiful valleys.