I write on behalf of the Magħtab Residents Association and make reference to the recent approval of permit PA 5926/08 for the construction of a dairy farm and to the subsequent press release published by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, as well as to the letter sent by representatives of the Pig Breeders Cooperative Society Ltd and the Milk Producers Cooperative Ltd (August 12). Many of my clients reside within a 200-metre radius of the proposed farm.

According to the Central Local Plan, the site lies within a Category 2 settlement which, according to the case officer who drew up the report, is to be considered an inhabited area for the purposes of the policy relating to farms. According to Mepa’s own policies, this would automatically disqualify the relocation/construction of the farm to this site, since the relevant policy requires a site to be at a distance of not less than 183 metres from an inhabited area (policy 2.3C para 4(b) of policy entitled Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables (2007)).

Another policy which has been totally ignored is CG24 of the Central Local Plan which deals with sites situated in Areas of Agricultural Value (AAVs), such as this particular one. This policy requires the authority to classify these areas after confirmation of the quality of agricultural land. Pending this classification, the authority’s own policy states clearly that “only uses essential to the needs of arable agriculture” will be permitted. The site has been described by a representative of the Agriculture Department as good quality non-irrigated land used for the production of cereals. This obviously merits further investigation and, in the interim period, the authority should respect its own policies – i.e. not to approve any development which is not associated with arable farming.

In Mepa’s report, it is stated that the applicant justifies his request for relocation since he claims that the farm he is currently making use of in Siġġiewi is a financial burden to him since he is leasing it. He also states that he relocated to Siġġiewi from his father’s farm in Dingli in order to “resanitise by bringing new bovines from Histonia”.

While it is submitted that financial considerations should never impinge on planning decisions for any type of activity, my clients questioned why the applicant chose to put himself in this situation and why he did not “relocate” to his father’s farm, rather than taking up fresh arable land in Magħtab.

Another question relates to whether the Siġġiewi farm and the Dingli farm will continue to be used for this purpose, once the applicant has requested a “relocation”. If this is the case, then this exercise can hardly be termed a relocation.

All these questions were not investigated by Mepa and, when put by my clients to the authority and the commission, were left unanswered.

Another issue which my clients question is the extent of the investigation carried out by the Department of Public Health when consulted by the authority. The department granted its “no objection” subject to conditions, when consulted about the proposed cattle farm, but one questions how this conclusion was arrived at and whether the potential hazards of the proposed activity on the residents was investigated, when the Public Health Act defines a public health risk as “any structure, activity, animal, substance or thing that may contribute to disease in humans or may have adverse effects on human health or prevent and, or, restrict the improvement of public health”.

Great effort seems to have been made by the authority to emphasise that, in this case, it is the residences which are situated close to the farms.

This cannot be further from the truth since the 1967 aerial photographs obtained from Mepa itself show that the residences existed well before the establishment of the farms, and not vice versa. Neither are all these residence converted farmhouses, as Mepa is trying to imply.

The authority’s discussion of the relocation of farms from inhabited or urban areas states that livestock farm located within or adjoining urban areas “present a specific problem as they are likely to have an adverse environmental impact and so are, in general, incompatible with residential uses in particular”.

The authority concludes that “to prevent similar problems in the future, permission will not be given for new livestock farms in or near to inhabited areas” (page 52 of Policy Document entitled Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables). In this case, Mepa has done just the opposite, by approving the relocation of a farm from an uninhabited area to an inhabited one, without justifying this decision and without even bothering to await the outcome of the appeal filed by clients following the approval of the outline permit for the same site.

My clients obviously reserve all their rights vis-à-vis the authorities connected with this permit/proposed activity.