Relatives of the five members of the same family who died in a devastating explosion at the Għarb fireworks factory last year have applied to rebuild it but the planning authority deems the proposed project “unacceptable”.
However, a ruling by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal complicates matters.
The application was filed in August and was meant to renew a planning permit issued in 2006 to the Farrugia family, a spokesman for the Malta Environment and Planning Authority confirmed.
“Through a screening letter, the Planning Directorate informed the applicant that the proposed development is unacceptable in principle since the Gozo and Comino local plan policy stipulates there is a general presumption against the construction of new fireworks factories in an area of high landscape sensitivity,” the spokesman said.
The Għarb factory was razed to the ground in September last year on the eve of the Xagħra feast, claiming the lives of six people: owner Nenu Farrugia, 67, his two sons Noel, 31, and Raymond, 32, daughter-in-law Antinette, son-in-law Peter Paul Micallef, 35, and 27-year-old family friend Jean Pierre Azzopardi.
The explosion, which had been the second deadly one in the span of a month, gave rise to an inquiry to investigate the possible causes and a referendum in Għarb where about 60 per cent of residents voted against rebuilding the factory.
The Mepa spokesman explained that the request to renew the building permit was still at screening stage. Also, there was another factor that had to be taken into consideration: a recent decision handed down by the planning authority’s appeals board.
The Farrugias had successfully filed an appeal to remove a condition imposed in the 2006 permit to “insure the chapel of San Dimitri, at their own expense, against the eventuality of damage due to explosion of their fireworks factory”.
The condition laid down that: “The insurance shall be renewed throughout the entire lifetime of the fireworks factory. A copy of renewal of insurance shall be submitted to the planning authority upon each renewal. The insurance shall be in place prior to the commencement of use of the fireworks factory.”
The Mepa spokesman explained that last September, the appeals board upheld the Farrugias’ request and ordered the Planning and Environment Commission to re-issue the permit without the condition related to the insurance of the chapel.
“The original permit expired on August 18. However, the appeals decision implies that a new permit will have to be issued with a new date and with a validity of another five years,” the spokesman said.
If the permit was re-issued for a further five-year term, as ordered by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, “then the new application and what the screening letter says is superfluous,” the spokesman explained.
Mepa was “assessing whether to appeal this decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal”, the spokesman said.