An environment tribunal has thrown out a request by Bidnija residents to revoke an outline permit for a winery on grounds of false information, saying all the information had been provided to the planning authority.
The outline permit, approved by an appeals board in 2011, allows part-time farmer Stephen Galea, who has 41 tumoli of vineyards under cultivation, to develop some farmland into a two-storey winery below street level off Il-Milord Street.
Residents Maurice Mizzi, Stefano Mallia and Omar Schembri demanded the permit’s withdrawal, under Article 77 of the Planning Act, claiming that it was based on wrong information and went against established planning policies.
They argued before the tribunal that the building would be outside the development zone and would involve the uprooting of protected trees.
They also maintained that the development had to be within a 500-metre radius of the vineyards. In submitting that the application was in line with planning policies, Mr Galea had provided wrong information. The outline permit contravened these policies, the objectors held.
In its counter arguments, the planning authority pointed out that the planning directorate had previously raised the issue of the proposed winery not falling within the 500-metre radius of the vineyards.
Both the planning directorate and the appeals board had been aware of this and, even though there was a recommendation to refuse, the outline permit had been granted by the board.
The only way that the decision taken by the appeals board could have been contested was through the courts, the authority added.
In its decision, the planning tribunal said that the residents’ request to appeal was legal. It also pointed out that none of the documentation submitted by the winery owner stated that the land was in the 500-metre buffer zone – even in the plans submitted for the full development application.
Both the directorate and the planning board were aware of these facts and all the documentation was available.
In fact, the directorate itself had indicated to the appeals board that the policies were being breached but the board was “of the belief that the permit should still be issued”.
There was no breach of Article 77, the tribunal ruled.
The appeals board had reached its conclusion after examining all that was requested by law, and after looking into the policies and the site. No new facts had emerged.
“One might not have agreed with the appeal board’s arguments and filed a specific appeal in the law courts,” it said.
The issue has still not been resolved, however.
Mr Galea applied for a full development permit last year and the planning authority was presented with a petition, signed by 30 residents of the hamlet, aimed at stopping it. The application is still pending.