The Malta Environment and Planning Authority refers to a report that appeared on September 23 under the header ‘Batching plant plan for protected area’.
The report carries misleading information through a number of erroneous conclusions.
The fact is that the descheduling of a disturbed area ofland adjacent to a large quarry in Siġġiewi is not linked in any way to the planning application for a batching plant within a quarry site.
The authority would like to also clarify and point out that:
It is incorrect to link a planning application (PA2057/08) for a batching plant with the recent part descheduling of an area of land which in 1996 had been earmarked as a Level 3 buffer zone to the coastal cliffs.
The two sites, which are within a densely occupied quarry area, are not only approximately 400m apart but have no bearing on one another (see aerial site map).
The level 3 scheduling that had been activated in 1996 along most of the north west coastal cliffs was created as a buffer zone for the protection of the Level 2 protection area for the ecology of the coastal cliffs and not for any archaeological features within the area.
The Class A archaeological buffer zone, which is located north of the quarry and over 400 metres away, is not affected in anyway by this descheduling.
The report is also completely misleading when trying to give the impression that the entire buffer zone area has been descheduled, which in turn will compromise the protection ofthe coastal cliffs.
The Mepa board only approved an area within the level 3 buffer zone which, following scientific studies, had been significantly disturbed prior to the scheduling coming into force.
The report also incorrectly states that Mepa was to hear the applicant’s appeal for the authority to reconsider the decision it had taken in February 2011 whereby the application had been refused.
The appeal (PAB 00189/11) being made by the applicant is not being heard and decided upon by any commission or board within Mepa but is and can only be evaluated and considered by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal which is independent of and not accountable to Mepa.
Editor’s note:
The report in question stated that “part of the extensive site was descheduled”. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it was misleading and nor can it be said that it was trying to create any impression other than provide readers with the facts. While Mepa insists the descheduling is not linked in any way to the planning application, the report pointed out, for the record, that the site plan submitted for the batching plant’s application also included the descheduled area.