A developer who insists he has the “right” to a permit for a winery in Bidnija is holding planning authority board members personally responsible for loss of EU funds, a move objectors deem to be an attempt at intimidation.
The proposed winery lies in an ODZ area and is linked to the controversial allocation of €150,000 in EU agricultural funds four days before the 2013 election, The Sunday Times of Malta reported in July.
Those eligible for the funds had to have all necessary permits but Stephen Galea’s application had been accepted only on the basis of an outline permit. In the week following the newspaper’s report, the grant was cancelled.
In an appeal against the Mepa board’s decision, the developer argued that the outline permit gave him “a vested right” for a full development permit.
The application continues to face strong opposition from residents.
In a 2011 decision, the Planning Appeals Board had overturned a decision to refuse the permit.
It ordered the issue of an outline permit on condition that the development would be limited to a winery that would not be used as a residence. It also imposed a €10,000 bank guarantee for landscaping.
What’s the point of winning an appeal if the decision is then overturned?
Mr Galea told Times of Malta: “I had won the appeal and deposited €10,000 as a guarantee, which they’ve had for the last four years. I can’t understand how the board could then refuse the permit again a few days before the European Parliament elections. This is unheard of. What’s the point of winning an appeal if the decision is then overturned?”
The permit was refused in June for two main reasons: the proposal did not follow policy guidelines and it did not conform to the conditions imposed in the outline development permit granted.
The environment and planning review tribunal is today expected to consider Mr Galea’s appeal and a counter appeal by Bidnija residents.
In this counter appeal, objectors submitted that Mr Galea’s argument that he would hold Mepa board members personally responsible for loss of funds was an attempt at intimidation.
They noted that the developer had requested a permit for a production facility on virgin land.
Despite the outline development permit, the developer was still obliged to meet the conditions imposed and to observe planning policies, the residents said.
One of them, Maurice Mizzi, told Times of Malta residents are anxious to see the matter settled once and for all.
“Mepa has shown a lot of good sense and courage in refusing this proposed development twice. It is incredible how an outline permit was given since the street is just wide enough for one car,” Mr Mizzi said.
“Cars have to wait at one end of the street for another car coming from the other end to pass first. The winery trucks will block the only road to my home and other homes.”
Another resident, Omar Schembri, described the outline permit as “a huge and strange mistake” he hoped would not be repeated: “The proposed wine factory will be in the middle of a residential area with homes on either side and will stand instead of a mature carob tree that is over a century old.”
The development does not conform to the revised ODZ policy, which refers to new wineries, stating they should be located on planted and established vineyard holdings.
Mr Galea’s fields are not vineyards at present.