The Planning Authority has filed a court appeal to reinstate its decision to strip part of the Għar il-Kbir buffer zone in Siġġiewi of scheduled status, insisting it has no obligation of consultation on de-scheduling decisions.
On March 30, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal annulled a 2015 PA decision to remove the scheduling of an area of land in the limits of Siġġiewi, on the basis that the local council had not been consulted.
The area, targeted by developers for the extension of a nearby quarry, formed part of a scheduled area of archaeological importance, ix-Xagħra ta’ Għar il-Kbir, a Class A archaeological site. Caves there were occupied by a community of troglodytes until the early British period.
The appeal was brought by the Siġġiewi local council and Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar.
However, the PA has now filed its own appeal against the tribunal’s decision in front of the Court of Appeal.
In the appeal, the PA argues that the law requires only the publication of final decisions in cases of de-scheduling, and therefore “excludes any form of external consultation during the decision-making process”.
The PA claims that the tribunal’s decision introduced a new procedural requirement – external consultation – which was beyond its authority.
The Planning Authority also claimed that the tribunal had ignored its arguments over whether the local council and FAA had the legal standing to appeal its original decision.
The appeals tribunal had ruled that although the law did not explicitly provide for public consultation on de-scheduling requests, the PA nevertheless had an obligation to inform the public since scheduled sites were published and in the public domain.
The tribunal also noted that the PA had been in contact with the applicant during the process and should, therefore, have extended the consultation to anyone with an interest in the case, including the local council and eNGOs.
The PA in turn had argued that the planning concerns highlighted by the council and FAA had been exhaustively considered throughout the process and its decision to de-schedule the land had been guided by scientific studies.
The authority had claimed that by the time the land was scheduled in 1996, it “had already been disturbed by mineral excavations and certain natural heritage features had been destroyed irreversibly”.
The case is still the subject of two separate ongoing appeals by the applicant: one seeking the extension of the de-scheduled area, and another against the refusal of the original development application.