Mark Gaffarena, shareholder in the illegal Gaffarena petrol station in Qormi, recently permitted by Mepa to recommence operations, has now applied to build 33 warehouses on ODZ land near Kirkop.

The application was filed for development on a site that was classified as agricultural land until 2012.

It lies on the groundwater protection zone and partly on a listed archaeological buffer zone.

Mr Gaffarena is proposing to seal 5,500 square metres of land with concrete flooring to host the warehouses.

Mepa has exempted the application from an environmental impact assessment because the project description statement filed by the applicant was deemed sufficient.

When Times of Malta called Mr Gaffarena, he said he did not feel he needed to provide any answers or comment on the issue in any way.

The details of the application were highlighted by Friends of the Earth spokesman Edward Mallia during a press conference by six environmental NGOs and experts that lambasted the government’s planning policies, saying they were putting environmental and cultural heritage at risk to favour a handful of developers.

“The Gaffarena cases must be a foretaste of the ‘fast-track treatment’ promised under the new planning rules,” Dr Mallia said.

Protective environmental regulations introduced over time to address Mepa’s failure to deal with abuse were now being treated by the government as “bureaucracy” and being dismantled, said Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar.

The Mepa reform is an exercise in dishonesty

Enforcement under Mepa had never worked, the organisation said, let alone when its duties were being trebled under the proposed policies that were extremely lenient towards developers.

“The Mepa reform is an exercise in dishonesty,” FAA said.

“There is a strong reliance on self-regulation by developers. We know where this took us in the past.”

The Noise Abatement Society made similar criticism of the planning authority, saying that it never enforced noise pollution regulations.

All environmental organisations were extremely critical of the fact that the environment minister had not been consulted on the new ODZ policy, as revealed in an interview with Environment Minister Leo Brincat in The Sunday Times of Malta.

They pointed to abusive planning applications filed since 2001 by the architect of the Mepa reform, consultant Robert Musumeci, saying the priorities in the new planning authority were evident.

When Times of Malta contacted Mr Musumeci for explanations of his recommendations on the Mepa reform, he did not reply to questions.

Alfred Baldacchino, who has a long career in the Environment Directorate, spoke of Mepa’s complete failure to protect the environment: “Despite a new administration, the environment’s wounds have continued to fester.”

While Mepa was rushing through reforms of planning policies, there was no environment director within the authority to counter proposals that were harmful to the environment, he said.

John Portelli of the Malta Organic Agriculture Movement referred to the 8,000 pending enforcement notices, some dating back to the early 1990s, as revealed by Times of Malta.

“The fact that Mepa is weak in environmental protection has to be solved by proper regulations. The point is not whether Mepa will be split, but how strong the environmental protection function will be,” Mr Portelli said.

Environmental NGOs agreed that the one vote on the Mepa planning board to be given to the Environment and Resources Authority is “a joke”.

“The new ERA needs to be given sufficient power, not relegated to being an external consultant.

“As it is, it will only remain an afterthought in planning processes,” Mr Portelli said.

Main objections to proposals

• Re-introduction of outline permits that are legally binding give inalienable rights to developers even when changes in local plans occur;

• Deletion of the Sixth Schedule, which lists developments that cannot be sanctioned, will open the door to abuse in areas of ecological and scientific importance;

• Protection of architectural heritage is undermined by the proposal that it will no longer be possible to protect buildings once a permit is issued;

• The right to reconsider scheduling after 10 years means that no heritage building will ever be safe;

• Warning notices to be issued before stop and enforcement notices will prolong illegalities;

• Recommendations by people consulted are not binding on the planning authority whereas decisions should be based on the sum of advice;

• Daily fines will not stem abuse as amounts are paltry;

• The provision that the Minister can regularise development subjects planning to political expediency;

• The introduction of the fast track procedure undermines the public’s right to consultation.

Source: FAA