A “landmark” decision against the partial de-scheduling of the Għar il-Kbir buffer zone must lead to legal changes in favour of more transparency, according to the Siġġiewi local council's architect.
On Thursday, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal annulled a 2015 Planning Authority decision to remove the scheduling of an area of land in the limits of the locality 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 site. Caves there were occupied by a community of troglodytes until the early British period.
Architect Carmel Cacopardo, who represented the local council and Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar in a joint appeal, told Times of Malta the tribunal’s decision would necessitate a change in law to ensure that the planning watchdog could no longer make such decisions behind closed doors.
Former Siġġiewi mayor Karol Aquilina, now a Nationalist MP, said: “This decision makes it clear that the de-scheduling process cannot remain secret. The PA has an obligation to conduct public consultations, including with the local council.”
The council also welcomed the decision, which mayor Alessia Psaila Zammit said was in the interests of the environment and underscored the important role of local councils.
In its decision, the appeals tribunal 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 were in the public domain.
The tribunal also noted that the PA had been in constant contact with the applicant during the process and should, therefore, have extended the consultation to anyone having an interest in the case, including the local council and environment NGOs.
The planning watchdog had argued that the planning concerns highlighted by the council and FAA had been exhaustively considered throughout the process and that its decision to de-schedule the land had been guided by scientific studies.
It 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 appeals by the applicant, one seeking the extension of the de-scheduled area and the other challenging the refusal of the original development application.