Review tribunal orders Central Link project work suspended pending outcome of appeal

The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal yesterday ordered the suspension of works on the Central Link project pending the outcome of an appeal.

Fifteen En GOs and residents had filed an appeal against the controversial project, which they say will see the take-up of nearly 50,000 square metres of agricultural land, the uprooting of several hundred trees and the demolition of vernacular buildings of heritage value.

The appellants also filed a request for the suspension of any works on site pending the outcome of the appeal, as they stressed that during the course of the processing of the application, various planning laws, policies, potential irreversible damage to Grade 1 scheduled monuments, heritage buildings, principles of sustainability and the long-term detrimental effect on public health and safety had been completely ignored. Yesterday’s decision dealt with this suspension pending the final outcome of the appeal. The board said that the appeal needed to be concluded by 8 November.

The appellants noted that the applicant agency, Infrastructure Malta, had a track record of commencing works without the necessary permits, citing urgency or other constraints. They had previously noted that if buildings were already demolished, agricultural land excavated and trees uprooted, appeals would become expensive exercises in futility.

During Tuesday’s sitting, environmentalist and lawyer Claire Bonello argued that there were various reasons why the project should be suspended, arguing that for such a suspension to take place, three criteria needed to be satisfied: that the prejudice created should be disproportionate to the situation were the project not to be suspended; that the development cannot simply be turned back; and that the request is not frivolous.

Bonello argued that, in addition the the visual impact, the project would adversely affect large areas of agricultural land and farmers, hundreds of trees, and heritage buildings.

Another factor, she said, was that the development could not simply be reversed.

The applicant’s representative, lawyer Ian Stafrace, argued that the applicant had no objection to the suspension of works pending appeal on works not subject to development notification orders (DNOs). This type of application is for any proposed development which does not have an impact on the site context and on neighbouring residences. There are 19 category classes of permitted development. For this type of application, the public is not notified of proposed works. The reason for this, he said, was so as not to prejudice any ongoing or future projects operated by Infrastructure Malta under DNOs.

Bonello said that none of the works were subject to DNOs, arguing that the class of works falling under DNOs were those in the planning schemes, works on existing roads, work that did not change the direction of traffic, and enhancement of existing traffic islands or roundabouts that could not be on ODZ land. A vast amount of the project was on ODZ, she said.

“Another reason why it should be suspended is that the appellants want to conduct a traffic count exercise using experts who are independent. If changes to traffic lights, and so on, take place, then we cannot replicate the situation when the EIA took place,” Bonello said.

She also said that there had been no road safety audit and that a road safety impact assessment had not taken place.

Stafrace took aim at Bonello’s statement that the appellants wanted to conduct a traffic count exercise after they attacked the Environment Impact Assessment and created doubts on the integrity of the people who had drawn it up. He noted that this affected the merits of the case.

Countering this, Bonello argued that the public received the cost-benefit analysis of this application after they had filed the appeal.

“It was never accessible to public and was only made public after an Freedom of Information request was filed with the ERA. We have a case where cost-benefit analysis on traffic counts was not shown to the PA Board or made public. So we need to conduct this alternative analysis now.”

During the sitting, the EPRT Board took note of a declaration sent by the cabinet describing the project as one of national importance.