ENVIRONMENT

Residents fear PA board could approve controversial Wied Moqbol quarry on 30 May

A proposed new quarry in an Outside Development Zone in Wied Moqbol might be approved by the Planning Authority despite the fact that two judges have ruled against the development in two separate cases.

The final chapter in a saga that has been ongoing for the last 17 years is scheduled for 30 May when the PA’s appeals board convenes to hear the proposed developers’ case. Objectors to the quarry development fear that the board may go against the courts’ orders.

The story began in 2000 when an application was lodged to develop a brand new quarry in Wied Moqbol, limits of Hal Far. However, the developers gave the impression that it would replace the old closed Hagar Qim quarries numbers two and three despite the fact that the minerals left in the old quarries were practically exhausted and had been served with enforcement notices.

The then Malta Environment and Planning Authority refused the project permission in 2005 citing that it was a pristine site located in an area protected by agricultural policy SMAG01 as per South Local Plan and Natura 2000 and that it is partly scheduled level 1.

The South Malta Local Plan states, “MEPA will continue to protect agricultural land from all types of inappropriate development. In agricultural areas, as indicated on the relevant Environmental Constraints Maps, only buildings, structures and uses essential to the needs of agriculture will be permitted.”

The whole of Wied Moqbol is designated as a Special Area of Conservation of International Importance under the Natura 2000 programme given the endemic species in the area such as azarole trees, the islands’ largest population of the rare wild pear, date palms, black mulberry, hybrid hawthorn, olive trees and carob trees. The area is also home to archaeological remains.

A plea from the developer, Charles Fenech, for reconsideration was also refused, after which the applicant submitted an appeal in 2006 against the refusal.

In 2014, although the MEPA Directorate had insisted on a refusal during the course of the appeal, the Appeals Board overturned and approved the permit.

The case came before the courts and, in 2015, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti overturned the Appeals Board decision and refused the permit, noting that “the Appeals Board did not observe the applicable policy and acted illegally in approving the application”.

The court sentence ordered the Appeals Board “to decide the application strictly as per existing policy SMAG 01 and no other considerations”.

That same year, the applicant filed another court case claiming that the court had applied the incorrect law in its decision.

In 2016, the case came before Mr Justice Anthony Ellul who confirmed the previous ruling and issued a second court order to the Appeals Board to decide on the permit application as per the existing policy SMAG 01.

The Appeals Board, however, defied both court orders and instead of issuing the ruling, allowed Prof. Ian Refalo’s request that his client be allowed to reconsider his position despite the fact that, according to objectors, all legal avenues had been exhausted. The case was deferred to 28 February 2017 and was deferred again in the same fashion to 30 May 2017.

Objectors claim that the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, presided over by Claude Mallia, Andy Ellul and Ludovico Micallef are accommodating the applicants and giving them time to manipulate the situation in contempt of two court orders.