GozoNews.Com

Following the issuing of MEPA’s reply to this morning’s press conference, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar has said that it would like to specify that it was the Attard Local Council who that repeatedly assured members of the public that the area would be landscaped as a Public Open Area or recreational area.

MEPA’s own maps depicted it in turn as an widening of the road and a car parking area, while the one shown on the right clearly proposes part of the area as a green area.

It is due to all these conflicting designations that the residents were not fully informed of the situation at the time of the revision of the Local Plans.

However the fact remains that the residents had made their wishes clear to both the Local Council and MEPA in a petition submitted to both, and which was recorded in MEPA’s Ta’ Fgieni file.

It is for this reason that the residents naturally trusted MEPA as the agency responsible for the protection of the environment, and the Local Council responsible for protecting the interests of the residents, to follow the many Local Plan policies and the residents’ expressed wishes in retaining a public use for Pjazza Fgieni.

Shown below are FAA’s replies to the points made by MEPA in their statement:

MEPA - Prior to formulation of the local plan in 2002 this parcel of land was identified as a car park and not as a public open space.
FAA - Is a car park not an open space for public use?

MEPA - When in July 2002 the draft local plan was issued for public consultation part of this land was indicated for development. The draft local plan always showed the intention for this area of land to be developed.
FAA - MEPA’S plan indicating part of it as a green area attached above.

MEPA - During the public consultation period and subsequent to that, the Authority never received a request or submission either from residents or the Attard local council objecting to this area policy (AT07). Neither did the Authority ever receive a request from the local council for this parcel of land to be turned into a public garden.
FAA - A petition against development on this site had been forwarded to MEPA and the Attard Local Council, and a witness has come forward ready to testify that the petition was shown to him in the MEPA Ta’ Fgieni file around 1999. The consultations between MEPA and the Local Council ran from 1999-2002 so MEPA and the Local Council were well aware of the residents’ wishes.

MEPA - The local plan did consider and safeguard the need for open spaces in the locality of Attard, infact beside a number of other open spaces in the area, some metres south of this land there is another open space that has been identified as a green area.
FAA - These areas indicated are tiny pockets. The fact remains that out of MEPA’s desired 2.4% of open space area per town, Attard has only 1.3%. How can MEPA justify taking more of that away?

MEPA - On this particular case the Audit officer commented that MEPA acted diligently when it slightly amended the zoning after the public consultation exercise. In fact related to this issue the courts found that there was nothing illegal with the rezoning of this area.
FAA - We have never been shown this Auditor’s report nor any court judgement. After six months of discussions, we would think that if these were relevant to this case they would have been shown to us long ago.

MEPA - The Authority will evaluate all development planning applications in accordance with the established plans and policies.
FAA - Except that we found 16 policies that have been violated by this decision.

MEPA - The local plans are an approved policy documents that can get revised after two years from their publication. FAA - That is what we are asking for.