GozoNews.Com

Moviment Graffitti questions the validity of the permit issued for the development of 23 villas at Ramla l-Hamra, since during the last public Board meeting held by MEPA some inaccuracies were present. Moviment Graffitti also questions why no EIA was issued following the application of this development.

In a letter MEPA referred to during the public Board meeting, Mrs. Marlene Borg, Mr. Joseph Calleja, and Mr. Ernest Vella, archaeologists from Archaeology Services Co-operative Ltd (ASC) and Ms. Katya Stroud, an archaeologist and ex-member of ASC Ltd made the following valid points:

- “This study did not deal with either the impacts of any development in the area nor any mitigation measures that may be carried out to ensure the preservation of the cultural heritage.

- In fact, the report focused on the proposal of a heritage trail through which the cultural heritage could be preserved and better presented to the public.

- We were never informed that this report would be attached to a development permit application.”

- “While we will in no way delve into whether Mepa should call for an environmental impact assessment or not, we feel that a general preliminary report about cultural heritage cannot be used to consider the impacts of any proposed development on cultural heritage,”.

Moviment Graffitti goes on to say that the use of this report to substantiate the permit issued is another inaccuracy in the procedure of issuing this permit, since the intention of this report was not to consider the impacts of any proposed development.

The development under scrutiny will be a massive one. The drawings submitted to MEPA by the developer clearly illustrate its size. In fact during the same Board meeting the developer stated that at the first stages of development vegetation and trees will be planted in the area surrounding the development site to minimize its impact.

Why is it that at the final stages of the Board meeting, the developer was given the chance to change sub-titles of drawings from ‘Residential Dwellings’ to ‘Tourist Complex’ instead of submitting new plans with the correct wording?

MEPA is not correct in saying that FAA’s statement about the development footprint remaining the same, is untrue. Moviment Graffitti supports FAA’s call for MEPA to provide further clarifications.

Plans submitted to MEPA by the developer contradict the arguments raised by MEPA’s Board members. Only the borderline area of the development site will remain the same, not the development footprint.

The Movement insists that, “The issuing of this permit may lead to an increase in demands for development permits on the Ramla l-Hamra site and sites with the same characteristics. The fact that MEPA issued this permit may lead to other such permits being submitted for development in outside development zones (ODZ) to be approved.”

The surrounding site of the development is included in the Natura 2000 conservation areas. Why is it that the area in question is not also included?

Moviment Graffitti believes that the anger coming from various NGO’s is the result of loose planning in safeguarding areas for the benefit of future generations. Granting of such permits has put MEPA’s reputation in a bad light.