Court asked to stop issue of any permits

The courts were yesterday asked to stop the issue of permits in areas included in the development zones recently.

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) chairman Harry Vassallo and 65 people who say were affected by the development zone extension have asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.

They referred to the "rationalisation" process that had started last May in virtue of which certain areas of land were included within the development zone.

The process had begun when the Cabinet issued a memorandum indicating the government's intention to make changes to the development zones and ended last July when Parliament approved the changes.

The memorandum stipulated that Mepa had to submit its conclusions and recommendations after a process of public consultation.

The development zones extension process involved a large area of land, and aimed at authorising extensive changes to the use to which the land could be put. However, the project had not been carried out in accordance with the European Parliament and Council directive of June 2001, known as the SEA Directive.

This law stipulated that a strategic environmental assessment had to be carried out and that this had to include a scientific and detailed report about the impact of the proposed changes.

The directive also provided for public consultation when changes or alterations were made to the development plan.

The directive had been incorporated into local law in terms of a legal notice of 2005, and its contents, including the carrying out of a strategic environmental assessment, were mandatory with effect from July 2004.

The Cabinet's claim that the "rationalisation" process was part of the revision of the Structure Plan was false, the application before the court argues. On the contrary, this process was clearly an ad hoc exercise which the Cabinet had embarked upon for no pressing or relevant reasons.

The Cabinet could not justify the process as being in the interest of the citizen.

Even if the rationalisation process were to be considered a revision of the Structure Plan or the Local Plan, the provisions of the Planning Development Act had not been observed. This law obliged Mepa to carry out surveys on the impact of works that would affect the quality of the environment and its conservation and development.

Mepa was also obliged to inform the public and to allow individuals and organisations to make their submissions on such works.

The public had not been given access to surveys and studies that had been carried out. The public had only been given access to plans that showed the location of the areas planned to be included in the development zones, and to the Cabinet's memorandum.

According to the application, Mepa had failed to abide by the rules of natural justice and by procedural obligatory rules, and, as a result, the entire rationalisation process was flawed.

The application called upon the court to prohibit the coming into effect of any development permits in respect of the land that had been included in the development zone.

AD also informed the court that it would file another application requesting a judicial declaration of the nullity of the rationalisation process.