Tribunal approves farm upgrading in Mosta following MRA shift

A development application "to sanction part of an existing farm building" was turned down by MEPA's Environmental Planning Commission in September 2011. Indeed, the Commission refused the said application on two counts. First of all, the Malta Resources Authority (MRA) was against the said development due to the site location being in "an extremely sensitive area". Secondly, the applicant failed to submit evidence from the Food and Veterinary Regulation Division, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, stating that the proposed development incorporated all necessary structural and infrastructural requirements in accordance with the relevant official standards on waste management, animal welfare, hygiene, health and protection of water resources.

As expected, the applicant filed an appeal against the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal. In his submissions, the applicant referred to a second correspondence from the MRA confirming the latter's approval, subject to a number of conditions. In this second letter, the MRA observed that the proposal was now being viewed as an attempt to upgrade an operational livestock farm. On this basis, the applicant contended that the reasons for refusal no longer applied.

MEPA prompty pointed out that it was the same MRA which in 2008 objected to the proposal on the basis that the site lies within the immediate Groundwater Protected Zone and "right on the Speranza galleries". MEPA therefore maintained that the MRA's "change of heart" amounted to a material change, since the Commission was correct to refuse the requested development in view of the MRA's position at the time. MEPA reiterated that, once a decision was given, the appellant could not rely on fresh information with a view to addressing the merits of refusal. Moreover, MEPA signalled concern with regards to the fact that the MRA changed its views during the process, notwithstanding "the sensitivity of the area remaining unchanged". As a final point, MEPA concluded that "it could not recall a single instance when the MRA justified a farm in hydrologically sensitive areas on the grounds that the farm was constructed prior to the Structure Plan" (1992).

In its conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed that the site lay in a sensitive ODZ location in Mosta. But even so, the Tribunal relied on MRA's second correspondence, wherein it was no longer finding any objection since the proposal entailed upgrading an existing farm. Against this background, the Tribunal held the proposed structural works to be in line with the objectives of the Structure Plan. To this end, the Tribunal ordered MEPA to issue the permit, subject to a condition stating that "the number of animal heads reared on site at any one time should not be more than 1800". In addition, the applicant was ordered to remove the entire development in the event that he decided to cease operations.