Bidnija residents are battling against the construction of a proposed winery in an ODZ area in Bidnija.
The proposed development has already been rejected twice by the MEPA Board, a resident explained, but the applicant has appealed to the Appeals Tribunal against the refusal.
The dispute surrounds an outline permit which was granted by the Planning Appeals Board, yet the MEPA Board refused to sanction the proposed development due to the applicant, according to the Board, not meeting certain requirements as set out in policy.
When the original application was submitted, several objection letters were sent to MEPA.
Nature Trust in its letter told MEPA that this development would be industrial and would result in the creation of blank party walls and subdivision of existing undeveloped land. “The Policy and Design Guidance on Agriculture (2007) requires that such development is located on the applicant’s vineyard holding or at least within 500m of such vineyards, were in this case, there are no vines in the area/within 500m; and the proposal does not form part of the uses outlined in the Central Malta Local Plan Policy for Category 2 settlements”.
The Policy document read that at least 2 hectares of vines owned by the applicant should be located within 500m of the proposed development, however in the DPA report, the case officer noted that 1.3 hectares of vineyard are located within 750m from the site. He also noted that this information correlated with the decision on which the outline permit was given.
At the final hearing in front of the MEPA Board which resulted in a second refusal of permit, it emerged that an error on the scale was found and the actual vineyard size amounted to 4 hectares within a 1,500m radius. The case officer was asked whether the applicant had the 2 hectares within the 500-metre radius, to which the case officer “confirmed to the negative”. Given that the application does not conform with the required criteria, “many residents have remained mystified as to how an outline permit was ever issued,” a resident said. Residents have described this decision as ‘strange to say the least’ with one resident even suggesting that “the people forming part of the Appeals Tribunal when this strange outline permit was issued should be asked to explain this highly questionable decision”.
Asked about this, the applicant’s architect Philip Micallef explained – “I wish to precise that the applicant has enough vineyard holdings to construct two wineries. The location and setting of the actual winery was granted in principle through an outline permit following a lengthy consultation process with the authority”.
The Mosta local council also filed an objection stating that the proposed development was a development of an industrial nature, yet the zone specified was a residential one. They also argued that it could lead to bad neighbourliness.
Objections were also filed in relation to the access road (which is in fact a narrow one car road), with objectors arguing that the narrow road would lead to traffic and parking problems.
The MEPA case officer, in the DPA report, said that an outline permit to construct a dwelling in the vicinity of the vineyard as well as production of wine at lower basement was first refused but later granted at the reconsideration stage on condition that the building be solely used as a winery and a €10,000 bank guarantee to implement a landscaping scheme for the winery roof at street level that would also need to be approved by the Authority. He also recommended the development for approval, however the Board rejected the development.
4 days before the 2013 general election, the applicant had signed a contract with the EU agricultural funds paying agency for €150,000 and did not have the required full permit to start the project, news reports at the time read. When confronted on this issue by media at the time, the applicant said he would be cancelling the contract, and indeed did. Having said that the applicant in a legal letter sent to the MEPA Board said that he is holding all the Board members responsible for any loss of funds.
The letter by the appellant to the Appeals Tribunal on 27 June 2014 read that the Planning Appeals Board, when granting the outline permit, had taken a number of factors into consideration including that the appellant has been registered with the Viticulture and Penology Unit as a wine grower since 2003, submitted official documentation that shows he meets the requirements that entitle him to a winery building and that the appellant is a bona fine vine grower and the site is suitable for a winery.
The applicant’s architect, Philip Micallef, explained that an outline permit gives applicants vested rights.
As for the narrow width of the road, the applicant’s architect explained that “a self-imposed setback was catered for within the design of the layout to counteract the narrow width of the road. This self-imposed setback allows for the loading/unloading of goods from within the property alignment and hence the traffic flow in the road will not be disrupted”.
Over the past six months a number of sittings of the Appeals Tribunal have taken place. The final sitting will take place this Thursday 18th of June.