From Architect E. Scerri and Dr J. P. Grech

The article penned by David Lindsay, and published by this newspaper on 7 December 2008, does not simply distort the facts about the development of the new Nadur cemetery but includes a remarkable number of statements that are the opposite of reality, to put it mildly.

One would have expected the writer to portray an unbiased account of the real state of affairs in so far as this issue is concerned so that the general public would have a clear and objective grasp of the issue. This definitely was not the case and Mr Lindsay opted to toe the line of the objectors, without even attempting to question their arguments and to verify the facts of the case, prejudicing the interests of the Nadur parish. The Nadur parish and its Archpriest are insisting that they be granted the right to rebut these unfounded claims and are reserving the right to institute libel proceedings against the author of the article should they deem it necessary to do so.

Mr Lindsay opened his article falsely claiming “the Nadur parish was, once again, a no-show” in the Planning Appeals Board sitting and site visit of 3 December. Contrary to this claim however, the Nadur parish was duly represented by the undersigned. Indeed it has always ensured that it be represented by them at each and every sitting. This can be easily ascertained from the minutes of the PAB sittings kept by the board secretary.

Mr Lindsay goes on to state in the second paragraph that “with the appeals board eager to question Nadur parish priest Saviour Muscat… Fr Muscat failed to show up for the seventh time in a row to answer for the parish’s stance”. This is simply untrue. While as an interested third party Archpriest Muscat was duly informed of the date and time of the various sittings, he was never summoned by appellants to testify. It should be stressed that this is an appeal that has been filed by the objectors, Nature Trust, and not an appeal presented by the parish. The Archpriest was not obliged to be present in person for the appeal sitting – however he has a legal right to be represented by its architect and legal counsel and these are entitled to make submissions during the course of this appeal and even forward evidence to rebut the claims put forward by the objectors, a right he fully availed himself of.

The author also alleges that the parish “has effectively bought” time to lengthen the course of the appeals case. Neither the parish nor its representatives have taken any action to lengthen the course of this case. The only case where the parish asked for a deferral of a sitting was when the case was appointed for hearing for the first time. The case was appointed for hearing in Malta and the parish’s representatives objected for the simple reason that appeals concerning applications in Gozo have always been heard in Gozo. This request was acceded to by the Board, after which Nature Trust was given the opportunity to reply to this request.

There was another time when a deferral was granted by the PAB, but this deferral was not requested by the parish but by Mepa. The legal issue was raised as to whether Nature Trust had underpaid the appeals fee. Since Mepa’s legal counsel was not present for that particular sitting and the Mepa representative was not in a position to address this legal point, the latter availed himself of the fact that the Appeals Board was not properly constituted (since one of its board members was indisposed), and objected that the case be heard, a right which is granted by the law itself.

Contrary to what is alleged in the article, the Nadur parish never “contended that the 600-grave cemetery was necessary because a lot of people from Malta wanted to be buried in Nadur”. We ask the author to substantiate when and where this was stated since at no point did the parish attempt to justify the construction of the new cemetery on the basis of this claim. The only reason why the parish embarked on the construction of the new cemetery was simply that the existing cemetery cannot be extended and it has not had empty burial plots for many years now.

Mr Lindsay also tried to put the Nadur parish in a bad light by giving the impression that the carob trees in the cemetery’s site were cut without the necessary permits “under the cover of darkness, between 7pm and 4am”. Readers were also given the wrong idea that these trees were destroyed. This however is a far cry from the real state of affairs. The carob trees in question were only uprooted recently because although the Mepa permit had allowed the uprooting of these trees both at outline and full permit stage, it had stipulated that the permit of the Agriculture Department and the Environment Directorate of Mepa had also to be obtained before the trees could be effectively uprooted. The permits were only granted recently and thus the parish could proceed with the uprooting procedure. Work on the uprooting of the trees started early in the morning and continued throughout the day. Considerable pruning had to be carried out and difficulties were encountered when using the right machinery to uproot the trees. The trees were finally uprooted late in the evening after a whole day’s work and not at night, and this after the workers ensured that no damage would be done to the trees. They were then replanted in the vicinity since they could not be possibly planted in the cemetery itself without disrupting the landscaping plan of the cemetery.

One crucial point, which obviously was not referred to in the article in question, is that the approved plans provide for the planting of 1000 trees and shrubs around the various parts of the cemetery. This definitely reveals the parish’s high environmental concern.

The article continues to present arbitrary statements as facts when the author claims that “the agriculturally-rich farm and orchard land rising above Ramla Bay is fed by a natural spring which will pass through the grounds of the planned cemetery”. We have visited the site of this spring at least twice, once with the court-appointed expert and another with the members of the Planning Appeals Board. The spring in question is several tens of metres beneath the level of the cemetery and is fed through a tunnel reaching inwards within the rock. No one has ever presented any evidence that this tunnel passes beneath the site of the cemetery.

But let us take the “worst” scenario, i.e. that the spring tunnel passes beneath the cemetery site. There is no possibility of contamination of the water by the corpses inside the graves. The same principles used for the construction of water reservoirs will be utilized. Just like water reservoirs, the cemetery graves will be sealed in the same way. Water cannot – in any way – enter the graves. All graves are surrounded by voids (passages) and not by soil. Rainwater flowing on the cemetery’s surface will be collected in large reservoirs for the irrigation of the huge landscaped areas of the cemetery.

Even if one were to accede to the fact that water could enter the graves from its openings, the water will not be in a position to flow or seep out of the graves since, as already highlighted, the graves will be sealed. The possibility of contamination is therefore highly improbable not to say impossible.

It is also alleged that “a previously proposed cemetery site in Nadur had been turned down by Mepa”. The parish had investigated the possibility of constructing a cemetery at ta’ Xhajma on the road leading to Nadur from Victoria. Since a borehole was situated nearby, the Water Services Corporation had been contacted prior to the submission of the application since at the time the WSC was entrusted with the regulation and upkeep of boreholes. Instead of assessing the potential risk of ground water contamination, the WSC recommended the parish to find an alternative site.

With the creation of the Malta Resources Authority, the latter became responsible for the regulation and upkeep of groundwater resources. MRA adopts a different policy, that of considering every proposal on its own merits rather than refusing outright the proposal without providing any concrete justification. MRA considered the proposal of the Ghajn Qasab site and went into its details. In particular it considered the fact that the graves would be sealed. After taking into account the details of the project as well as the studies it had commissioned on the potentiality of contamination by cemeteries, it gave its no objection to the project. Given the different methodology adopted by the MRA and the WSC, MRA could even have positively considered the site at Ta’ Xhajma for the construction of the new cemetery. But at the time the Ta’ Xhajma site was being considered, groundwater resources were regulated solely by the WSC and not MRA.

In so far as the claim that no Environmental Impact Assessment was drawn up, it should be noted that policies governing EIAs do not oblige the preparation of an EIA for similar projects. Furthermore, clause 1.1 of the EIA rules (General Category of Project) specifies that an EIA would still be required if the development involves five hectares of land or the ground cover of the building or installation exceeds one hectare. The cemetery’s site covers approximately 0.65 hectare. If the proposed development had fallen under one of the EIA requirement categories, Mepa would surely have asked for the preparation of an EIA. Nonetheless, it should be stressed that on approving the outline development permit, Mepa did insist on the preparation of a series of other reports tackling effects on hydrology and hydrological features, effects on agriculture, visual effects, and landscaping. Indeed, one of the reports submitted was a hydrology and hydrogeology baseline survey prepared by reputable geologist Saviour Scerri. Dr Scerri had concluded that “the proposed development is unlikely to have any adverse impact on these resources” provided obviously that the proposed construction measures identified by applicant are adhered to.

Interestingly enough, Mr Lindsay fails to mention or at least refer to the fact that the objectors to the development had filed a warrant of injunction at the Gozo Courts to prevent the parish from carrying out the development. The court presided by Magistrate Dr Anthony Ellul had appointed architect Godwin Abela as court expert together with technical consultant Anthony Spiteri from Harrison Malta Environmental Ltd. The court expert delved into the claims being put forward by the objectors and accessed the relevant files at the MRA.

Mr Abela concluded that the construction of the cemetery on the site in question would not have ANY detrimental or negative effect on the quantity or quality of the natural water seeping through the rock and used by the farmers. In view of this conclusion, the court turned down the request to have a warrant of prohibitory injunction issued to stop applicant from carrying out the approved works. Surely, if there were even a slight implication or prima facie evidence that the development could affect the farmers’ groundwater as claimed, the court would have entertained the request to halt the works. But it did NOT!! Will Mr Lindsay also call into question the court’s decision?

On a concluding note, it should be emphasised that the Nadur parish is not in any way ignoring the preoccupations of the farmers who till land in the vicinity. The implementation of various self-imposed measures, which form part and parcel of the permit conditions, ensures that the development will not in any way affect the water aquifer, even though it still remains to be proved whether a decaying corpse in a grave can affect the water aquifer.

The parish even went as far as to propose, through its technical consultant Dr Saviour Scerri, the drilling of monitoring boreholes to be able to test the quality of the groundwater both during and after the construction of the project. However, the farmers had objected to this during the warrant court sitting since they claimed that the parish would use the boreholes to extract water!

Edward Scerri

Jean Paul Grech

VICTORIA