Lawyer Claire Bonello on behalf of Futur Ambjent Wiehed and politician Arnold Cassola have both written to the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) demanding that it take action against the widening of the Wied Qirda road, and the use of asphalt on said site.
Wied Qirda has been at the centre of controversy for a while. Firstly there is the illegal concrete dam that blocks part of the watercourse, built to allow access to private residences. Secondly a truck carrying asphalt had overturned when part of the road collapsed, sending its load flying onto a carob tree below. The incident led to heightened criticism of the project, which is taking place along a ridge in the most picturesque part of the protected valley. The asphalt that had spilled from that incident has since been cleaned. Now however, criticism on road widening and the laying of asphalt in another part of the Wied Qirda road has come to light.
In her letter to ERA head Victor Asciak in relation to this other part of the road, Bonello said:
"Road widening is very clear, besides the use of asphalt in an ecological area. This path eventually comes to a dead end 350m inwards. There is a fireworks factory further in. There are other zones where this asphalting is clear. The relative planning policy clearly highlights this area as an area of ecological importance within the valley protection zone. Besides being very deleterious in terms of ecological damage and biodiversity, this is illegal. In view of the above I kindly request you to take immediate action in terms of Subsidiary Legislation 549.97 Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage." Cassola in a Facebook post also said that he sent the same letter to the ERA Chairman.
Bonello argues that most of the road development did not follow established guidance, and thus permission should not have been sought.
She also said that if the ERA does not take action, she will herself institute a case before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.
Bonello also wrote the same letter to the Planning Authority. In this case she did receive a response. "Please be informed that works mentioned in your email are considered to qualify as permitted development under Class 3(ii) of L.N. 211 of 2016. Concerns regarding ecological damage and biodiversity are to be referred to the respective entity responsible for environmental matters."
She countered, and told the PA that the development in question does not qualify as an "'existing road" in terms of Class 3 (ii). "As can be seen from the aerial photographs submitted, the recently-asphalted area goes beyond the existing road footprint shown in 2017. Allowing the further extension beyond the existing road footprint would lead to the insane conclusion that all road widening is allowed indefinitely. "
She argued that aerial images in 2013 and 2017 showed that there was no "road" or even a "verge" existing on the road which had been asphalted. "Consequently the asphalting is irregular and I kindly request you to take immediate enforcement action - before this irregular road widening exercise spreads even further across the valley." The PA however stuck by their original statement.