Labour MEP, Edward Scicluna, called on the European Commission to investigate the recent decision by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority Board (MEPA) to approve significant extension works to Terminal 1 of the Malta Freeport.

Last week, the MEPA overturned its decision made in February 2009 to refuse the application, despite the fact that no new information about the noise or social impact caused by the project has been produced.

In a parliamentary question tabled to the Commission, Prof Scicluna questioned whether the approval of the project had broken the Environmental Impact Assessment directive (EIA) by ignoring the effects of the extension works on the Birzebbuga community, and asked the Commission to take action if the MEPA’s actions were shown to be illegal.

Prof Scicluna said:

“Arguments about the commercial benefits of this project are not the issue here. The point is that the MEPA has ridden roughshod over the legitimate concerns of the Birzebbuga community, whose health, quality of life and the value of their property will all be adversely affected by this project.”

“I want the European Commission to investigate whether the MEPA has broken the terms of the EIA directive in overturning a decision, after less than a year, in the absence of any new information about the social impact of the project, and to take decisive action if they have.”

Prof Scicluna added:

“European law requires that all such projects are subject to rigorous impact assessments on the affected communities. Yet this legislation seems to have been flagrantly ignored. What is the point of having this useful piece of European law to protect citizens if planning authorities are then going to find ways to by-pass the rules?”

• Prof Scicluna’s parliamentary question to the European Commission is:

“Significant works on the extension of Terminal 1 at the Malta Freeport in Birzebbuga Malta were approved on 21st January 2010 by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority Board (MEPA). The Board, which in February 2009 had refused the application, reviewed its decision “given that significant progress had been made by the operators of the Freeport to address environment operational concerns and adopt mitigation measures in the public interest”. The application includes dredging works and the construction of a new quay for container storage.

As a result of the terminal extension ships will be berthed across the street from the nearby resident population, literally a few meters from the nearest group of houses. During the hearings of February 2009 it transpired that the noise impact was evaluated for the proposed construction phase only. Residents and recreational users of the nearby beach users were not considered as sensitive receptors. The social impact assessment on the resident population of Birzebbuga was deemed not necessary. Thus the noise impacts and the social impacts on the resident population were not evaluated within the Environmental Impact Assessment directive (2003/35/EC).

Does the Commission believe that the MEPA’s actions are contrary to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2003/35/EC) in overturning a previous decision in the absence of new surveys related to the mapping of the noise and social impacts?

In view of the expected significant effects on noise levels on the nearby residents of Birzebbuga, which in turn will affect their quality of life, their health and the value of their property, does the Commission accept that a project requiring a full Environment Impact Assessment may not be deemed to be compliant with Directive (2003/35/EC) if such studies are not carried out?”

Permalink: Scicluna demands Commission explanation on Malta Freeport extension