Underground reservoir permitted
A planning application entitled ‘To construct underground agricultural reservoir’ was initially turned down by MEPA’s Environment and Planning Commission on the pretext that “the proposed reservoir runs counter to criterion 2 of Policy 2.6A of the Policy Guidance: Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables (2008) in that the location of the proposed reservoir does not fall within an arable land as defined in the same Policy Guidance.”
The Environment and Planning Commission also added that the site falls within an area "characterised by karstic/garigue features."
In a reaction, the applicant argued against the Commission's decision, insisting that contrary to the Authority's conclusions, the land is actually characterised by "brown type soil" - a characteristic which a "site inspection would immediately reveal."
The applicant further maintained that crops are grown within the site boundaries.
It was also pointed out that neither the Ministry for Resources and Rurual Affairs nor the Malta Resources Authorit (MRA) has opposed to the proposal. The applicant also noted that MEPA had issued a permit for an agricultural store on the same site, which in turn proves that the land feautres "arable" characteristcs.
In its response, the Authority insisted that reservoirs are required to be located on arable land registered on behalf of the applicant.
In this case, the Authority held that the land is evidently characterised by exposed rocky surfaces and it consequently cannot be considered as 'agricultural land', irresptive of the fact that the Department of Agriculture filed no objection.
In this connection, the Authority stressed that the proposal, if approved, would jeopardise the need to safeguard and protect karstic communities from unnecessary development. And it argued that the site is designated as a Level 3 Buffer Zone, which in turn affords protection to a Level 2 Area of Ecological Importance.
In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the proposed reservoir was to be located under soil level.
Nevertheless, after conducting a site inspection, the Tribunal concluded that the land in question was somewhat disturbed in contrast to what was previously alleged by the Authority which had said that the land's topographic features consisted of karstic and garigue.
The Tribunal also explained that the selected location corresponds to a low lying water catchment area, where accumulated running water would otherwise be lost.