Re-instatement of area with soil permitted

At issue was a development planning application entitled ‘to remove rubble material deposited by third parties and raising of level of field by depositing soil’ in a field located outside the development zone of Mgarr.

The proposal was an attempt to conceal construction debris, having been deposited by a ‘third party’, with a layer of agricultural soil.

The said application was, however, refused by the Planning Commission for the following reasons:

• The proposed soil deposition ran counter to paragraph 2.8(1) of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance 2014 in that the location of the site was located within an area of ecological importance;
• The field was also located within an area characterised by karstic/garigue features;
• The proposal could not be considered further since there was ‘illegal dumping of inert material and land reclamation on site’.

Following the said decision, applicant filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal insisting that the Commission’s decision should be overturned.

In his appeal submission, applicant (now, appellant) pointed out that the deposited rubble was ‘partly removed’.

While admitting that it was not possible to revert the field to its pristine condition, appellant explained that the construction debris was deposited with a view to enable the eventual reinstatement of the area with a soil layer.

Moreover, appellant submitted that, contrary to what the Authority had alleged, there were no garigue/karstic features in the vicinity of the site in question.

It was also maintained that ‘the proposal shall give better access to small agricultural machinery that is required to work the fields’.
As a final point, appellant contended that, in any event, ‘it was not possible to revert this field to its original state’.In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that, on the one hand, the Authority was insisting the site was characterised by garigue and karstic features whereas applicant had said that the deposited material was intended to receive a layer of soil, now that it was impossible to reinstate the area to its original state.

The Tribunal noted that the Authority was correct to state that the site in question was previously characterised by garigue features.
Although the tribunal considered that applicant’s actions were deplorable, it noted that the site in question bordered a piece of agricultural land.

For this reason, the Tribunal held that the permit could be approved, subject to a fine of €2,329.