Xghajra farmland illegally turned into construction plant, ERA demands action

The Environment and Resources Authority has once again objected to the “malpractice” of carrying out illegal development to then apply for retroactive sanctioning.

The case concerns an attempt to permit an illegal dwelling in Xgħajra, whose adjoining agricultural land was changed into a construction yard.

A two-storey residential property and garden also are inside the 2,220sq.m property. Originally a farm building, it was converted into a dwelling in 1991. Now it includes a maintenance garage with parking area heavy machinery, and an office.

But in 2018 the Planning Authority issued an enforcement order against the illegal installation of a crusher, the removal of soil and the change-of-use from agricultural land into a recycling plant for construction waste. The owners appealed.

The ERA is insisting that illegal development cannot be rewarded through retroactive sanctioning, and that the illegal development has to be removed and the site be properly restored to its original state as agricultural land.

The area is also outside the development zone, having originally been arable piece of land, and beieng next to a valley protection zone and important water catchment area, as well as an aquifer protection zone.

Aerial photos show the various interventions carried out without permission across different parts of the site, without consideration to its rural context. “Such fait accompli interventions have resulted in the proliferation and intensification of physical development and significant adverse impacts on the overall state of the area, largely in terms of land use,” the ERA said.

With surrounding fields generally under cultivation, a livestock farm complex is also located opposite the site on Triq Dwardu Ellul. The ERA says these fields’ productivity were negatively impacted by dust dispersal from the crushing operations.

Apart from the impact on agricultural land, the dust contributes to the degradation of air quality. “It may also impact the health and amenity of the neighbouring residential areas of Xgħajra and Ħaż-Żabbar, apart from having contributed to an increase in the volume of heavy vehicular traffic to and from the site which have also led to increase of traffic noise levels,” the ERA said.

Noise emissions are further accentuated by the stone crusher, which does not even have an environmental permit to mitigate such impacts.

Now the applicant has decided to propose such mitigation measures and to control the dust. But the ERA insists it is not satisfied, because these impacts are the result of an illegal development and operation which “circumvented both the mainstream development consent mechanism and the environmental registration process.”

The applicant claims to have taken action to mitigate and control dust dispersal, by lowering the part of the site which contains the stone crusher, enclosing and roofing over the area, as well as installing a water sprinkler system, and using tarpaulin to cover the crushed aggregate in the trucks that leave the site.

The applicant says he could enclose the stockpiles of rubble, to control dust dispersal, as well as to lay a concrete surface throughout the site. He also proposes trees and vegetation around the yard’s wall to improve the visual integration of the development.

How the authorities turned a blind eye

The site was originally a pig farm registered in 1978. The present owner, Peter Camilleri, acquired it in 1991, restoring the farm building and partly extending to make it habitable for his family. Soil on the land adjoining the farm was also removed in late 1991 when the site begun to be used as a construction yard, as the base for storage of construction vehicles and equipment for Camilleri’s construction business.

In 1993, the PA refused permission to erect a garage instead of a room. The stone crusher was installed in 1994 to recycle inert waste. Yet it was only in December 2018 that the PA initiated enforcement action for the alterations to the farm, the construction of separate structures, the crusher’s installation, soil removal, and the change-of-use of farmland into a construction yard.

The appeal against the enforcement action is pending.