Illegal dumping changed topography of Nadur site

Illegal dumping in the Ta’ Kenuna site in Nadur has changed the topography and landscape of the area, leading the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s Planning Directorate to recommend the refusal of an application to sanction the deposition and levelling of material and soil, carried out without a permit by Said Construction Limited, which is owned by the brother of parliamentary secretary Chris Said.

The application also seeks to sanction the rebuilding of the rubble walls and subsequent planting of olive trees in the same area.

The case attracted political controversy because the company was owned by the brothers of parliamentary secretary Chris Said, who at the time served as the mayor of Nadur.

In an interview with MaltaToday in 2007, Said revealed that he had lodged his report against his own brothers to MEPA on 29 August 2005, two full years before MEPA finally removed the illegality which consisted of a yard used to park construction vehicles.

“It is important to take action. It seems that this material is being deposited by Said Construction,” Said had said in his report.

The first enforcement notice against illegal dumping on this site was in 2005. According to MEPA’s enforcement directorate, the dumping and levelling on site continued on various occasions after the issue of the Stop and Enforcement Notice. The site was later converted into a plant yard. A Direct Action was carried out in July 2007 to seal off the site in view of the continuous breach of the Stop and Enforcement notice.  

Olive trees were later grown on this site.

MEPA’s Natural Heritage Advisory Committee is calling on MEPA to reject the present application because the applicant has altered the topography of the site and has dismantled rubble walls and rebuilt new walls which do not conform to the legal notices regulating the construction of these walls. According to the NHAC, the applicant has also planted the Olive trees after submitting his request for sanctioning.

According to the Environment Protection Department, the works were carried out without any safeguards to minimise the impacts on the existing features and the surrounding landscape.

Instead of improving the land, the interventions were carried out in an unsatisfactory manner. The EPD also expressed its concern about the retroactive sanctioning of similar developments.

On its part, the planning directorate concluded that the proposed sanctioning of the land reclamation should be refused, as it does not respect the topography and landscape of the site and the surrounding are. It also argues that unless the unauthorised stone and brick walls are first removed, the proposal runs counter to the law,

On Wednesday, the Environment and Planning Commission refrained from taking a decision, deferring the case asking the architect, to submit a restoration method statement for the rehabilitation of the site.

It also asked the Enforcement Directorate whether concrete blocks in the area were put by the owner or by MEPA itself when it sealed the site.

The EPD was asked to consider fresh drawings presented by the applicant.