I refer to your article by Mr James Debono on page 6 of last Sunday’s edition of your popular paper MaltaToday, and would like to clarify some comments made about the application for installation of a wind turbine by Mrs Carmen Sant.
In her case, the MEPA case officer recommended the installation of this wind turbine in the garden of her villa in Marsaskala, citing UK planning practice in view of the fact that Malta does not have a policy on “micro” wind farms.
However, this was a very strange statement, since he only used parts of the UK planning procedure which would ensure that this application is approved, while he completely ignored other, more important procedures which the UK authorities do prior to even considering the application, let alone approve it. Also, a very important fact to consider is that the unit installed is NOT a micro unit but a large, semi commercial unit.
Some of this procedure is listed below.
Consultation with the neighbours was ignored completely in Malta, while in the UK that is where they start.
The rotor diameter should be a maximum of 2m, as opposed to the 5.5m rotor diameter in the unit installed in Marsaskala. In fact this size is considered a commercial size and not acceptable in a residential installation in UK.
The height of the installed unit, at 15m, is way above the 10m allowed in any residential area in the UK, even though applications there are mostly for rural areas.
Unlike in the UK, the visual aspect of this installation was completely ignored.
No wind generators are permitted to be installed at a height which brings it level with neighbour’s windows, as is the case in Marsaskala
Great importance is given by UK planning authorities to noise pollution, and no permit will ever be given if even ONE person is bothered by noise. In our case, in Marsaskala, many people were not able to sleep because of the noise this wind turbine unit created.
Other considerations like disruptions to any electrical/electronic household appliances, birds and bats, neighbours unable to sleep, the amount of energy generated, etc., etc.
In view of the grant permission recommendation by the MEPA case officer, which seemed to assure the permit, the applicant decided to install the unit before the permit was actually approved. The residents quickly formed an association whose prime purpose was to fight this monstrosity that has been constructed in our neighbourhood. We filled out petitions and complained to both MEPA and the police, both about the visual aspect of the unit, and about the annoying noises coming from this machine which works continuously, 24 hours a day seven days a week.
Another strange action by the MEPA case officer is that he took the unit’s specifications from the applicant herself, as opposed to the UK planning authorities which test these units beforehand. In this particular case he recommended a noise level which, although quite high for us residents to allow us to live in peace in our residences, was actually much less then the noise level admitted by the manufacturer himself, and was also much less then the noise levels recorded by the UK planning authorities when this unit was placed under test. These results were published and he could have referred to them, but instead he recommended granting.
The following quotes are taken from the official Malta Government publication: A Draft Renewable Energy Policy for Malta.

Quality of Life
“Improvement in the quality of life is an overriding objective of Government’s polices. While appreciating the benefits of RES, Government is also mindful of their impacts and characteristics. In considering and promoting their development, it will seek to ensure that the quality of life of citizens is not compromised or negatively affected by the choices made.”
“While Microwind may provide a small contribution in electricity generated from RES, this is also associated with other constraints originating from its visual impacts on the Maltese townscape, good neighbourhood and planning policies.”
“Microwind is not expected to contribute significantly to the national indicative targets for RES-E particularly due to the impacts and planning constraints that are likely to originate due to visual impacts on the Maltese townscape.”
“In managing the introduction of renewable energy sources, Government will ensure that on balance, the overall quality of life of citizens is not adversely affected or compromised.”
“Small scale systems – photovoltaic, solar thermal panels and micro-wind – are acceptable as, subject to proper building rules, they should not be unduly intrusive.”
A table in this publication also states that Microwind is placed generally on roofs (because its small, unlike Mrs Sant’s unit) in low value sites, while medium scale wind generators are generally in rural settings. It further points out that Microwind will have negative visual impacts, light flicker and potential nuisance to neighbouring buildings while the medium scale (which would be slightly smaller than the one in the applicant’s garden) will cause visual impacts, light flickers and shadow effects, ecological impacts, noise and vibration, and conflicts with other uses including tourism and recreation, etc.
In a report drawn up by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government, a number of interesting and relevant points emerged which proved that the MEPA case officer did not abide by the UK planning norms otherwise he would not have recommended approval.
Notes re MEPA Policy BEN 1&2 also makes some statements, foremost of which prompts the question of who decided the replies. For example who decided that such a monstrous development is compatible with the urban design and characteristics of the area? What about the visual intrusion, noise, vibration, unusual operating times and bad neighbourliness of BEN 1?
And what about BEN 2 which states that a development will not be permitted if it is incompatible with the good urban design, natural heritage, and environmental characteristics of existing or planned adjacent uses, and is unlikely to maintain the good visual integrity of the area in which it is located?
And why was no mention made of Policy RCO 4 which states that MEPA will not permit the development of any structure or activity which, in the view of the Authority, would adversely affect the scenic value because it would:
Break a presently undisturbed skyline; visually dominate or disrupt its surroundings because of its mass or location; obstruct a pleasant and particularly a panoramic view; adversely affect any element of the visual composition; adversely affect existing trees or shrubs; introduce alien forms, materials, textures, or colours...?
I think that, in view of all the above, it is time for this case officer to explain his grant decision recommendation to us all.

Mario Psaila
Marsaskala

PRINT THIS ARTICLE