Mepa and golf courses

I refer to the statements made by former minister Michael Refalo regarding golf courses in his address to the Royal Malta Golf Club as reported in The Times (February 10) and his rejoinder in Talking Point.

Given that I was at the time of preparation of the first structure plan co-project leader sharing an office with the consultants' counterpart project leader, I feel I must comment. I am doing so now since I was abroad on official duties when Mepa issued the first counter statement.

I must, first of all, make it clear that I have an open mind on the issue of golf courses given that primarily environmental and heritage parameters are duly taken into account.

Dr Refalo pointed out that the first draft structure plan had identified three areas with potential for golf course development. He is reported as having stated that on enquiries to establish whether the said land was public or private and whether the list of potential sites was exhaustive, all answers were in the negative. The list was not exhaustive and the land belonged to private individuals.

Then he went on to state that: "This, in essence, meant that at the stroke of a pen worthless land that belonged to A, B & C could immediately become a saleable investment worth millions, while land that belonged to D through to Z, would not". He did not imply malice aforethought but stated that the government should act in the most transparent manner and be above suspicion.

Well, to be correct the draft structure plan had identified five, not three, locations for such possible golf course development. The locations were described as e.g.; (1) east of Mellieha, with urban uses merged with the eastern flank of the town; (2) at the eastern end of Marfa ridge, with urban uses concentrated along the coast between the Vendome Battery and the White Tower.

The locations were identified on a key diagram (not a scaleable map) by designation "G 1&2" potential areas for such development: (1) preferred locations; (2) other locations.

So really one could not identify the precise boundaries of land and correlate these to any ownership criteria. Any planning decision by its very nature can enhance the value of land and in that sense is discriminatory.

There were other similar designations on the key diagram as finally published but surely one cannot attribute any malice in so doing. It was the correct planning practice to identify land for development on a diagram basis. These designations would then be detailed through development plans, briefs or other planning documents, e.g. local plans.

I recall discussing at the time of the formulation of the draft structure plan with a consultant from the firm Howarth & Howarth who were involved in drawing up a tourism plan, who strongly believed that Malta should realise the potential of its valuable heritage rather than take up new uses, which require vast amounts of land. We debated this issue for long internally but at the end of the day the consultants pushed along the draft as published.

In response to this draft policy several submissions were received during the public consultation phase. Among these one comment from the Secretariat for Tourism suggested that parameters for siting a golf course should be given without specifying locations. MDC suggested one at Maghtab and or Pembroke. These submissions were all documented in a public document. In the final structure plan as adopted by parliament the identified possible locations were dropped.

In his Talking Point, Dr Refalo was "delighted to see that Mepa did not deny that behind Mepa's back one Mepa official wrote to Unesco to solicit that the area earmarked for a golf course should be declared a world heritage site at the same time that Mepa asked the developer to invest further monies on reports and studies".

I can assure your readers there was nothing of this sort. Tentative sites to be listed as world heritage sites are communicated by the government through Foreign Affairs. Way back around 1997 former officials of PA in consultation with officials of the then Museums Department had contributed to the process whereby a tentative list was officially proposed to Unesco. This tentative list is available on Unesco's web site and currently includes: Cittadella (Victoria); coastal cliffs; Knights fortifications around the harbours of Malta; Maltese catacomb complexes; Mdina (Città Vecchia); Qawra/Dwejra and Victoria Lines fortifications.

There was never a proposal to locate a golf course on any of these sites.

Dr Refalo also refers to a meeting between three ministers and PA officials regarding another project at which he claims there was an understanding that an 18-hole golf course and ancillary development could be granted and the developer agreed to alter his proposal and actually submitted plans as directed by Mepa.

In this meeting the officials present had demonstrated an open mind on the issue. As already pointed out by Mepa and confirmed by Dr Refalo, it was the developer's own consultants who had said that the 18-hole golf course was not possible. Plans were duly submitted but no details were given about the golf course configuration particularly with regard to terrain remodelling that is required and the mitigation measures to be taken with respect to the very sensitive ecological area including the cliff edge and a valley.

Mepa's position as again recently communicated to applicant is that if a golf course could be designed within the site constraints taking into account mitigation of impacts then the application could be considered further and a final decision taken on the matter.

I shall not go into the other details about the other applications to which reference was made, however I must comment on just one other point.

Reference was made to a proposal supported by five-star hotel owners and the objection made by AFM.

Dr Refalo said there were many other places which suited AFM. Well, I take this reference as being for the site at Pembroke, which is partly occupied by the firing ranges. The approved structure plan had proposed these ranges to be relocated to a site below Fort Leonardo.

This never came about since the army maintained that the alternative site is not suitable for their purposes.

In the course of assessment of the application, the Office of the Prime Minister communicated, on behalf of the army, the objection to this proposal. There was no connivance between Mepa and the army "to bolster Mepa's failure to reply".

Prior to the application being submitted there were pre-submission discussions and applicants were advised in writing in November, 1999 that "The location of a golf course on this site does not comply with the main location requirements for golf courses as set out in the structure plan and the approved golf course policy paper. As can be seen it is very unlikely that the proposal meets the criteria of acceptability or that the impacts can be mitigated".

Well, decision-taking on planning issues will remain controversial and debatable but I shall refrain from entering into further public debate on the matter.

Dr Cassar is director general, Mepa.