How to circumvent an ODZ

This is the story of Nathan, Jimmy, Victor and Jesmar. The four men (not their real names) have developments on adjoining fields, once a single holding on fertile agricultural land outside Mosta.

Reading the convoluted permit history conjures up a scene of the four men peeping over each other's walls, filing copycat applications based on their neighbours' apparent success.

Notifying the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) of plans to build a reservoir is frequently used as an excuse to start works outside the development zone (ODZ). After this first step, a further request for approval of a 'pump room' or 'tool room' may act as cover for a habitable structure.

In May 2006, Victor filed an application, through his architect, to build a reservoir and pump room. Nathan was quick to file a similar application. Jimmy soon notified Mepa of plans to build his own reservoir, followed shortly by Jesmar. Today, incongruous palms tower above illegal walls hiding lawns, a goalpost and 'agricultural stores'.

Sizing up the besieged area, a case officer writes: "On analysis of the detailed history of the four sites, one cannot help noting the general evolution of the cases and the site histories, contributing to the development of the sites from an agricultural field into an out-of-context urban development."

"There is a strong objection from both environmental and planning points of view, to the contorted practice of using apparently benign submissions as stepping stones for unacceptable development outside the development zone. The developments observed on the sites involve fragmentation of agricultural land... Moreover, all cases being assessed show signs of... built development that is not typical of agricultural development."

Jimmy tried to sanction the use of an approved agricultural reservoir as a 'tool room' despite an extensive surrounding paved area. The heritage advisory committee strongly recommended that the application be refused and that the site be returned to its original state. Photos submitted with the application revealed that the room was "more typical of a residential development, complete with sun shading canopy, fencing, wooden gate and lawn."

A year after Nathan's reservoir approval, an enforcement officer visited the site. He found "an irregular development contrary to what had been accepted". The soil level had been altered while a reservoir and pump room had been changed into a habitable room, including "windows opened, landscaping, fencing, paving, and canopy all without a permit". The enforcement notice identified the use of the structure as habitation/recreational, not a reservoir or pump room as had been applied for.

Landscaping included the erection of internal walls, planting of trees, creating a paved area, covering an area with turf and changing the site's topography. It was obvious that the sanctioning of this landscaping would conflict with structure plan policies and further 'formalise' the countryside. The use of turf and the formal garden design were found to jar with the rural environment context.

When he was served with an infringement notice calling for direct action, Nathan engaged another architect to do battle with the planning authority and applied to convert his illegal building to "stables". Mepa received an application claiming that horses were going to be housed in the habitable part: "It is being proposed to convert the existing building to stables." The case officer protested that the applicant "demonstrated an inability to adhere to approved specifications".

Stables are only allowable on degraded land and within certain conditions. The policy's main objective on design guidance for agriculture, farm diversification and stables is to safeguard the rural environment and agricultural land by only permitting stables to be erected mainly as a way of improving degraded land.

The case officer concluded: "Considering the site history and track record, the development cannot be considered as a bone fide, legitimate agricultural development, and is therefore objectionable as it seeks to circumvent Structure Plan policies to introduce unacceptable development ODZ."

Nathan showed up at the hearing to offer periodical evidence that the site is being used for the housing of horses and not for habitation purposes. He felt "sanctioning of illegal development" was too harsh a term and pleaded only that he be allowed to tweak existing breaches until they might match up with current policies.

The local plan for central Malta shows that the site falls within an area of agricultural value. Both the local and structure plans aim to support proposals that promote soil conservation: "Good quality agricultural land should not be lost to this form of activity (stables)". Therefore, argued the case officer in a counter-report, the proposed change of use cannot be considered as a development that will improve degraded land.

A vote on the application was inconclusive. The development control commission delegated to take decisions on ODZ applications is composed of six members. A planning application can only be refused or approved with a minimum of four votes in favour or against. The vote was two in favour of Nathan's latest application and three against, with a board member from the agricultural sector absent. The reform of Mepa proposes to bring down the number of DCC board members to five.

An "unauthorised water source" was identified on Victor's site in the midst of correspondence concerning a water bowser. A question mark hangs over how the reservoir permit was granted when the Malta Resources Authority had advised against the original application. The environment section claims it never even saw the file.

Aerial photos indicate that rubble walls were illegally demolished and replaced with high boundary walls, insensitive to the surrounding rural environment and topography. The replacement walls were not even constructed according to rebuilt rubble wall standards set by law, according to case notes.

Victor's application to demolish a corbelled hut (girna) was rejected. The heritage protection unit pointed out that a legal notice classifies all such huts as protected structures of historical and architectural value.

The case officer noted: "The site history is characterised by piecemeal illegitimate accretions to developments that have been approved. The proposed development is largely out of tune with aims of the policies activated by the proposed developments."

The permit was granted despite a recommendation to refuse when the architect complied with the development control board's request that no agricultural store was to be built, only a pump room. A subsequent application to sanction further illegal development was turned down earlier this month. No justification for a 'tool room' was found.

Located at quite a distance from the reservoir, it was found that this would only commit more land for development. A bid for reconsideration is the next possible move on the part of the developers. Many illegal structures end up being sanctioning as a result of overturning of refusals at reconsideration stage. Up until now, applications have dragged from one reconsideration to another. A clampdown on this part of the planning process is being considered but a reformed Mepa will still let developers have one final shot.

The case officer sums up thus: "The inability to abide by the requirements of permit conditions is notable in the four cases, thus contributing to unjustified land take-up. This situation is of major concern... and should not be rewarded through retroactive sanctioning."

Both the planning and environment directorates recommended referral to the enforcement unit for direct action, with a view to securing removal of all illegalities and restoration of all sites to their original state. Any such action could still be blocked by an appeal or application to sanction at any time.

The best reform of Mepa would be when it simply enforces existing policies to protect rural landscapes.