Għargħur residents are furiously contesting the planning authority’s decision to grant an outline development permit for the construction of a block of maisonettes, claiming it will have a serious detrimental effect on the village’s unique character.
Surely the general character of the village should take precedence over any technicalities
The application to build maisonettes on agricultural land on the periphery of Għargħur’s urban conservation area was originally recommended for refusal by the Mepa Planning Directorate in 2009.
Residents, led by Patrick Calleja, claim Mepa’s decision to grant approval for an outline development permit in February 2011 flies in the face of its own Local Plan for the area, which describes Għargħur as a “characteristic rural village... totally surrounded by rural areas of good quality agricultural land”.
Mr Calleja has filed a third party appeal on behalf of residents who recently attended the heated Planning Appeals Board site visit. He says they are incredulous at Mepa’s justification of its approval, especially its claim that although it “acknowledges the particular character of Għargħur... all decisions relating to new development have to be decided upon approved plans and policies and not on a general character of a village”.
“Surely the general character of the village should take precedence over any technicalities and personal interpretation of policies,” said Mr Calleja, who is an architect by profession.
“Mepa is missing the wood for the trees. This new residential development on one of the highest points on the island will be visible from the whole of the north of Malta,” he added.
Mr Calleja is also upset by the claim in the Planning Directorate’s justification report that “agricultural areas located within the development boundary do not merit protection”.
“This is not an infill site surrounded by buildings. This is useful virgin agricultural land,” he said.
Furthermore, Mr Calleja claims that access to the site is extremely restricted and there is no space for two cars to pass, meaning traffic and parking congestion will become intolerable.
He also thinks the application should have been rejected on the basis that the lines delineatingthe development zone havebeen misinterpreted by the Planning Directorate and the development will occupy land that was never intended to be part of the development scheme.
But Mepa rejected this assertion.
“The Environment and Planning Commission only agreed to approve the ‘development within the scheme boundary’ after a detailed topographic survey of the area was prepared by the Land Survey Unit, and the Planning Control Unit transposed the approved limit to development on the survey,” a Mepa spokesman told The Sunday Times.
“The approved block plan clearly shows that a part of the site is to remain undeveloped,” he added. He also said that the design and external appearance of the proposed building and car parking provisions had not yet been approved and would only be considered once a full development application was submitted to Mepa.