Now that permits outside the development zone are not so easy to come by it appears that developers are turning to large urban gardens.
Developers are now well armed when appealing a refused permit to build in an area that merited protection
This may increasingly be the case in some areas although private gardens and green enclaves in the south have long been threatened by development.
Twenty years ago the structure plan held great promise toward conserving urban gardens by control or positive intervention under an urban conservation area (UCA) policy wherever possible.
Despite the plan’s best intentions, inroads on these green open spaces were still made by developers over the years. It was then decided that the local plans should include specific mention of private gardens and green enclaves with their protection in mind.
The risk that unique urban gardens in Għaxaq and Siġġiewi village cores would disappear altogether was so high that a provision was made for their protection in the South Malta local plan, approved in 2006.
A policy to protect private gardens and open space enclaves in urban conservation areas was included in the plan after the gardens meriting protection had been identified on planning maps for the two villages.
However, after introducing some exceptions to the no-development rule for earmarked gardens, the policy shot itself down by requesting an assessment of the garden should an application be received for development.
It now seems futile that these gardens were ever identified as meriting total protection in the first place. Once the local plans were approved, a backdoor was opened to any developer who turned up clutching an assessment, insisting on a permit while threatening lengthy legal battles if the Malta Environment and Planning Authority was not forthcoming.
It used to be easier for Mepa to fend off developers moving in on garden enclaves before local plans came into effect, citing only the basic structure plan provisions.
Try as it might to defend the original intention of the local plans to protect large urban gardens, the planning authority’s permit refusals have been overturned at the appeal stage. The appeals tribunal had no other option given the amount of ammunition distributed in the small print of local plan policies on gardens.
Developers are now well armed when appealing a refused permit to build in an area that merited protection.
The planning application history of Villa Mekrech’s baroque garden goes back to 1995 when a bid to build an agricultural tool room in this large Għaxaq garden was refused at first.
A clear-cut recommendation to hold back on the permit for a ‘tool room’ was made by case officer Elisabeth Ellul:
“The proposal is not essential to the needs of agriculture in that the applicant is not a registered full-time arable farmer tilling at least 20 tumoli of dry agricultural land or its equivalent in the vicinity of the site for at least two years prior to this application.
“The proposed development is incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the area. It would not maintain the visual integrity of the area and so does not comply with Structure Plan policy BEN 2 (urban design).”
After this first refusal, a new application was immediately filed, this time under a new case officer. Unfortunately, as the case officer report in the second application claims, the file containing his col-league’s report on the previous (identical) application could not be traced.
However, when contacted, staff in the communications department at Mepa managed to dig up the ‘missing’ file. The latter report, under the wing of case officer Omar Cucciardi, makes no reference to the magnificent garden, describing the site of the proposed development only as an “unfill site” and the applicant as a part-time farmer.
Originally, the garden lay outside the development zone but had been re-zoned for terraced housing while still awaiting protected status via the scheduling process.
The high rubble wall feature inside the site was used as a pretext for development. According to the report, the architect said the room was needed to house an electrical meter. At 45 square metres, the proposed construction seemed excessive. Yet the case officer found no objection “subject to clearance from SEO” (Sanitary Engineering Officer). This must have sounded very impressive to whoever was sitting on the deciding board at the time.
Four days after an outline development application for residential units and garages at the Villa Mekrech garden was received in 2006, a separate application was filed to “dismantle part of unstable wall”. The plan was to re-construct the wall using the same material while blocking up one entrance and opening a wider one.
Aerial maps on the Mepa website show that at least one olive tree, a protected species at the time, disappeared between 2004 and 2008. Should Mepa not have been more watchful at this early stage in the game?
A permit for a block of flats has been granted in part of the Villa Mekrech garden while the remaining section has been scheduled. Scheduling of the garden following an emergency conservation order should have been applied to the entire garden area. An appeal against the permit decision launched by Għaxaq local council is due to be heard on April 4.
Before green enclaves were earmarked for protection in local plans, the planning authority successfully defended its refusal of a 1998 application to build in one such UCA green open space at the appeals tribunal:
“Open spaces are considered very important in village core areas and their function include the separation and distance between adjacent land uses in often high-density areas. The proposed development is likely to eliminate or adversely affect this open space within the area.”
Outline development permits were meant to act as a guide for an applicant to test the potential of a development without committing to the entire expense associated with a full development permit.
Calling it a permit, as the Office of the Prime Minister has admitted (see https://opm.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=1249 ), was a mistake which has perpetuated a culture of entitlement.